Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-08-17 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL August 17, 2015 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 August 17, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW 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 6:00-7:00 PM 1.Update on Integrated Parking Strategy for Downtown: Parking Management, Parking Supply and Transportation Demand Management Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:15 PM 2.Proclamation Recognizing "Palo Alto Perry" as the Unofficial Goodwill Ambassador of the City of Palo Alto 3.Selection of Applicants to Interview on August 26, 2015 for the Utilities Advisory Commission REVISED 2 August 17, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:15-7:25 PM Oral Communications 7:25-7:40 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 7:40-7:45 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4. Approval to Award Contract Number C15158600 to Rutherford & Chekene in the Amount of $129,432 for Identification of Potentially Seismically Vulnerable Buildings and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance Appropriating $29,432 5. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend and Execute as Necessary a New Interconnection Agreement With the Northern California Power Agency and Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Electric Transmission Related Services 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2015 7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Work Plan 8. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2015-16 Secured and Unsecured Property Tax Levy for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N) 9. Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Pilot Batting Cages Project at Former PASCO Site at the Baylands Athletic Center 10. Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Improvements at Monroe Park 11. Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts 12. Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number S15155738 With American Reprographics Company, LLC (ARC) for an Archiving 3 August 17, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. and Information Management Solution in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $433,235 13.Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Council on Project Safety Net Community Collaborative Update and Recommendation for Next Steps 14.Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number C10131396 With CDM Smith in the Amount of $14,500 for a Total Compensation Not to Exceed $6,363,152 for the El Camino Park Reservoir Project, WS-08002 and the El Camino Park Restoration Project, PE-13016 15.Acceptance of a $37,000 Grant From the California Office of Historic Preservation for Completion of the Professorville Design Guidelines and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 16.Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or his Designee to Execute the Off-Taker Generation Percentage Protection Amendment to the City's Power Purchase Agreement with Iberdrola Renewables, LLC 17.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a Contract on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto and to Receive Grant Funds from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, for Proactive Enforcement Activities to Limit Violations of Alcohol-Related Incidents in Fiscal Year 2016; and Adoption of a General Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of the Grant Fund ($41,053) 18.Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Approve Work Planto Evaluate and Implement Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies by Reducing Natural Gas and Gasoline use Through Electrification 19.Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action Minutes and a Verbatim Transcript of All Council and Council Standing Committee Meetings, and Delete the Requirement for Sense Minutes 20.Approval and Authorization of the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Lewis & Tibbetts, Inc. and Purchase Related Materials in the Amount of $4,250,000 for Trenching and Substructure Installation and 4 August 17, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 10 Percent Contingency of $425,000 for Related but Unforeseen Work, for a Total Authorized Amount of $4,675,000 21.Adoption of Clerical Changes to Ordinance 5326, Amending Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Energy Code Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:45-8:00 PM 22.TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Colorado Park Apartments Project Located at 1141 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Multifamily Rental Housing Facility 8:00-8:15 PM 23.PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: Finance Committee Recommendation that the City Council Adopt two Resolutions: 1) Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to Increase Rates 4 Percent and Add Drought Surcharges Effective September 1, 2015; and 2) Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20 Percent Level Effective September 1, 2015 in Response to Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board 8:15-9:45 PM 24.Proposed Response to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA’s) “Call for Projects” for Inclusion in the Countywide Long-Range Transportation Plan (VTP 2040) & Discussion of the Potential Envision Silicon Valley 2016 Transportation Tax Measure 9:45-10:00 PM 25.Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Affordable Housing Guidelines to Permit Use of the Commercial Housing Fund for Preservation of Existing Units 10:00-10:30 PM 26.Discussion of Possible Adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan Update Community Advisory Committee (CAC) 10:30-10:45 PM 27.Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual 2015 Conference Updated Attachment F Updated Attachment B At Place Memo 5 August 17, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) 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. 28.Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Letter Regarding Palo Alto’s Position on New Funding For State and Local Transportation Infrastructure 10:45-11:00 PM 6 August 17, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting August 18, 2015 City/School Committee Meeting August 20, 2015 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report New Public Records Request Tracking Program Flyer Compendium of Utilities Policies and Plans Regarding Resource Management Redirection of Community Solar Program Development Efforts Staff Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Switching from Fossil Fuels to Electricity for Residential Home Appliances and Passenger Vehicles Transmittal of the Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Operating and Capital Budgets and Municipal Fee Schedule City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2015 Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6 Set 7 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5777) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Parking and TDM Update Title: Update on Integrated Parking Strategy for Downtown: Parking Management, Parking Supply and Transportation Demand Management From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is a study session intended to provide an update on the Downtown parking program, and no action is requested. Executive Summary To more effectively leverage a systems approach to address parking demand and traffic Downtown, the City Council directed staff to develop and implement a series of projects and programs that collectively comprise a coordinated approach to the critical issues facing the City’s commercial core (the “Integrated Parking Strategy”). The projects and programs fall in three main categories: Parking Management, Parking Supply, and Transportation Demand Management. All three program areas are necessary to maximize the use and utility of existing parking while reducing overall traffic impacts and helping visitors and residents move through Palo Alto effectively. This report discusses several programs which have been proposed by Downtown business leaders and residents in conjunction with the staff-led initiatives related to parking and transit. Like many cities in the Bay Area, Palo Alto is experiencing an increase in traffic volumes as employment rises and housing prices continue to make commuting a necessity. The jobs to housing ratio in Palo Alto is higher than it is anywhere in the Bay Area, which contributes to high traffic volumes from employees coming from other communities to work.1 In addition to increased traffic congestion, Downtown Palo Alto in recent years has seen an influx of commuter parking in the neighborhoods north and south of Downtown which, according to residents, contributes to a declining quality of life. 1 The jobs/housing ratio is generally expressed as a ratio between the number of employed residents and the number of dwelling units. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments, Palo Alto’s ratio was 3.04 in the year of the 2010 Census, compared to an overall County ratio of 1.05. City of Palo Alto Page 2 In January 2014, Council directed staff to move forward with the first RPP (Residential Preferential Parking) program for the Downtown neighborhoods. An RPP district regulates non- resident parking to protect neighborhood quality of life, typically by restricting parking for non- residents. In this instance, the Downtown RPP program also represents the City’s first major effort to better manage existing neighborhood parking supply in the public right-of-way. Recognizing that the implementation of the Downtown RPP program may “displace” existing employees who park in the neighborhoods, the Council also requested that staff examine ways to augment Downtown’s existing parking supply with additional parking resources (via satellite parking lots and a trial valet-assist program at Lot R) and take steps to reduce transportation demand by evaluating alternative transportation programs which could support both residents and commuters and to establish a Transportation Management Association (TMA). This report provides an update on all of the programs which are being developed to address these collective challenges, and several short-term pilot programs proposed by the TMA Steering Committee over the next 18 months to evaluate future directions for parking management in Palo Alto. As the Council is aware, decisions about parking management must be made nimbly and creatively to effectuate the best suite of programs and to adapt them as needed for downtown Palo Alto. Background & Discussion This section of the report provides an update on the main trilogy of strategies: Parking Management, Parking Supply and Transportation Demand Management. Updates are current at the time of writing of this report, but staff allows that there may be further updates the evening of the Council meeting due to the time lapse between the writing of the report and the Council meeting. Parking Management: Parking Policy, Pricing and Technology Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Since December 2, 2014, when Council authorized staff to move forward with the trial Downtown RPP program developed by neighborhood and business stakeholders, staff has been working to move forward with all contracts required to launch the program, and implementing the systems which will be required to operate the program. Figure 1 provides an update on several contracts required for the program and an update on the status of each. Figure 1: Vendor Contracts for Downtown RPP Type Vendor Status City of Palo Alto Page 3 Signage Contractor McGuire Contractors Council awarded the signage contract to McGuire Contractors March 9. Staff has developed a MUTCDi-standard sign for installation on the streets within the RPP Phase 1 Boundary. Per enforcement requirements, signs are generally placed between 120-150 feet apart on impacted streets. McGuire crews began installation of the signs in late June, and staff expects most of the signage installation to be completed by the beginning of August. Signs will be covered until program launch on September 15. Online Permit Sales and Parking Website SP Plus with subcontractors T2 Systems and Jemsu Council awarded the online permit sales and fulfillment contract to SP Plus on April 13. Staff has established a payment gateway for the new permit sales portal and has completed design of the permits for the program. Staff is also working with Jemsu (the website designer) to create a new comprehensive parking website that will serve as the public-facing portal for all information on parking and transportation demand management for Palo Alto. Staff expects that the permit sales website will launch in mid-August. Contract Enforcement Serco, Inc. Council awarded the contract to Serco, Inc on June 29 for enforcement of the RPP District. Staff is in the process of working with the vendor to create onboarding procedures and training for all enforcement officers who will be working in the District. Serco expects to begin enforcement of the Downtown RPP program on September 15. Citation Processing Duncan Solutions Staff is in the process of working with Duncan on the format and type of citations for the RPP District. Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, July 2015 At this time, Staff expects to begin selling permits for the RPP District in August 15 via the website and to begin enforcement of the Downtown RPP District September 15. A community meeting on August 4 will provide employees and residents with an update on the program and a reminder of the Phase 1 program parameters and permit eligibility. Staff has also continued to meet with the Downtown RPP Stakeholder group which was instrumental in forming the original program design, and have been providing program updates and schedules at www.cityofpaloalto.org/DowntownRPP. Staff expect to continue to work with the stakeholder group to develop the Phase 2 program parameters, and are scheduled to come back to Council in December with a preliminary recommendation on the Phase 2 program, as anticipated in the Council resolution from December 2014. Parking Technology Currently, all public parking facilities in Downtown have no control systems to allow for paid parking, real-time occupancy reporting or permit controls. Walker Parking, a nationally City of Palo Alto Page 4 recognized parking consultant, was brought onboard to assess the needs for parking controls in the Downtown and to provide design documents and equipment specifications for the work. After an internal kickoff meeting to discuss the project scope in May, staff facilitated an initial stakeholder meeting on June 17 with a small group of local employers, residents, and business leaders to provide context on parking challenges and solicit feedback on potential technology solutions for the four main Downtown garages and the surface parking lots. Walker is currently working on draft recommendations for the implementation of real-time parking technology in Downtown Palo Alto. The preliminary recommendations include the following: Recommendations for PARCs (Parking Access and Revenue Control Systems): Implement gated parking access controls at the four Downtown facilities, including the following features: o 100% automated PARCS o Barcode or magnetic stripe tickets issued upon entry o Pay-on-Foot stations located for convenient payment at pedestrian chokepoints, which would allow for mobile, cash and credit card payment o Pay at exit using credit cards at automated exit stations o Permit parker access control utilizing proximity cards o Retail and business validation integration utilizing QR codes o Cloud-hosted central management system Recommendations for APGS (Automatic Parking Guidance Systems) Implement sensors to detect real-time occupancy of individual parking spaces in all four parking structures Implement LED lights above each parking space to indicate status Implement dynamic LED signage integrated into downtown wayfinding signage program o Street-side dynamic signs directing visitors to structures with available spaces o Facility status dynamic signs indicating the amount of available parking within each facility o Level status dynamic signs indicating the number of available spaces on each level of a structure o End-of-aisle dynamic signs indicating the number of available spaces down each parking aisle Disseminate real-time parking availability to the City’s website and integrate with one or more third party parking availability mobile applications A cloud-hosted central management application Staff will be reviewing the recommendations and working with the consultants and stakeholders to develop a final recommendation before proceeding with schematic design. Staff anticipates that final design documents will be completed and released for bid by early 2016. It should be noted that the 2016 budget includes funding for the design of PARCS and City of Palo Alto Page 5 APGS. Once costs are identified, staff will come back to the City Council with a recommendation to increase funding for construction. A separate study (see below) will be examining potential approaches to the City’s parking lots and on street parking. Parking Wayfinding Staff conducted a kickoff meeting on March 31 with Hunt Design, a Pasadena-based wayfinding and branding design firm, to strategize on the scope of work for parking wayfinding for the Downtown commercial core. The intent of the scope of work is to develop a comprehensive parking wayfinding strategy for the Downtown parking facilities, and the development of a Palo Alto parking brand which can be used so that visitors and employees can more easily locate existing parking resources. An informal stakeholder group of several business leaders attended the meeting to provide context on parking in Palo Alto’s Downtown. Hunt Design also brought examples of branding concepts and signage from other cities to get feedback on general look and feel of signage, and developed a wayfinding signage map including recommendations on existing signage removal, and preliminary design concepts of brands and signage. City Staff and Hunt Design presented these preliminary concepts at an ARB study session on June 18. Based on very positive feedback from ARB, City staff, and stakeholders, Hunt Design is currently readying field mock-ups of the design concepts as a final step towards the final design recommendations. Attachment A contains some of the wayfinding concepts developed to date. Staff expects that design concepts for wayfinding will be finalized within the next few months, and the consultant team will be coordinating with Walker Parking for the design of the proposed dynamic wayfinding signage. As noted when the design funding was approved on March 9, 2015, the implementation of signage and associated construction will depend on the final design and quantities of signage. Staff will need to return to the City Council with a recommendation for additional funding once the design is complete and the construction costs are quantified. New Parking Website Staff is working with SP Plus and Jemsu to launch a new parking website which will direct visitors, residents and employees to parking information for the city. The website will be located at cityofpaloalto.org/Parking and will provide links to the RPP permit sales website and all other parking information. Staff expects to launch this website in the fall with the RPP program, with all links being completed by the end of 2015. Existing information from the City’s current website will be migrated to this website. Paid Parking Study As part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget, the City Council approved $100,000 for a paid parking study. Staff is writing an RFP to conduct a comprehensive paid parking analysis for the Downtown commercial core, including public parking lots and on-street parking, and expects to release the RFP to potential vendors in the early fall. The study will include data collection on parking occupancy and parking turnover for the Downtown, and recommendation of pricing and management policies to prioritize short-term parking spaces closest to the commercial core for customers, garage parking for employees, and neighborhood parking for residents. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Currently, it is much cheaper for an employee to park in Downtown Palo Alto than it is to take Caltrain, and pricing is significant motivator for many when making a travel-mode choice. Per the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, “Parking pricing can result in more efficient use of parking facilities, address specific parking problems, ensure that parking is available for intended users, and reduce total parking requirements.” Making parking more expensive or limiting parking availability in one area increases the incentive for parkers to shift to other transportation modes, or find other places to park. In this way, the strategies discussed in this report are synergistic and work together to produce results greater than any one individual program. Parking Supply Valet Assist Parking Staff has been operating a valet-assist program at Lot R (High Street Garage) since the beginning of 2014. Council approved a recommendation on June 29 to expand the operation to the Lot S, Lot CC, and Lot CW garages on (see staff report 5685 for data on Lot R operation). When implemented at these garages, the valet operation could expand the city’s effective parking supply by 180 cars with no capital investment. Staff has engaged with the valet consultant, SP Plus, to begin development of an implementation plan for an initial expansion to the Lot S and Lot CC garages scheduled to begin in tandem with the upcoming RPP program launch in September. Satellite parking The idea of a satellite parking lot was proposed as a trial to augment the City’s supply of parking outside of the commercial core and to explore the idea of creating a “last mile” transit strategy. Staff engaged with BKF Engineers to review a proposal for a satellite parking lot (providing 125 spaces) on the east side of Highway 101 east of Geng Road. The proposal sought to provide parking for Downtown employees which could then be accessed via the Palo Alto shuttle that runs along Embarcadero Road from the Caltrain station. The analysis shows that with a restriping of Embarcadero east of Geng Road, 125 additional parking spaces are available on the north side of the street. However, based on traffic counts conducted as part of the study, the implementation of this project would cause significant impacts to the level of service of the traffic signals at the intersection of East Bayshore and Embarcadero Road, due to the increased traffic headed eastbound on Embarcadero. In order to mitigate these impacts, BKF proposed a reconfiguration of the traffic signals and changes to lane configuration of the 101 northbound off-ramp. It should be noted that the number of office tenants at this end of Embarcadero Road is increasing and that the traffic signal will potentially need to be analyzed and upgraded more substantially in the near future regardless of whether satellite parking is provided. Data from a recent commute survey (discussed under the TMA section of this staff report) suggested that a large number of employees who work in Downtown locations are actually City of Palo Alto Page 7 coming from the peninsula or the South Bay, making them good candidates for Caltrain. This could indicate that a “first mile” transit solution (getting employees to Caltrain), rather than a “last mile” solution (getting them close to Downtown without Caltrain), might be more appropriate to serve the employee population and encourage mode shift. In light of this and the fact that parking demand as changed since the project was instigated, staff will not be recommending proceeding with the satellite parking facility. Nonetheless, staff believes it would be appropriate to investigate the idea of adding parking within the existing Embarcadero right of way at this location and also redesigning the roadway to include landscaping with native vegetation and an improved pedestrian path. The additional parking could serve tenants and visitors at this end of Embarcadero, and the additional landscaping and pedestrian access could improve the aesthetics and functionality of this gateway to the Baylands. Parking Garage – Lot D Council directed staff in November of 2014 to pursue opportunities for a publicly-funded garage at Lot D (the corner of Hamilton and Waverley). Consistent with the City Council approved Infrastructure Plan, a new Capital Improvement Program project (PE-15007, New Downtown Parking Garage) was approved by the Council in the Fiscal Year 2016 Capital Budget to provide funding for design and environmental review of a parking garage. Staff has prepared the scope of work for consultant services to begin the design and environmental review for the garage, and consistent with Council direction, will bring the scope of work to Council for review in September. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Management Association (TMA) Consistent with City Council direction to reduce SOV (single-occupant vehicle) travel in and around Downtown, staff began working towards the goal of reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips to, from, and around the City’s Downtown Core in August 2014 with the initiation of a Steering Committee tasked with developing Palo Alto’s first Transportation Management Association (TMA). A TMA is a non-profit organization which develops, manages, and markets transportation programs for the benefit of a community, and is typically business-member funded. Staff engaged with a joint consultant team of MIG and Silvani Transportation in August of 2014 to oversee a three-year effort to launch the organization. The consultants were tasked with stakeholder engagement, evaluation of existing transportation programs, and development of new programs to encourage alternative transportation use. The City Manager appointed representatives from Palo Alto employers, residents, business associations to a TMA Steering Committee, which has met regularly since February 2015. The TMA Steering Committee has accomplished several things in the nascent stages of the initiative, including conducting a large-scale transportation survey of Downtown employees, identifying a work plan, vision statements and comprehensive goals, and selecting several potential pilot programs on which to focus initial efforts. All are discussed below. City of Palo Alto Page 8 The Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Budget includes $100,000 in one-time funding for various TMA pilot programs, initiatives, and incentives, that include but are not limited to transit passes for Downtown employees, subsidizing an on-demand shuttle service such as Chariot or Leap, providing discounts for last-mile services like Lyft or Uber for people who use those services to get to and from their businesses, to promote transportation alternatives for businesses located in the Downtown. The Commute Survey The TMA Steering Committee agreed that one of the first tasks of the TMA would be to identify the “status quo” commute behavior for Downtown businesses to help identify where opportunities existed to shift travel behavior, and to validate some assumptions that steering committee members wished to test (for instance, the Steering Committee wondered whether many of the workers at retail locations Downtown are working multiple jobs and need their cars to drive from one job to another). To this end, staff had EMC research conduct an unprecedented survey of Downtown businesses to find out commute patterns and attitudes. 1,173 surveys were conducted in May with employees at businesses located within an area of Downtown Palo Alto bound by El Camino Real, Webster Street, Everett Avenue, and Forest Avenue, and 44% of those surveyed responded to the survey. A summary of the results is shown in Attachment B, and data for individual businesses who participated in the survey is also available. The data from the survey is extensive, but some headline conclusions include the following: - Currently just more than half (55%) of employee trips into Downtown Palo Alto are SOV trips. (Stanford’s SOV trip rate is 48%). - Nearly half (49%) of the SOV drivers expressed an interest in seeking alternative transportation options, but felt that there were no good options available. - Those most likely to seek alternative options are more likely to work for tech companies and/or large employers, be younger, live more than 10 miles from Palo Alto, and have a flexible work schedule. - They have concerns about transit as an alternative, with primary concerns being a real or perceived lack of convenience for routes, schedules, and locations of stops. Cost is also a concern for some. Based on the survey results, 84% of people working in Downtown Palo Alto have one full-time job, while 6% have more than one job, so the hypothesis about the majority of shift workers working multiple jobs was incorrect. TMA Pilots The data from the commute survey spearheaded a discussion amongst the TMA Steering Committee about what types of pilots would be effective and useful given the imminent rollout of the new RPP program and current parking challenges. Below are the pilots which are up for discussion: City of Palo Alto Page 9 1. Marketing: The steering committee identified a need to develop comprehensive transportation information materials for Downtown Palo Alto employees. 2. Ridesharing Pilot Opportunities: The steering committee showed interest in and interviewing ridesharing companies to evaluate options for encouraging carpooling and vanpooling to and from Palo. Staff have a meeting set up with various rideshare providers on July 29. 3. Parking Pricing Pilots: Some steering committee members showed interest in creating daily parking pricing structures at one or more garages to incentivize people who normally park in the neighborhoods to park in garages instead, and to implement this type of program during RPP Phase 1 to further encourage best use of the garages. 4. Individual trip planning: Many steering committee members showed interest in having the TMA consultants act as trip-planning consultants for their employees who may not be aware of transit options which can serve them. The steering committee will move forward with several of these initiatives within the next 6 -12 months to determine which combination of strategies best supports the parking management efforts. TDM Plans for Development Projects Staff are working on a revised framework for development projects which must meet TDM requirements, which require applicants provide for infrastructure to support alternative transportation above and beyond what the code requires. TDM requirements are expected to vary based on distance from transit, land use and other factors, but staff will require monitoring of TDM performance over time to ensure that the programs are effective. Shuttle Staff has not received private partner support for the West Shuttle Route as planned and as discussed with Council on October 27, 2014. Given the lack of partner support for this route and the new information generated from the TMA commute survey, Staff has engaged Nelson Nygaard to map out a multi-year strategy, carefully identifying target ridership and using data to support the creation of new and possibly dynamic routes. The 5-year shuttle plan would take into account data from the commute survey (22% of people working Downtown live in Palo Alto, and would potentially be shuttle customers), branding and marketing the program, and take a comprehensive look at what other agencies have planned for shuttle routes (VTA, SamTrans). Staff expects to have a preliminary plan for review with stakeholders by October. In addition, staff is currently working with DoubleMap to integrate live-shuttle tracking which can be accessed by mobile app (this feature should be available in the fall) and continues to oversee daily operations by the City’s Shuttle vendor on three routes: the Crosstown Route, the Embarcadero Route (partially funded by Caltrain), and the East Palo Alto Route (funded by East Palo Alto). Parking Cash-Out and Commute Program Evaluation Since 2013, City staff have been exploring ways to increase the number of City staff who City of Palo Alto Page 10 currently use transit or another alternative mode to come to work. In 2013 Staff initiated a trial with Caltrain for the Go Pass program, which allows any City employee who works at the Civic Center location a free Go Pass. Currently more than 117 are signed up for the Go Pass program and the city estimates that the majority of the users are riding Caltrain 4 days per week. In future years, there may be opportunities to expand this program to other City facilities, and/or increase the incentives for transit use. The City also currently provides pre-tax commuter benefits in addition to the free Go Pass. Pre- tax benefits are required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, yet only a small number of employees (around 50) take advantage of this program. One reason may be that all City employees currently receive free parking. Studies show that provision of free parking is one of the biggest incentives for SOV driving, and achieving a lower SOV rate could have a significant benefit on traffic in the Downtown, as the City is one of the largest Downtown employers (in addition to Palantir, A9, SurveyMonkey, and Whole Foods). Staff has been discussing the implications of piloting a “feebate” program where employees would be given a small financial incentive each day for a travel choice other than single occupancy vehicle driving. This is consistent with the Mobility as a Service (MaaS) pilot being undertaken by Joint Venture Silicon Valley. (See below.) Staff expects to develop a proposal for more advanced commutes in the next 3-6 months in tandem with other TMA pilots. MaaS (Mobility as a Service) and Regional Leadership Update Staff have been participating in regional efforts to support the development of “MaaS” (Mobility as a Service), an app platform which provides access to a combination of transportation mode & employer commute benefits to help incentivize non-single-occupant vehicle travel. In addition, staff have been working with Urban Sustainability Networks Share Use Mobility Project, which is mapping and benchmarking shared mobility projects, performance and policies across the US; and Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) MaaS initiative, a 3-5 year program to apply RMI’s noted systems design skills to this issue. Staff will continue to leverage the regional leadership opportunities with MaaS provides and identify opportunities to apply the MaaS concept to the City’s own commute program and potentially through the TMA pilot programs. Timeline Staff is working to coordinate the implementation of many of the programs discussed in this report. While the first phase of the RPP program will begin in September 2015 and the parking technology and wayfinding projects will likely not be complete until the latter half of 2016, staff are implementing valet parking at all public garages Downtown in anticipation of Phase 1 of the RPP program. The TMA expects to also launch one or more pilots by the end of 2015, including the personalized trip-planning and marketing of drive-along alternatives. Resource Impact All of the above programs have been budgeted except where noted; additionally, RPP costs will be offset from some revenues generated by permit sales. Estimated costs for the parking City of Palo Alto Page 11 technology and wayfinding projects have been determined, but are not final until designs for the projects are completed; these will be estimated during Fiscal Year 16 and brought to Council for approval. Staff have also submitted applications to the MTC Climate Initiatives and TDM Grant Program to try to secure funding for implementation of parking management measures (wayfinding and guidance systems) and TDM measures (the Maas pilot). Policy Implications The programs discussed within this staff report are consistent with the Council’s 3-pronged parking strategy. In addition, data from the recent Comp Plan summit suggests public opinion is very supportive of moving forward with residential parking permit programs and improving public transportation options. The program is also consistent with the following existing comp plan policies: Goal T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling and public transit use. Policy T-3: Supporte the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Program T-5: Work with private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and major institutions, to develop and coordinate trip reduction strategies. Environmental Review This is only an informational report; therefore, no environmental review is necessary. Attachments: Attachment A: Wayfinding Concepts (PDF) Attachment B: TMA Commute Survey (PDF) Attachment C: Public Comment (PDF) i Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (referenced standard for traffic control and signage). CITY OF PALO ALTO | 06.18.15 25 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106 626.793.7847 PARKING WAYFINDING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN EXISTING SIGNAGE PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #2.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 192 Existing Signage SHEET TITLE SHEET #25 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 Branded Parking Wayfinding Precedents 3PROJECTCLIENTDATE City of Palo Alto Parking Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 03/12/15 BRANDED WAYFINDING PARKING SIGNAGE PRECEDENTS PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #3.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 193 Parking Precedents SHEET TITLE SHEET #25 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 City Branded Parking Precedents 1PROJECTCLIENTDATE City of Palo Alto Parking Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 03/12/15 CITY BRANDED PARKING SIGNAGE PRECEDENTS PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #4.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 194 Parking Precedents PUBLIC BRANDED PARKING SIGNAGE PRECEDENTS SHEET TITLE SHEET #25 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 Public Branded Parking Precedents 2PROJECTCLIENTDATE City of Palo Alto Parking Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 03/12/15 PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #5.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 195 Parking Precedents Lot Banner Garage ID & Spaces Sign Lot/Garage ID Rules/Regulations SignDirectional Sign SIGN TYPE MENU PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #6.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 196 Sign Type Menu Lot Banner Garage ID & Spaces Sign Lot/Garage IDDirectional Sign F 13 12 10 9 7 6 B 8 2 1 A3 45 D11 14 E C SIGN LOCATIONS PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #7.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 197 Sign Locations F 13 12 10 9 7 6 B 8 2 1 A3 45 D11 14 E C ALPHA NUMERIC NAMING PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #8.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 198 Alpha Numeric Naming CITY LOGO PARKING SYMBOL COMBINING BRANDING WITH PARKING SYMBOL PARKING BRAND PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #9.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 199 Parking Brand CITY LOGO PARKING SYMBOL COMBINING BRANDING WITH PARKING SYMBOL PARKING BRAND PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #10.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1910 Parking Brand 6LOT6LOT 6LOT SPACES 0148 MESSAGING PIECES Messaging Pieces PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #11.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1911 SHEET TITLE SHEET #25 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 9t06618.1893.1818418 OPTION Acity name only 1.0 1 2 PROJECT CLIENT DATE City of Palo Alto Parking Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/10/15 A B C D E F 0148 LOT 14 LOT P P P 14M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM P P LOT 14 SPACES PARKING No overnight parking unless specified on sign.Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguishingplacards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM CONCEPT 1 Concept 1 PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #12.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1912 P LOT 14LOT P 14 No overnight parking unless specified on sign.Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguishingplacards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM P CONCEPT 1 Concept 1 PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #13.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1913 A B C D E F 0148 SPACES 14 14LOT LO T 1 4 No overnight parking unless specified on sign. Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguish-ing placards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM CONCEPT 2 Concept 2 PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #14.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1914 14LOT LO T 1 4 No overnight parking unless specified on sign. Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguish-ing placards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM CONCEPT 2 Concept 2 PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #15.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1915 GARAGEALOT 14 A D D E F 0148 SPACES A C 0148 SPACES A No overnight parking unless specified on sign. Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguishingplacards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6AM–12AM Sat.24 HOUR Sun.12AM–12AM CONCEPT 3 Concept 3 PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #16.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1916 LOT 14 LOT 14 No overnight parking unless specified on sign. Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguishingplacards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6AM–12AM Sat.24 HOUR Sun.12AM–12AM CONCEPT 3 Concept 3 PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #17.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1917 GARAGEALOT 14 A D D E F 0148 SPACES A C 0148 SPACES A No overnight parking unless specified on sign. Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguishingplacards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6AM–12AM Sat.24 HOUR Sun.12AM–12AM A B C D E F 0148 SPACES 14 14LOT LO T 1 4 No overnight parking unless specified on sign. Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguish-ing placards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM M-F 6 AM - 12 AMSat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM SHEET TITLE SHEET #25 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 9t06618.1893.1818418 OPTION Acity name only 1.0 1 2 PROJECT CLIENT DATE City of Palo Alto Parking Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/10/15 A B C D E F 0148 LOT 14 LOT P P P 14M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 HourSun. 12 AM - 12 AM P P LOT 14 SPACESPARKING No overnight parking unless specified on sign.Unauthorized vehicles will be cited or towed at owners expense. User assumes all risk. Unauthorized vehicles parked in designatedaccessible spaces not displaying distinguishingplacards or special license plates issued forpersons with disabilities will be towed atowner’s expense. Towed vehicles may bereclaimed at ABC Company or by calling1-800-555-1234 NO skateboards, skates, or alcoholic beverages. Parking information 1-800-555-1234 M-F 6 AM - 12 AM Sat. 24 Hour Sun. 12 AM - 12 AM CONCEPT 1 CONCEPT 3 CONCEPT 2 Design Concepts PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #18.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1918 AENTRANCEEXIT ONLY GARAGE ENTRY GRAPHICS Garage Entry Graphics PROJECT CLIENT DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET #19.025 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106626.793.7847 OF Branding & Wayfinding City of Palo Alto 06/18/15 1919 Downtown Palo Alto Mode Split Survey May 2015 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 2 1,173 surveys conducted with employees at businesses located within an area of Downtown Palo Alto bound by El Camino Real, Webster Street, Everett Avenue, and Forest Avenue. The survey participation rate was 44%, which represents the total number of completed surveys compared to the total number of employees at participating businesses. The overall response rate was 12%, which represents the total number of completed surveys compared to the total number of employees in Downtown Palo Alto. A stratified random sample of worksites was pulled by worksite size, including small, medium and large businesses. Sampled worksites were contacted directly to identify and recruit an onsite survey coordinator who distributed the surveys to all employees at their respective worksites. The survey was offered in online and paper formats for employees of businesses with 5 or more employees, and was conducted by telephone with employees of businesses with 4 or fewer employees. Data collection began May 4th and ended the week of May 25th. Each respondent was asked commute mode questions for one calendar week previous to the date on which they took the survey. Methodology 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 3 Downtown Palo Alto For this study, Downtown Palo Alto was defined as the area bound by El Camino Real, Webster Street, Everett Avenue, and Forest Avenue. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 4 Home Regions Survey respondents were categorized into home regions based on zip code data; more than half of downtown employees live in the South Bay region and Palo Alto. Region % San Francisco 10% Peninsula 20% South Bay 33% Palo Alto 22% East Bay 7% Else 8% 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 5 Worksite Size The survey sample was stratified and the data weighted to reflect the distribution of businesses by worksite size. Business Size (Survey Sample) % of survey sample (weighted) Business Size (City Registry) % of total employees (based on self-reported average employees per worksite) 1 to 25 employees 24%1 to 25 employees 24% 26 to 100 employees 32%26 to 100 employees 32% 101+ employees 44%101+ employees 44% Modes of Transportation 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 7 Mode Share -Overall More than half (55%) of the trips taken into downtown are single-occupant-vehicle trips. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? 55% 17% 8% 7% 5% 5% 3% Drove alone Caltrain Walked Rode a bicycle Carpooled Worked remotely Other SOV Total:55% Includes drive alone and motorcycle Transit Total:19% Includes bus and rail Non-motorized Total: 15% Includes walking and riding a bicycle %’s reflect the total amount of trips taken during the week 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 8 Mode Share by Worksite Size 74% 61% 41% 7% 14% 25% 7% 12% 22% 5%6%4%8%8%7% 1-25 emp. (24%)26-100 emp. (32%)101+ emp. (44%) Drove alone Caltrain Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked remotely/Other As business size decreases, the percentage of SOV trips increases. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Business Size by Number of Employees Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 9 Mode Share by Self-Reported Commute Distance 52% 69% 38% 6% 19% 40% 30% 1%5%4%5%5%7%6% 11% <1 to 10 (45%)10 to 50 (35%)50+ (20%) Drove alone Caltrain Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other As the distance from Downtown increases, mode shifts toward transit. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Distance Traveled in Miles (self-reported) Average Distance Traveled: Overall = 15.8 miles | SOV = 15.9 miles | Transit = 23.5 miles Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 10 Mode Share by Home Geography 18% 63%65% 41% 76% 70% 16% 20% 0%3%1% 12% 3% 48% 0%1%3%6%5% 9%10%7%6%5% 12% San Francisco (10%)Peninsula (20%)South Bay (33%)Palo Alto (22%)East Bay (7%) Drove alone Caltrain Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Commuters from San Francisco are the least likely to drive. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Refused to report=8%Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 11 Mode Share by Age and Parental Status 51% 70%66% 50% 20% 7%11% 20%18% 9%8% 19% 5%5%7%4%7%9%8%7% 18-49 (66%)50+ (19%)Parent (28%)Non Parent (68%) Drove alone Caltrain Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Older commuters and Parents are more likely to drive alone to work. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Age Parental Status Refused to report=15%Refused to report=4% Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 12 Mode Share by Work Start Time 64% 49% 63% 14% 20% 11%8% 19% 15% 5%5%2% 9%7%8% Start at a specific time (33%)Schedule is flexible (55%)Schedule varies (11%) Drove alone Caltrain Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Commuters with flexible schedules are less likely to drive. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 13 Mode Share by Job Status 53% 75% 66% 19% 3%4% 16% 8%11% 5%7%5%7%6% 14% One full-time job (84%)One part-time job (8%)More than one job (6%) Drove alone Caltrain Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Part-time employees are more likely to drive. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 14 Mode Share by Business Type 78% 59% 33% 72%73% 67% 13% 20% 31% 7% 1% 10% 1% 6% 26% 8%7% 14% 7%6%4%3% 9% 2%2% 10%7%10%10% 5% Retail (7%)Government (9%)Technology (39%)Restaurant (12%)Hospitality (16%)Light Office (11%) Drove alone Caltrain Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Employees in Retail, Restaurant, and Hospitality companies are more likely to drive. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 15 Drive Alone Mode Ranked Respondents who live in the East Bay, are employed part time, and work at a small company and retail company are more likely to drive alone. 78% 76% 75% 74% 73% 72% 70% 67% 66% 66% 65% 64% 63% 63% 61% 59% 55% 53% 51% 50% 49% 41% 41% 33% 18% Retail East Bay One part-time job 1-25 emp. Hospitality Restaurant Age 50+ Light office Parent More than one job South Bay Start at specific time Schedule varies Peninsula 26-100 emp. Government Overall One full-time job Age 18-49 Non Parent Schedule is flexible 101+ emp. Palo Alto Technology San Francisco Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Percentage of SOV trips by employee demographics Transportation Attitudes 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 17 Driving Attitudes Two-thirds (67%) of drivers say they prefer to drive and plan on continuing to do so. Q10-Q20. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. 42% 35% 27% 23% 13% 24% 25% 23% 20% 22% 67% 60% 50% 44% 35% I prefer to drive to work and plan on continuing to do so. I need to drive to work because I make other stops, such as for school, kids, or other errands, before or after work. I would rather not drive to work, but I have no other good options. I need to drive to work because I use my car for meetings, deliveries, or other work-related tasks. I would take a carpool or vanpool to work if it was convenient, safe, and easy to find. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Total Agree Among SOV Drivers, 772n 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 18 Transit Attitudes Schedule, frequency, and convenience appear to be slightly larger obstacles to increasing transit ridership than cost. Q10-Q20. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. 26% 25% 24% 22% 21% 20% 19% 16% 47% 46% 43% 38% I would take transit to work if the service was faster or more frequent. I would take transit to work if the schedule was better and it ran when I needed it. I would take transit to work if it was easier to get to a transit stop. I would take transit to work if it was less expensive or I was given a discounted transit pass. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Total Agree Among SOV Drivers, 772n 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 19 Agree: Would Rather Not Drive Drivers who feel they have no other good options believe transit will not fit their schedule or is not convenient for them. Q10-Q20. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. Among the 50% of SOV Drivers who would prefer not to drive but feel they have no other good options. I would take transit if service was faster/more frequent 63% I would take transit if the schedule was better/it ran when I need it 61% I would take transit if it was easier to get to a stop 59% I would take transit if it was less expensive or I received a discounted pass 47% Agree 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 20 Reasons for NOT Taking Transit Need of a car, personal preference, and lack of convenience are the primary reasons drivers do not take transit more often. 21. What is the main reason you do not take transit more often? 21% 17% 16% 12% 12% 5% 5% 4% 2% 6% Need car for errands/meetings I prefer to drive Schedule is not convenient Routes not where needed Stops not convenient Take transit as needed Too expensive Unreliable It would take longer Other/Don't know Among SOV Drivers, 772n 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 21 Biking and Walking Attitudes Better routes and better parking/storage options appear to be a factor for some commuters who potentially live close enough to walk or bike to work. Q10-Q20. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. 23% 16% 17% 16% 40% 32% I would walk or bike to work if there were better paths, trails, and sidewalks. I would bike to work if there was better parking or storage options for my bike at my work location. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Total Agree Among respondents who live within a 3 mile radius of Downtown Palo Alto, 326n 43% 26% 19% 5% 3% 3% 1% Drove alone Walked Rode a bicycle Carpooled Worked remotely Other Caltrain %’s reflect the total amount of trips taken during the week among those who live within a 3 mile radius Parking 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 23 Parking More than half of commuters park in public or private garages or lots; fifteen percent park on neighborhood streets. 4. Where do you typically park when you drive to work? 30% 21% 15% 4%3%2% 24% Public garage or parking lot Private/employer garage or parking lot Neighborhood streets It varies In a 2- or 3-hour on-street parking zone Caltrain parking lot Other/DK/ Don’t drive 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 24 Parking by Worksite Size Commuters who park on neighborhood streets are most likely to work for a medium-sized business. 4. Where do you typically park when you drive to work? 26% 46% 12% 34% 7% 63% 41% 47% 25% Public garage or parking lot (30%) Private/employer garage or parking lot (21%) Neighborhood streets (15%) 1-25 26-100 101+ Business Size by Number of Employees 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 25 Parking by Business Type Commuters who use public garages and lots are more likely to be Government workers. 4. Where do you typically park when you drive to work? 28% 10% 31% 55% 29% 2% 22%19% 12% 17% 33% 18% 36% 5% 28% 35%37% 8% Public garage or parking lot (30%) Private/employer garage or parking lot (21%) Neighborhood streets (15%) Retail Gov't Tech Restaurant Hospitality Light Office Commuter Segmentations 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 27 Driver Segmentation About half (49%) of drivers are open to alternatives to driving. 42%24%25%9% Drive alone and always will Drive alone and are open to other options Drive alone but would prefer not to Else Drive alone and always will: Drive alone at least once a week and strongly agree that they prefer to drive and plan on continuing to do so. Drive alone and are open to other options: Drive alone at least once a week and somewhat agree that they prefer to drive and plan on continuing to do so. Drive alone but would prefer not to: Drive alone at least once a week and disagree that they prefer to drive and plan on continuing to do so. Else: Drive alone at least once a week and did not answer that they prefer to drive and plan on continuing to do so. Among SOV Drivers, 772n 49% 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 28 Demographics That Are Most Likely to Change Habits Drivers in San Francisco, who work for a large or Tech company, have flexible work schedules and are younger are more likely to consider other transportation options. 72% 66% 62% 60% 57% 53% 53% 52% 52% 51% 51% 51% 50% 49% 49% 48% 48% 47% 44% 44% 43% 43% 41% 41% 41% 35% 32% 31% Technology San Francisco 101+ emp. Government Work schedule is flexible Light office Age 18-49 Peak hour commuter South Bay Full time worker Commute 10 to 50 miles Non-Parent Palo Alto Commute 50+ miles Overall East Bay Commute 1-10 miles Parent Retail 26-100 emp. Non peak hour commuter Part time worker Peninsula Start work at a specific time 1-25 emp. Hospitality Age 50+ Restaurant % of SOV drivers who would prefer not to drive, by demos 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 29 Overall Employee Location The map represents the percentage of downtown employees by home zip code. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 30 Target Driver Location The map represents the percentage of Target Drivers (378n)by home zip code. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 31 101+ Employees Location The map represents the percentage of Target Drivers who work for large companies, by home zip code. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 32 Age 18-49 Location The map represents the percentage of Target Drivers Age 18-49, by home zip code. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 33 Peak Hour Commuter Location The map represents the percentage of Target Drivers who commute during peak hours, by home zip code. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 34 Flexible Work Schedule Commuter Location The map represents the percentage of Target Drivers who have flexible work schedules, by home zip code. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 35 Full Time Worker Commuter Location The map represents the percentage of Target Drivers who work full time, by home zip code. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 36 Technology Worker Commuter Location The map represents the percentage of Target Drivers who work for tech companies, by home zip code. 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 37 Government Workers Commuter Location The map represents the percentage of Target Drivers who work for the Government, by home zip code. Conclusions 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 39 Currently just more than half (55%) of employee trips into Downtown Palo Alto are SOV trips. –Nearly half (49%) of these SOV drivers expressed an interest in seeking alternative transportation options. –Those most likely to seek alternative options are more likely to work for tech companies and/or large employers, be younger, live more than 10 miles from Palo Alto, and have a flexible work schedule. –They have concerns about transit as an alternative, with primary concerns being a real or perceived lack of convenience for routes, schedules, and locations of stops. Cost is also a concern for some. Conclusions 15-5591 Palo Alto TMA | 40 Contact Information Tom Patras tom@emcresearch.com 614.827.9677 Sara LaBatt sara@emcresearch.com 510.550.8924 Doug MacDowell doug@emcresearch.com 614.827.9673 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 03, 2015 11:12 AM To:Neilson Buchanan Subject:Important reading for today Note the explicit assertion about who actually sets downtown parking policy and who "controls" the garages!!!! Perhaps the Council will move to the next level of stewardship ask the most significant question: WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERPETUAL COMMERCIAL CORE PARKING SPACE DEFICITS AND THE PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT'S "BENEFITS"? Off Deadline: Palo Alto senior center expansion faces parking challenge Off Deadline: Palo Alto senior center expansion faces p arking challenge Avenidas has announced plans for a major expansion of its historic buildi ng, but parking in the highly sensitized "Downtown North" neighborhood is the big issue tangled in the political governance. View on www.paloaltoonline.com Preview by Yahoo Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Palo Alto Perry Goodwill Ambassador WHEREAS, Palo Alto Perry is a facsimile of the real Barron Park donkey named Pericles, and the unofficial Goodwill Ambassador for the City of Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto Perry was an idea born during the “For the Love of Palo Alto” workshop held on February 20, 2015, designed to help strengthen community goodwill and love for Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto Perry is a huggable stuffed animal whose social media campaign through Facebook and Twitter, garnered over 340 “Likes” and 130 followers, including friends from around the world and media coverage on television and in print; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto Perry’s lovable travels were between May 2 and July 4, 2015, and included homes, neighborhoods, schools, businesses and other organizations; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto Perry was received with open hearts by every ambassador who took him to their favorite spots around town where he collected lovable notes and photographs of his travels; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto Perry discovered parks, shops, restaurants and homes that make Palo Alto the beautiful, lovable city that the community enjoys; and WHEREAS, Palo Alto Perry has succeeded in his mission to bring the community together to enjoy everything Palo Alto has to offer, he has showcased hidden spots, as well as provided a respite from the hectic lifestyle of the Silicon Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Holman, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim appreciation to Palo Alto Perry for his enthusiastic and friendly support of the Palo Alto community and offer our best wishes upon his retirement as Goodwill Ambassador. Presented: August 17, 2015 ______________________________ Karen Holman Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 17, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Applicants to Interview on August 26, 2015 for the Utilities Advisory Commission Staff is requesting the City Council select the candidates to be interviewed for one unexpired term (Van Dusen), on the Utilities Advisory Commission, ending on April 30, 2018. Interviews are scheduled for Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use in determining who will be interviewed. Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be emailed to Council Members directly. Recommendation The requested action is for each Council Member to fill out the selection sheet indicating which of the candidates they will be interviewing. The City Clerk will announce who will be interviewed at the same meeting. Candidates who receive four or more votes will be scheduled for an interview. Applicants 1. James Baer 2. Arne Ballantine 3. Louis “Lou” Borrego 4. Ramarao Digumarthi 5. Hilary Gans 6. Timothy Gray 7. Yidyabhusan “Bhusan” Gupta 8. Mark Harris 9. Natalia Kachenko 10. Walter Loewenstein 11. Marianne Wu Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: UAC Baer, James (PDF) Attachment B: UAC Ballantine, Arne (PDF) Attachment C: UAC Borrego, Louis (PDF) Attachment D: UAC Digumarthi, Ramarao (PDF) Attachment E: UAC Gans, Hilary (PDF) Attachment F: UAC Gray, Timothy (PDF) Attachment G: UAC Gupta, Vidyabhusan 'Bhusan' (PDF) Attachment H: UAC Harris, Mark (PDF) Attachment I: UAC Kachenko, Natalia (PDF) Attachment J: UAC Loewenstein, Walter (PDF) Attachment K: UAC Wu, Marianne (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 ) Personal Information Name: james e Baer Address: 555 Bryant Street #348, Palo Alto CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650-814-7709 0 Home 10office Phone: E-mail: jimbaer@paloaltolanduse.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?181Yes0No ) l}.J:T.V 01· PA t•P1 .1., • ·t-.LO Al1'0.CA en T CLERl\'S OFFICE f 5 JUL 30 AM fl: 2(i): Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City �alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes�No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?�YesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?�Yes[:JNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?l8:,lves0No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? 0community Group 0 Email from City Clerk D Palo Alto Weekly Other: Email from manager in Utilities Departmetn Doaily Post Deity Website DFlyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: JD/MBA Stanford 1978 Practice law in Palo Alto 1978-1986 Largest Palo Alto developer/consultant by number of projects well over 125 lnvovled with Commercial development adn construcion of many new homes Served on 25 Palo Alto and community Non-Profit Boards including Peninsula Open Space Trust, American Leadership Forum founder of two sustainable design nonprofit organizatoins: Wave One; and Downtown Palo Alto Net Zero Energy I own only 4 commercial properties so my conflict by having some few buidligns that may be subject to City laws or energy policies will not influence my decision about how to be effective with new ordinances and incentive programs. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission ) ) Employment Present or Last Employer: self Occupation: real estate consultant exclusively in Palo Alto Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have served on 25 community nonprofit organizations including Peninsula Open Space Trust, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Avenidas, American Leadership Forum, provide a schedule of nonprofit organizatoins for which I have served on the Board. Currently on Gil Friend's Advisory Board for his energy and environmenal policies 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have been the most active participant in sustainabliiy programs for Downtown Palo Alto having founded Wave One in 2008 Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission ) ) 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. the City council action on retaining the Feed in Tarrif fee for solar energy generated privately 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to work on legislation that can compel energy reduction or use of renewable energy and electric car and bicyle use enhancement. I would also want ot work on effective incentive programs . I think it is time to phase in compulsory sustainable design and renewable energy legislation. Compatable to federal American with Disabilties compulory changed to buildings, the initial response was difficult but ADA has phased into full implementation and acceptance as a primary feature of plannign new or renovated properties, with some sensible exemptions. I think we need to lead with legislative outcomes. Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission ) ) 4. Utllltles Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have no experience with City utilities documetns other than the Feed in Tarrif Ordinance for renewable solar energy installations. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: J8J. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 1Doffice Phone: E-mail: Signature: ___ Q.....-tt�-tt�----�-_.__ ____________ oate: July 2a, 201s Page4 Utility Advisory Commission ) ) JAMES E. BAER A LIFE SERVING NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ) ) 1. Acterra, Action for a Healthy Planet: Advisory Board. (oldest Palo Alto environmental organization -many shared projects). 2. American Leadership Forum, Silicon Valley: Class V. (twenty community leaders from Santa Clara County are appointed to this national organization for one year for shared leadership and community enhancement training programs. ALF is now in it's 20th year). 3. American Prairie Foundation: Initial Advisory Board. (based in Bozeman Montana, CEO sought inspiration and funds from Silicon Valley leaders. Yi dozen planning sessions in Montana. Now, with nearly 500,000 acres naturally preserved for Bison and native animals). 4. American Red Cross, Palo Alto Chapter: Advisory Board. (expanding outreach and consideration of facility needs and locations.) 5. Avenidas, Senior Care and Services: Board Member. (active on Board for Senior Services and with a second facility in Mt. View. 6. Chamber of Commerce, Palo Alto: Board Member. (as one of 4-5 most knowledgeable and most politically effective, Jim is often given assignments.) 7. City of Palo Alto appointed member of committee to evaluate Stanford's General Use Permit. (advocate policies for Stanford areas controlled by Santa Clara County, not by Palo Alto.) 8. City of Palo Alto School Board Audit Committee for Bond for Excellence: Board Member 9. Downtown Environmental Action Project (DEAP): Founder, Board Member. (Founder of highly publicized early efforts -recycling for all of Downtown. Successful recruitment of 75% of Downtown businesses. Jim funded about $75,000 as the exclusive donor.) 10. Grand Boulevard Task Force: Advisory Board. (Nationally recognized and nationally and locally funded public transit work on how El Camino should be zoned and developed in San Mateo County and Santa Clara County with transit and business nodes coordinated.) 11. Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford: Board Member. (Stanford University Board to help guide and place students for public service internships.) 12. Home Equity Loan Program for Seniors; Senior Coordinating Council: Board Member. (early legal Reverse Mortgage program funded by Hewlett and Packard foundations that has raised $10M for Avenidas and allowed seniors to remain in their homes with no family disputes. Jim helped with necessary California usury laws for HELPS and recruited family lawyers to structure a safe program.) 13. Leadership Palo Alto: Board Member & Instructor. (organization conducted monthly teaching sessions about Palo Alto organizations and progressive policies and how to become strong community leaders. We spawned many Council Members and other prominent leaders.) 14. Mid-Peninsula Support Network: Founder Board Member. (this was the first Battered Women's consulting organization that soon provided a local shelter in North Santa Clara County.) ,_ ) ) 15. Oshman Family Jewish Community Center: Board Member. (critical member of real estate and construction team for $300M project -and remains on Board.) 16. Palo Alto Community Fund: Advisory Member. (foundation that makes grants to Palo Alto community and non-profit organizations with some counseling of organizations or volunteering for core features some organizations.) 17. Palo Alto Housing Corporation: Board Member. (Palo Alto's oldest affordable housing developer, operator and advocate for low income housing. Jim often performed sophisticate legal tasks and helped negotiate with some providers of housing under City mandate.) 18. Palo Altans for Government Effectiveness; Founder and Board Member. (during period of high community policy divisiveness, PAGE held neighborhood meetings and wrote articles and editorials for local newspapers.) 19. Project Victory: Board Member. (Dispute Resolution activists and author of "The Great Turning".) 20. Peninsula Open Space Trust: Board Member (Most successful private purchaser of coastal or forested land using easements or protective covenants for 1000s of acres and, perhaps $500,000,000 raised for local preservation. I was also pro bono attorney for a few projects) 21. Santa Clara County Community Foundation: Advisory Board (One of the largest Foundations in California -joined with San Mateo County Foundation and is now Silicon Valley Community Foundation. I helped with early strategy and Palo Alto presence.) 22. Street Soldiers & Omega Boys' Club: Advisor. (Dr. Joe Marshall now joined by Dr. Clarence Jones (MLK close friend and MLK's personal lawyer and speech writer now author) provide a safe place for schooling, dining and substitute parenting for seriously at risk gang youths -176 have now by 2012 completed college and 1000s have been saved from prison or death or violence. What an honor to become a close friend and advisor to Dr. Marshall and Dr. Jones.) 23. Wave One, Businesses Leading Environmental Change: Founder, Board Member. (Small Businesses Leading Environmental Change founded by Jim in 2007 to enlist and certify over 100 business in Downtown Palo Alto to comply with County and other energy use and environmental standards. Jim has funded this organization with over $300,000 as its exclusive donor.) 24. Women in Transition: Founder, Board Member. (Executive Director, Celeste Brody, DeAnza faculty, recruited Jim as pro bono attorney & Board Member to help women recently divorced, relocating, or changing jobs to find counseling, affordable housing and employment.) 25. Downtown Palo Alto Net Zero Energy: Founder and Advisor ', ) Honors: 1990: Business Environmental Award; Conservationist of the Year. 1991: Child Care Task Force Initial Honoree. 1991: City of Palo Alto Conservation Recognition. 2001: Canopy, Trees for Palo Alto Achievement Award. ) 2011: Tall Tree Lifetime Achievement Award as Outstanding Business Professional; Chamber of Commerce, City of Palo Alto, and Palo Alto Weekly. Teaching: Adjunct Professor, Stanford Law School: 2004, 2005, 2007 Real Estate Transactions Lecturer, Stanford University 1972: The Hero In American Literature Teacher, The Jewish Community Center 1980: The Jewish-American LiteraryHero City Clerk's Office 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 PALO ALTO LAND USE CONSULTING Re: Application for Utilities Advisory Commission To Whom It May Concern: I did not know how to sign the document electroncially so I provide this readable version with an original signature by me. In this period of my partial retirement, I have ample time to be a full participant on the Commission and can plan future travels that will not include the first Wednesday of a month. However, I have vacations planned with family that will have we out of town the first Wednesday of September (US Open in New York) and the first Wednesday of November (India). Thereafter, I will plan my schedule to leave the first Wednesday of a month available for the Commission. Thank you for considering my application. Sincerely yours, 555 Bryant Street, Box 348, Palo Alto, CA 94301 I CELL: 650.814.7709 jimbaer@paloaltoland.com I www.paloaltoland.com Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission Bloom Energy Vice President, System Engineering - Serving ECE (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) advisory board for Rutgers University - Participate in volunteer activities at my son's school, Duveneck Elementary. I have a life-long passion for working to find ways to achieve the highest possible efficiency in power (generation and usage), water, heating and transportation. Early in my life, these activities were focused on my activities aboard ship and while standing watch in the engineering spaces aboard the USS Florida. Later in my life, I have had the opportunity to focus my career on development of highly efficient distributed generators. I recognize that for anyone making a set of utility decisions involves an extremely complex set of decisions. Among the complexities, I realize that there is challenges with selecting among several potentially impactful options -- and also the importance of continuing a strategy long enough to achieve meaningful results. Because I have had the opportunity to work on utilities at many scales (multi-megawatt scale in the Navy; multi-kilowatt to megawatt scale in recent years in engineering development; and kilowatt scale with my family at home), I believe my background sets me up to contribute to the efforts of Utilities Advisory Commission. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission I am extremely interested in the electrification initiative being pursued by the Commission. Shifting point-of-use applications to electric equipment clearly places Palo Alto in a position where the highest possible methods of generation can be brought to bear. At the same time, I can certainly see the challenges with achieving this objective. When considering the energy budget of a typical household, electrification of vehicles changes a huge portion. Yet, I can also appreciate the infrastructure strain, local load pocket issues and time-of-use considerations among other complexities must be carefully considered. My specific goals in serving the Commission and Palo Alto would be to do my best to ensure that sufficient information is always available to recommend Commission strategies and choices to overcome challenges. I have come to appreciate that often when considering complex challenges such as utility optimization, it is an over-simplification to assume that very careful attention has not already been paid to important considerations. I work hard in all of my activities to ensure that information is shared and presented in ways which allow everyone to participate in decisions. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Personal Information Name: Louis (Lou) J. Borrego Address: Cell Phone: _X_ Home / _x_ Office Phone: Home: Office: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? _X_ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes _X_ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? _X_ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes _X_ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes _X_ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? _X_ Community Group _X_ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Education: MBA courses completed, Santa Cara University Bachelors of Science- San Jose State University High School – Palo Alto Senior High School Work Experience: Over 40 years experience in proposing to the US Government and negotiating resulting contracts. Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Lockheed Martin Advance Technology Center (Palo Alto, Ca.) Occupation: Contracts Negotiator, Staff Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Participated in the Ventura Association neighborhood organization in 1970, 1980 AND 1990. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? The ability to identify problems and suggest ways to correct them with the community in mind. I feel that the use of utilities as a whole is not very clear to many residence of the city and more time should be taken to explain the way the City is bandling the utilities . A lot can be done with meetings in various locations in the city and with flyers. As we are all aware, the cost of utilities is dear to all of us. Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Unable to open LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I think the Palo Alto Utilities organization should be more transparent to the residents of the city. The residence city as a whole has suspensions of how utilities used are measured and the resulting charge for there use. Page 4 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. Page 5 Utility Advisory Commission The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR X I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 650-776-6142 __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: ljborrego1@comcast.net Signature:__________________________ Date: _7/30/15____________ ) ) Personal Information Name: Ramarao Digumarthi ClJY OF Pf\lO l\IJO. CA enY CLERK'S OPFlCE Address: 3744 starr king circle, Palo Alto, ca Cell Phone: 650-796-1039 15JUL 28 PH 3: 52 [8]Home 10omce Phone: 650-424-1304 E-mail: Rdigumarthi@yahoo.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?l8]Yes0No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City 9f.Ji'alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?WYes�No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? Ovesl8J No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?OYeslE!No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yes[81No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Ocommunity Group Ooaily Post 0Email from City Clerk Deity Website 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Flyer Other: From a Friend List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I have PhD from Aero/Astro Dept. of Stanford University. I have worked in Power generation industry, and successfully supported the development, performance evaluation and bringing to market of a novel concept of improving gas turbine based power production. I also worked in renewable energy industry in to understand and model the wind turbine performance and design. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission ) Employment Present or Last Employer: Lockheed Martin ( last employer) Occupation: Sr. Staff Engineer ) Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am active member of local AYSO organization. I am also member of local PTA of both of my children schools (GUNN High and Fairmeadow Elementary). I am also a member of Amnesty international. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am interested electrical and water resources utilization. My interest is in improving efficiency of use and production electrical energy. As a long term Palo Alto resident, I am always interested in utility cost from customer point of view to purchase renewable electrical power. With my back ground in power generation (both gas based and renewable), I would be very much interested in long term electrical purchase (in the current drought) and utilization. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission ) ) 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Cost-effectiveness of electrification is interesting presentation. Presentation is basically increasing the electrical power utilization efficiency with point of view of non-changing carbon foot point. It is good if all electrical generation is of zero carbon foot-print, but most of the electrical generation is not renewable and it would be interesting to explore reduction of the carbon foot-print with increasing utilization of renewable energy. This point i� well explained by Commissioner Eglash comments. I agree with his comments. I would like to explore reduction of carbon foot-print in terms of societal effect of city's electrification concept. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to see UAC work towards customer friendly negative carbon foot-print. Being locally carbon neutral is good, the impact of it on the rest of the society also need to be taken into effect. The effect of carbon neutral stand on twenty four hour basis need to be evaluated ,i.e., the effect of peak utilization of electrical utilization and its effect on total carbon foot print. Page3 Utility Advisory Commission ,JI, ··i. ) 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have not read any of these reports and will read them if I am appointed to serve on the commission. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: J8L I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR .0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 1Qoffice Phone: E-mail: Page4 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: SBWMA aka RethinkWaste Occupation: Contracts Manager Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: As a founding member of Palo Alto Green Energy, I have been active in the effort to promote the anaerobic digestion of food waste at the Palo Alto waste water treatment facility. I was an appointed member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force that explored use of the City's composing facility, the land at Bixby Park, and the POTW for managing the City's own organic materials and participated in producing a report that has been used in the current waste water treatment plant planning. I am an active member of Acterra located in Palo Alto and have participated in the Business Environmental Awards Network (BEN) and a GIS mapping project San Francisquito Creek. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1991 and and civic minded and engaged in the community. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? The PAUAC has the role providing advice on the use of funds to provide electric, gas and water services in a way that provides good value for the rate payer and for the protection of the environment. As an environmental engineer, I perform this same role on a daily basis in my current employment for the South Bay Waste Management Authority, a JPA composed of 12 cities directly north of Palo Alto in San Mateo County where am seek to provide municipalities the planning, administration and rate setting support for of the solid waste/recycling services all while ensuring that the public funds as spent efficiently to maximize convenience and environmental benefit. Additionally, over the past 9 years in my position I have had hands-on experience managed several large projects including: -the $55M demolition and construction of new solid waste handling infrastructure and buildings. -the installation of one of the peninsula's largest PV systems (750 kW), -design and installation of a 10,000 gallon rainwater harvest tank and garden, -consideration of a $2M battery/energy storage system to shift electrical load, -installation of a $200K LED lighting retrofit project, analysis -planning for conversion of a 100 truck fleet and 1 M gallon per year diesel fuel station to CNG. -and,I a current project involves developing a project to convert the Agency's organic waste stream into energy using anaerobic digestion technology. This $30M project will boost the diversion from current of 50% to one of the highest in California and beyond the State's 75% waste diversion goal. I believer that my current work and interest in environmental conservation lends itself to provide assistance and advice to the goals of the Palo Alto Utilities. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission Personal Information Name: Timothy Gray Address:4173 Park Blvd. Cell Phone: 650 493-3000 l8J Home 1Doffice Phone: 650 858-2738 E-mail: Timothygray@sbcglobal.net Are you a Palo Alto Resident?i8]Yes0 No GllY OF fDALO Al.JO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 HAR -2 AH Ill: 34 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢.li>alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?WYes�No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?IE}YesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; · 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8JNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yesl&!No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission'? 0community Group 0 Email from City Clerk 0 Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post OcityWebsite 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Certified Public Accountant, Consultant to Large Companies throughout the nation, avid interest in Environmental impact of community energy policies, customer of Palo Alto Natural Gas Vehicle station, Palo Alto Home Owner, and Participant in Palo Alto Green. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Treasury Advocates, Self Employed, Occupation: Consultant to San Mateo Medical Center and other hospitals. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Active advocate of fairness, transparency, and integrity in local government. Frequent speaker at City Council Meetings. Former candidate for Palo Alto City Council. Palo Alto Utilities customer for 20 years. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am interested in pursuing and maintaining zero emission in the least costly basis. I am interested in being an advocate for the residential customers. This would include making sure that all transactions between the Utilities Enterprise and the Palo Alto General Fund are fairly reflected in arm-length transactions, are transparent, and fairly reflect the economics of the transactions. As a former journalist, I have experience in communicating information of community interest. As a Corporate finance leader, I am practiced in communicating complex economic transactions in sim le and understandable terms that deliver a common understandin to stake-holders with all levels of experience. My corporate career has been dedicated to promoting a customer-focus approach to service in all areas of professional performance. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. The conversion of Palo Green into a new way to engage citizens in purchasing green energy and generally speaking, opportunities to purchase carbon offsets. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to prove and communicate to the Utility customers that they are receiving the lowest rates possible as a result of innovative and efficient operations of the Utility Enterprise. I would be very interested in finding the economic balance that would allow the City to move forward with undergrounding utility lines, and to promote the roll-out of greater access to the fiber-optics network in an economically responsible way. Advocate for efficient Utility operations to preserve local ownership of the Utilities, and to deliver an "ownership dividend" to residential and corporate customers. To the extent possible, I would advocate for policies that increased solar and promoted alternative energy sources, within reasonable economic contraints. I would champion co · · to within very pragmatic parameters. Page3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have general awareness of these concepts, but have not studied or had experience with these plans. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: JEI. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact . . . Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 100ffice Phone: E-mail: Page4 Utility Advisory Commission Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Utility Advisory Commission Personal Information Name: Mark Harris Address: 1417 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650 327-7066 IZJ Home 10ornce Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?�YesO No 15 JUL 29 PM 3: 39 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢..fi>alo �, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?LJYes�No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? 18Jves0No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yes!Z!No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?OYeslZJNo How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Ocommunity Group O oaily Post ll!Email from City Clerk OcityWebsite D Palo Alto Weekly D Flyer Other: Utilities staff member. We discussed water rates and he encouraged me to apply. List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Sequoia Union HSD. Woodside High School -retired Occupation: Math Teacher Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have been initmately involved with Kara, a premier grief support organization located in Palo Alto since 1980. I served on the board of directors from 1993-2008 and served as secretary, treasurer and president. I am currently chair of the advisory committee. I have been a member of the Palo Alto Mediation Program since 2001 and served as co-chair. I am currently an emeritus member. I am a dues paying member of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association. As a family, we contribute time and money to such organizations as the Palo Alto Community Fund, the Peninsula Open Space Trust, the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula and the Junior League. I have also served on the Duveneck Site Council and as a cub scout den leader. My most recent Civic involvement was as a Commissioner for the City's Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission from 2010-2012. I served as chair of the Finance Committee and co-chair of the Public Safety Working Group. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? One of the unique and outstanding aspects of our Community (among many!) is that we own and operate our municipal utilities. I was very fortunate to work for the City of Palo Alto for 14 years, 11 of which were in the Utilities Department and subsequently as Utilities Director for the City of Mountain View for 5 years. I was directly involved in most of the issues facing Utilities today and was part of initiating many of the current efforts. I would like to be part of the effort to enhance an already outstanding operation to continue to demonstrate how local control can create high value, responsive, critical services in a very business like manner. I have always found Utilities issues significant and compelling and very consistent with my environmental, engineering and business background. I have the time, energy and experience to be a contributing member of the Utilities Advisory Commission and would be honored to serve. Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. This is a difficult question because there are many that I am interested in. However, the most current issue of interest to me was the item discussed at the June meeting regarding proposed water rates for 2015. The issue, as it became public in a subsequent late June mailer to all Utilities customers, was presented in a very complex, confusing and incomplete matter. The issue of water rates under the current drought situation is one of a myriad of issues including financial integrity of the Water Enterprise, supply reliability and community response to the drought. This is of particular interest not only to me, but the entire community. I really felt the information should have been presented better and the rate issue could have been dealt with in a less convoluted manner. I can discuss further if invited to interview for a Commission appointment. I want to emphasize that the drought, related actions and rate implications are very sensitive issues. It is important that the City show leadership and clarity on how it will address the drought. I appreciate the fact that the City has mandated only a few very practical and reasonable water use restrictions and lets its customers figure out other measures to meet our reduction goals. However, I feel to maintain confidence in the City's leadership, that all aspects must be clear. A better job could have been done regarding rates and after talking with staff they tended to agree. Here is an area where I feel I cano 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? In looking over the Utilities Strategic Plan, there are a multitude of goals for the City, Commission and staff to address. Several goals that are of particular interest to me. One area is water -its reliability, cost, quality and both short and long term supplies. I am interested in deployment of reclaimed work. Having worked with it more than 30 years, I am concerned that it has not been utilitized more to date, in spite of several major intervening drought cycles. Secondly, I recall that a few years ago we had a major Citywide electricity outgage due to a plane crashing into our one transmission line. There was considerable discussion regarding construction or procurement of an additional feed. I have not heard much information on it recently, but would like to be assured that it has been addressed or see this item resolved. To assist in making progress on these and other issues, as a new commissioner I would start by finding out from the Commission's Chair what specific goals have the highest priority to the City as directed by the City Council. It would then be up to me to come up to speed on these issues through discussions with other commissioners and the staff. If there is goal or two that I have a particular interest in or experience with, I could play a lead role in that area when asked by the chair. To assure progress, these items should have agenda time at each Commission meeting. Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have perused these documents. Suffice it to say, they are complex and filled with substantial information which will take some time and study to fully understand so that I can provide meaningful input as a commissioner. I reviewed parts of these in the past but the ones I have the most familiarity with are the Utilities Strategic Plan and the Urban Water Management Plan. These are documents I actualy .worked with, although in a less comprehensive and sophisticated form, when I was part of City of Palo Alto staff and the Utilities Director in Mountain View. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: .t!J. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 1Doffice Phone: E-mail: Signature: __ !)&/. ______ · _. ___ K_ . .___�.,,,,....· ........ 11_.-_____ Date: _7-_29_-2_01_5 _ Page4 Utility Advisory Commission ) 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I view this as an opportµnity to contribute to my local community integrating conservation, community, culture and commerce in developing sustainable practice 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Implementing elements of lean management that integrates set of activities designed to achieve re;3sonable waste reduction and energy conservation using minimal resources and funds Consolidating commission commitment to empowerment, education, and environmental awareness programs, 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK . The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission ) Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR ® I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Palo Alto resident Cell Phone: n/a 0 Home I 0 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: Date: Page3 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: £ l e&�v � c. �w e. R e?e� J:�74-! t ..J-..e.) Co 10u.3.taS Occupation: A€/;,� f "'-1i"'-e.W'-' a-ul '1-rril,le� P��r'c.,.+ Describe your involvement In community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: µ,� 0 W'" ew;L ? \.wl."" '4" � i e � r' i<Uv ., J 'f N wf �o lLo cV \ (;7' } l l 'I � (} 1. What Is It about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific Interest to you, and why? fV\ \t- � l� I"� s> �., v.-L U &-e. w � � l;,. 5-o-c.� � Q_ll\.-e.VI.'(� � . .e-le.&-t.-.'c. ·l� vJ.tftv ewtrk.zJ,, � sa.ie.3:�-cu.Jh.i/e.� �eeka-0� .. .., � J.ewi.c:;,1'' c, � i'vt:fe,�4F� �� Page2 I l!lllht Artvle>nn• r.nmmi<><>inn \ 2. Please describe an Issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular Interest to you an� describe_why _you are Interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting 4. Utllltles Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these 11 documents Is not required for selection. Employment Present or Last Employer: General Electric Company occupation: Managing Director, GE Ventures Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am on the advisory board for several different organizations. I have been on the Advisory Board of the Cleantech Open since the organization was founded in 2005. It is a non-profit organization with the mission of supporting energy innovation and entrepreneurship. In addition to helping provide Board level advice on strategy and planning, I have been an active mentor for the community and judge for their competitions. In addition, I am on the Advisory Board for the University of British Columbia where I act as an advisor for the Dean of Applied Science (Engineering and Nursing) on strategic plan and initiatives. I am also a Charter Member of the C100 which supports Canadian entrepreneurs with mentoring and networking in the bay area and helps build a bridge between start-up companies in Canada and the bay area. Finally, I have two daughters (ages 8, 12) attending local schools in Palo Alto and I volunteer at their schools. 1. What Is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am interested in serving on the Utilities Advisory Commission because it has the ability to meaningfully impact the residents and businesses of Palo Alto and the broader community. Management and development of energy and water resources are important issues and I would like to support my local community develop and execute plans. I bring significant relevant experience across a number of dimensions. I have expertise in a broad array of energy and water technologies through my background in engineering and my investing experience focused on energy and industrial technology. I also have significant experience with communications infrastructure and technologies as both a working engineer and start-up technology executive. Finally, I have deep experience with planning and operations as a management consultant, start-up executive, and start-up investor and board member. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested In It. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK The UAC addresses important issues that are of interest to me. One recent example is the cost-effectiveness of electrification options for appliances and passenger vehicles in single family residential homes. This is a great example of some of the key questions around energy -how can we minimize our environmental impact while still maintaining reliable and economic options for our residents. The issue also requires decision making while future technology options (e.g. role of energy storage to firm renewables) are still unknown. As a result, this issue is very important to both our individual residents and our broader global community. In addressing these kinds of issues, Palo Alto has shown its willingness and capability to lead on finding a path to low-impact environmental energy options while making sure that our energy supply remains secure and cost-effective. The UAC also has a very unusual charter and addresses a very wide spectrum of topics. I am also very interested in the Fiber-to-the-premise initiative. In addition to my background in energy technology, I also have deep background in optical communications. The proliferation of high bandwidth communications infrastructure has really transformed our economy and extending the capability to the premise has the potential to be similarly disruptive. However, it is critical that new services are provided in a manner that is fair and equitable to all residents and does not inadvertently disadvantage residents with lower resources. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you accomplishing this? If appointed, I would like to see the Continue to lead on clean energy goals while maintaining energy stability and cost effectiveness • Prioritize resource efficiency and explore new opportunities in smart infrastructure Maintain focus on ensuring that residents are treated equally and policies do not inadvertently penalize less advantaged residents. To achieve these goals, I would speak with current Commissioners and staff to understand current priorities and plans and would then work in partnership with them (and city council as appropriate) to set appropriate priorities and execution plan for new initiatives. Page3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I do not have direct experience with any of these documents Consent to on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: .Q I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR .t!l I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10office Phone: . E-mail: marianne.wu@gmail.com Signature: Date: 7 /30/2015 Page4 Utility Advisory Commission City of Palo Alto (ID # 5665) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Seismic Building Inventory Contract Award Title: Approval to Award Contract Number C15158600 to Rutherford & Chekene in the Amount of $129,432 for Identification of Potentially Seismically Vulnerable Buildings and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance Appropriating $29,432 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to enter into a contract with Rutherford + Chekene for an amount not to exceed $129,432 to review and make recommendations on the City’s current Seismic Hazards Identification program and inventory of potentially seismically vulnerable buildings (Attachment A) and approve a related Budget Amendment Ordinance in the General Fund for $29,432 (Attachment B). Executive Summary Following City Council’s direction, the Policy and Services Committee met on December 9, 2014 to discuss the City’s seismic buildings inventory and program. Based on the Committee’s discussion, staff prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a specialized consultant to review and make recommendations on the City’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and inventory of structurally deficient buildings. The RFP also requested recommendations on how to approach a mandatory, voluntary or combination of both, compliance programs for seismic upgrades. Five proposals were received and carefully evaluated. Of the five proposals, staff has determined that the Rutherford + Chekene submittal was the proposal that best met the requirements of the RFP and that the firm will provide the vision, design expertise and experience, and communication tools to provide informative data and recommendations for future policy decisions. Background In 1986, the City adopted an ordinance categorizing seismically vulnerable buildings (Municipal Code Section 16.42). The ordinance required property owners to prepare an engineering analysis of their buildings and provided incentives for owners to address identified deficiencies. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Twenty-three (23) of the buildings on the inventory that remain have not received any type of retrofit to date and many of the retrofitted buildings may remain somewhat vulnerable. There are also building typologies that were not included in the original inventory which are now recognized as vulnerable, requiring additional analysis and an update to the City’s inventory and ordinance. On September 15, 2014, the City Council made a referral to the Policy and Services Committee to discuss the following: 1. Identify and prioritize buildings that pose potential risks in earthquakes, including soft- story buildings and other types of construction. 2. Review and summarize best practices from other government agencies regarding prioritization of various seismically vulnerable buildings, including retrofit incentives and requirements. 3. Review current or pending State legislation related to soft-story buildings and other structurally deficient buildings. On December 9, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee (Staff Report 5293) recommended the City Council authorize an immediate Request for Proposal (RFP) to prepare an update to the City’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program (Ordinance 3666) and update the inventory of structurally deficient buildings in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial areas of the city, categorizing building typologies as follows: a. URM (Unreinforced Masonry) b. Soft-Story c. Tilt-Up Construction d. Non-Ductile Concrete e. Steel Moment Resisting Frame Discussion Out of concern for Palo Alto’s proximity to both the San Andreas and Hayward faults, the City Council adopted the Seismic Hazards and Identification Program (Municipal Code Section 16.42) in 1986. The ordinance was established to promote public safety by identifying those buildings in Palo Alto that exhibit structural deficiencies by determining the severity and extent of those deficiencies in relation to their potential for causing loss of life or injury. The ordinance created a mandatory evaluation and reporting program and incentives for property owners to voluntarily upgrade their structurally deficient buildings. Three categories of buildings were identified: Category I Buildings: Buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry (except for those smaller than 1,900 square feet with six (6) or fewer occupants) Category II Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1935 containing one hundred (100) or more occupants City of Palo Alto Page 3 Category III Buildings: Buildings constructed prior to August 1, 1976 containing three hundred (300) or more occupants The categories were developed by a citizen’s committee, reviewed by staff and the City Council Policy and Services Committee, and adopted by the City Council. These categories were created to record known URM (unreinforced masonry) buildings and other potentially structurally-deficient buildings with high occupancies. Since that time, significant progress has been made in the seismic safety field, including better understanding of other types of vulnerabilities. The recent 4.0 magnitude Fremont earthquake on July 21, 2015, the 6.0 magnitude Napa earthquake on August 24, 2014, and identification of over 150 seismically vulnerable buildings in the August 2014 Office of Emergency Service’s Threats and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report, have highlighted the need for a review of the current ordinance and inventory, resulting in a more proactive approach to seismic safety. The City released an RFP on March 20, 2015. Five proposals were received and evaluated by a panel of seven City and contracted staff. Interviews were conducted with the top three firms: Firm Base Cost Proposal Rutherford + Chekene $99,532 Maffei $99,800 David Bonowitz $99,875 After careful analysis and verification of references, staff determined that Rutherford + Chekene had the most desirable proposal with the most relevant qualifications and experience. The proposal promised deliverables consistent with the intent of the RFP and references contacted from their past projects indicated Rutherford + Chekene was professional, timely, and cognizant of staying within budget. Rutherford + Chekene’s proposed team, including consultants, is made up of experts in the seismic management field from analysis and design to project management,construction managers and outreach experts. In the process of reviewing proposals, staff decided to include additional tasks for an additional $29,900, bringing the total contract award to $129,432. The additional tasks would allow for a more comprehensive survey and a more extensive review and analysis for greater insight into the seismic retrofit process. Summary of Proposed Work The contract calls for five primary tasks and 24 associated deliverables to be completed in 420 days, or a little over a year. The tasks and deliverables have been designed to review the City’s existing database of potential hazardous buildings, provide recommendations for further research on known seismic typologies and effected areas in the city, provide summaries of relevant existing and pending state legislation, a summary of present best practices from other City of Palo Alto Page 4 cities and agencies and provide recommendations for future ordinance and/or policy discussions to update Palo Alto’s seismic hazard ordinance. These efforts will be complemented via discussions between the consultant, city staff and an advisory group of approximately 5 -10 individuals consisting of repersentatives from the architecture, engineering, HOA and building ownership groups. The consultant will provide their expertise for community/stakeholder outreach and the required public hearings. The contract calls for up to six meetings with the public and up to ten meetings with the City, including the City Council and Policy and Services Committee, providing for multiple opportunities for discussion. Specifics on the tasks and deliverables can be found in the attached proposed contract (Attachment A). Following the consultant’s delivery of the database and recommendations, staff will return to the the Policy and Services Committee, as well as the entire Council, for a full discussion on key policy considerations, such as amortization and mandatory versus voluntary mitigation. The database, which provides an accurate background on the condition of hazardous buildings in the City, and the summary of existing legislation and best practices, will give the Council the necessary information to begin a robust and informed discussion about any potential ordinance or policy changes. Contract milestones were established so as to track and observe progress of the scope of work and the required deliverables: 60 days, 120 days, 150, 180, 240, 300, 360, and 420 days of awarding the contract. These milestones are described in contract Exhibit B, Schedule of Performance. Resource Impact The Development Services Department will be taking the lead on this activity but the budget of $100,000 was included in the Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Operating Budget for the Planning and Community Environment Department (PCE). Since the contract exceeds the budget by $29,432, staff requests that Council approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment B) to appropriate an addtional $29,432 to the PCE Fiscal Year 2016 Operating Budget. The additional amount has been justified by the following additional deliverables being requested of the consultant: 1. Based on review of a subset of available building records, they are to provide a document describing the existing seismic reports and quality of retrofits, including issues relevant to updating Palo Alto’s seismic risk mitigation program. ($1,920) 2. Provide a more extensive inventory database (for an additional 30 percent per class of vulnerable building type) with a higher level of data collection and analyses. ($20,100) 3. Provide a document describing the prototypical buildings that were developed, with plans and sketches documenting the conceptual retrofits, and a cost estimate. The document will provide a general discussion of issues related to working in occupied buildings. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Environmental Review Preparation of the report is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Implementation of report recommendations may require environmental review. Attachments: Attachment A: Contract C16158600 Rutherford Chekene (PDF) Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOCX) Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16158600 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 17th day of August, 2015, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE, a California corporation, located at 55 Second Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California, 94105 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to develop a comprehensive inventory of potentially hazardous buildings in the City of Palo Alto (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 ATTACHMENT A Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 2 SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two Dollars ($129,432.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 3 any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES (Not Applicable). If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: Sharyl Rabinovici, PhD Public Policy and Community Engagement Consultant (650) 207-6544 sjmr12@yahoo.com MMI Engineering GIS, Inventory, and Loss Estimation Consultant (714) 465-1391 HSeligson@MMIEngineering.com Vanir Construction Management Cost Consulting (916) 575-8888 Vahid.Sabati@vanir.com CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 2 SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Bret Lizundia as the Principal-in-Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Marko Schotanus as the Project Manger to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is George Hoyt, Development Services Department, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-2368. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, electronic files, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 5 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 6 expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 7 SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 8 additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 9 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Executive Principal Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 10 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. CONSULTANT shall develop a comprehensive inventory of potentially hazardous buildings in the City of Palo Alto, utilizing the existing CITY’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.42) and more traditional building typology approaches, with concentration toward multi-family (3 units or more), commercial, and industrial structures within the CITY’s boundaries. a) Review the existing seismic hazards building documentation and associated engineering evaluation reports and letters of intent for currently identified seismic hazardous buildings within the CITY. Also extensively review the current evaluation reports and retrofit designs associated with the currently identified seismic hazardous buildings within the CITY that have been seismically retrofitted since their initial identification. In addition, provide a document describing the available reports and quality of retrofit inclusive of relevant issues to updating Palo Alto’s seismic risk mitigation program. DELIVERABLES: Provide an editable inventory document updating the status of Palo Alto’s existing seismic hazardous inventories and the methods used to perform the previous seismic retrofits. Based on review of a subset of available building records, provide a document describing report and quality of retrofit and relevant issues to updating Palo Alto’s seismic risk mitigation program. b) Partially identify additional buildings in Palo Alto that may be vulnerable to seismic activity utilizing tax assessor’s records, building department permitting records, CITY GIS, Google maps, and site visits. These may include buildings constructed before 1930; buildings built to codes later found inadequate; pre-1940s URM buildings; pre-1980s concrete frame buildings; older soft stories; unbraced cripple walls; irregular buildings; hillside homes; older tilt-ups or precast concrete parking structures; older steel buildings; shorter buildings adjacent to taller, and collapse prone structures;. The CITY will attempt to provide GIS data that is anticipated to include address, latitude/longitude, number of stories, square footage, occupancy type, date of construction, and an attribute such as fire class that can be mapped indirectly by CONSULTANT to a Hazus building type. CONSULTANT will review a limited number of construction documents made available by the CITY. Buildings, such as condominiums, which may have different addresses but are part of the same building structure will be addressed in a more limited way. DELIVERABLES: Provide an inventory database of a representative sample (20 percent per class of vulnerable building type) of buildings including available attributes for all buildings in the sample to perform a loss estimate. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 11 Provide a more extensive inventory database (for an additional 30 percent per class of vulnerable building type) with a higher level of data collection and analyses. 2. Review existing and pending State legislation related to soft-story buildings and other structurally deficient buildings and provide a brief summary. DELIVERABLES: Provide a concise review of relevant and pending state legislation, with a summary that can be presented at community and staff meetings or in reports to Council. 3. Review present best practices among the cities/agencies in this area that require seismic retrofitting and provide incentives, and deliver a brief summary. DELIVERABLES: Provide a concise and practical written summary of what other cities and counties have done legislatively and programmatically to increase awareness about, assess, and motivate mitigation of seismically vulnerable buildings, both listing and helpfully classifying various approaches that have been used. 4. Advise the CITY of best practices for redeveloping the CITY’s existing Seismic Retrofit Program. a) Propose opportunities and strategies to engage Palo Alto’s stakeholders in improving awareness about earthquake risk, and to develop dialogue and collaboration that will lead to informed decisions for managing the seismic risk posed by Palo Alto’s buildings. The CITY will provide a list of stakeholder groups that should be considered. DELIVERABLES: Provide a recommended set of strategies for stakeholder engagement, including meeting agendas coordinated with Tasks 6, 7, and 8. Formal written minutes and summaries of meetings held will be prepared by the City; the consultant will review and edit the minutes and summaries. b) Estimate size and nature of losses from scenario earthquakes. DELIVERABLES: Initially, provide a report describing the expected losses in Palo Alto due to two scenario earthquakes, and a ranking of building classes for each type of loss quantity. Loss metrics will be damage ratio and dollar losses by building type. Later, a follow up report of results from cost-benefit analysis of mitigation DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 12 policies. An archived Hazus study region will be provided that can be opened with the Hazus software; It is assumed that the potential future user is sufficiently knowledgeable to use it . c) Identify the possible evaluation criteria and methodologies to evaluate potentially vulnerable buildings and determine relative risks. DELIVERABLES: Provide a preliminary list of potential categories, quantitative comparisons using FEMA P-154, loss estimates by category, simplified loss summaries and relative comparisons for stakeholder discussions, final list of categories and priorities, and a discussion of criteria/methodologies for use in determining whether and individual buildings are part of the selected categories. d) Define earthquake performance and resilience goals as well as interim and long-term objectives for Palo Alto’s building stock. DELIVERABLES: Proposed resilience goals and performance objectives for building categories pursuant to advancing community resilience, along with suggested timelines and targets that can be adopted as part of an overall seismic mitigation program. e) Prioritize identified buildings based on degree of expected risk. This will be addressed together with Task 4c; see Task 4c for description of deliverables. f) Suggest mandatory and/or voluntary measures to mitigate the identified risk and meet performance goals. DELIVERABLES: Provide a list of potential measures and key features that can be used by the CITY and for stakeholder discussions and final list of recommended measures. g) Suggest timelines for evaluation and mitigation measures. DELIVERABLES: Provide recommendations for categories and timelines to implement evaluation and mitigation measures that balance reducing risk with available capacity. h) Suggest various retrofit techniques based on industry standards. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 13 DELIVERABLES: Provide a document listing and summarizing available resources on typical seismic retrofit techniques. i) Develop prototype detailed retrofit designs and create a cost estimate for each class of vulnerable prototype building. Also outline potential benefits by method and building type. DELIVERABLES: Provide a document describing the recommended seismic improvements, and develop cost estimates for each class of vulnerable prototype building. Also identify the effectiveness of such improvements as to how it will meet Palo Alto’s resilience goals. Provide a document describing the prototypical buildings that were developed, with plans and sketches documenting the conceptual retrofits, and a cost estimate the document will provide a general discussion of issues related to working in occupied buildings. j) Provide a worst-case analysis (obstacles due to building proximity to other structures, prohibitively costly retrofit strategies). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for each policy option will be evaluated. DELIVERABLES: Provide a one-page summary of the results of the SWOT analysis for each of the policy options. k) Outline other key management considerations, including replacement of vulnerable buildings, emergency preparedness, fires following earthquakes, aftershock risks, water damage, nonstructural and contents losses, social and financial implications, earthquake insurance, green buildings, sustainability, and historic preservation. DELIVERABLES: Provide a list and summary of other key management issues besides inventories, loss estimates, and seismic evaluation and retrofitting that should be considered in developing Palo’s Alto updated Seismic Risk Mitigation Program. l) Develop a plan for the CITY to manage seismic upgrades and monitor progress for all identified vulnerable buildings over their life span. DELIVERABLES: DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 14 Provide a management plan with recommendations for managing and monitoring the progress of the seismic risk mitigation program. m) Define the roles, responsibilities, professional qualifications, and training of CITY staff and/or consultants needed to effectively manage the Program. DELIVERABLES: The CONSULTANT team will work with CITY staff to clearly define roles and responsibilities and necessary staffing levels and approaches. This will be part of the management plan developed for Task 4l. n) Suggest outreach methods to educate building owners about earthquake resistance. DELIVERABLES: Provide a summary of recommended outreach methods tailored to Palo Alto. o) Suggest possible incentive options that have been successfully employed in other communities. Work with Planning/Community Environment and Administrative Services Departments on potential incentives to provide upgrades. Communicate effectively with property owners and tenants on process results and incentives/methodologies. DELIVERABLES: Provide a summary of potential incentive options that have been used in other communities and recommendations tailored specifically to Palo Alto based on CITY and stakeholder feedback. 5. Provide recommendations for retrofit and the potential hazard of single family dwellings consisting of adobe or hollow clay block construction, unbraced cripple walls and unreinforced masonry foundations and fireplace chimneys. DELIVERABLES: Provide a concise and practical written summary of available prescriptive and performance based retrofit standards that may be used for retrofit of single-, two-, and three-family dwellings. 6. Conduct up to six meetings with a professional advisory group and citizens to discuss findings and recommendations from the study. The CITY will provide administrative support for meetings in Tasks 6, 7 and 8, including arranging for facilities, technical support at facilities, supplies, copies of documents, recruitment of participants, reminders, follow-ups, thank you notes, web updates and preparation of minutes. In addition, as the project evolves, the CITY and DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 15 consultant may jointly decide it is in the project interest to adjust the split of meetings between Tasks 6, 7, and 8, while keeping the total not to exceed to the same aggregate number. DELIVERABLES: Participate in meetings and provide recommended agendas and presentation materials 7. Conduct up to six working meetings or conference calls with staff on development of the Seismic Risk Mitigation Program. DELIVERABLES: Participate in meetings and provide recommended agendas and presentation materials 8. Prepare and present presentations at up to six to ten meetings with Staff, Policy and Services Committee, and CITY Council. It is anticipated that there will be up to two meetings with the Policy and Services Committee and up to two meetings with the CITY Council, with the remaining meetings involving preparation efforts with Staff. DELIVERABLES: Participate in meetings and provide recommended agendas and presentation materials DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 16 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Interim Submittal Milestones and Deliverables Timeline Conduct initial meeting with City Staff and Advisory Group Within 60 days of award of contract Provide draft version of building inventory (Task 1 a and 1 b) and draft summaries for Tasks 2 and 3 Within 120 days of award of contract Begin community engagement process with first public meeting besides Advisory Group meetings Within 150 days of award Provide final version of building inventory with prioritization (Task 1 a and 1 b) and final summaries for Tasks 2 and 3 Within 180 days of award of contract Provide draft version of best practices for updating and enhancing the City's existing Seismic Retrofit Program (Task 4) Within 240 days of award of contract Complete process of obtaining community input Within 300 days of award Provide final documents and response to community concerns Within 360 days of award Develop supporting documents and assist in preparing staff reports for Policy and Services Committee and City Council Meetings. Also patriciate in meetings. (Task 8) Within 420 days of award DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 17 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $129,432.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 19 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE PERSONNEL *RATE PER HOUR Executive Principals .............................................................................................................. $210 to $240 Principals ............................................................................................................................... $180 to $210 Senior Engineers ................................................................................................................... $135 to $180 Design Engineers .................................................................................................................. $105 to $135 Revit/CADD Specialists......................................................................................................... $108 to $160 OTHER PROJECT EXPENSES Mileage ...........................................................................................Authorized IRS Reimbursement Rate Incidental Expenses ..................................................................................................Actual cost plus 10% (Reproduction, Processing, Postage, Delivery, etc.) Sharyl Rabinovici Schedule of Rates Vanir Construction Management Schedule of Rates MMI Engineering Schedule of Rates RATE PER HOUR RATE PER HOUR RATE PER HOUR DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 20 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 21 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: 97CC9E57-AD10-4384-865A-BC6AB91B6D49 1 5665/mb Revised July 13, 2015 Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 BY TRANSFERRING $29,432 FROM THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STABLIZATION RESERVE TO THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT FOR A SEISMIC INVENTORY STUDY. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2015 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2016; and B. Following City Council direction, the Policy and Services Committee met on December 9, 2014 to discuss the City’s seismic buildings inventory and program; and C. Based on the Committee’s discussion, staff prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) to update to the City’s Seismic Hazards Identification Program and the inventory of structurally deficient buildings; and D. Of the five proposals received, the Rutherford & Chekene submittal was the proposal that best met the requirements of the RFP at a cost of $129,432; and E. The Fiscal Year 2016 Planning and Community Environment department budget includes $100,000 for this work. Therefore, an additional $29,432 is required to complete the study. SECTION 2. The Planning and Community Environment Department budget is hereby increased by Twenty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two Dollars ($29,432) and the ending fund balance in the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is reduced by Twenty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two Dollars ($29,432). SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 4. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). // // // // ATTACHMENT B 2 5665/mb Revised July 13, 2015 INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 5963) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of New Interconnection Agreement for Electric Transmission Related Services Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend and Execute as Necessary a New Interconnection Agreement with the Northern California Power Agency and Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Electric Transmission Related Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to amend and execute on behalf of the City the New Interconnection Agreement (Attachment B) in its substantive form and to amend and execute operational and procedural appendices to the New Interconnection Agreement as necessary. Executive Summary The Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and certain NCPA member cities1 are parties to Service Agreement No. 17 under the PG&E Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 (Interconnection Agreement). The Interconnection Agreement contains the terms and conditions under which PG&E and participating NCPA members, including Palo Alto, coordinate the operations and electrical interconnections to ensure safe and reliable transmission between their respective electric systems. Due to the impending expiration of the existing Interconnection Agreement, NCPA and PG&E have worked to develop a new Interconnection Agreement (New Interconnection Agreement). Pending review and approval by FERC, the New Interconnection Agreement is set to become effective November 1, 2015 for a term of ten years. Council approval of the attached resolution is necessary to allow for the timely and proper execution of the New Interconnection 1 The NCPA Member Customers are the Cities of Alameda, Biggs, Gridley, Healdsburg, Lodi, Lompoc, Palo Alto, Ukiah, and Plumas Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Agreement thus assuring the continued delivery of safe and reliable electricity to Palo Alto customers. Background In 2002, Council approved the existing Interconnection Agreement (Resolution 8200). The Interconnection Agreement became effective on September 1, 2002, and was set to expire ten years later. However, because of the complex nature of negotiating a replacement interconnection agreement, PG&E requested, and FERC granted, several extensions. The final extension is set to expire on October 31, 2015. The New Interconnection Agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office and approved in substantial form by the NCPA Commission (see Attachment C, NCPA Commission Resolution 15-34). Discussion The New Interconnection Agreement contains provisions that cover Palo Alto’s point of interconnection2 with PG&E’s transmission system and provides for interconnection and transmission operations coordination with PG&E and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) using Utility Best Practices and in accordance with federal reliability standards. The New Interconnection Agreement is PG&E’s pro-forma agreement for all load interconnections; therefore the terms, conditions and procedures contained in the body of the agreement and appendices are standard with little room for modifications. Such terms, conditions and procedures include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) requirements for establishing or modifying points of interconnection; (ii) operational and system planning and coordination requirements including load shedding and outages; (iii) obligations of the parties resulting from significant regulatory and operational changes; (iv) equipment installation and access requirements; (v) metering and metering equipment standards; (vi) administrative and billing procedures; and (vii) dispute resolution and arbitration. While all of the points of interconnection covered under the New Interconnection Agreement are owned and operated by the individual NCPA member cities, NCPA is a signatory to the New Interconnection Agreement and has the role of member cities’ portfolio manager and scheduling coordinator to the CAISO. Through this role, NCPA provides interconnection support services to Palo Alto including performing load impact studies and resolving possible disputes with PG&E and the CAISO. Alternatives The New Interconnection Agreement is necessary to continue to transmit power over PG&E’s transmission lines and into Palo Alto. Viable alternatives in the next ten years do not exist. 2 Palo Alto’s point of interconnection occurs at the Colorado Power Substation facilities. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Further, FERC has the ability to impose an Interconnection Agreement, should the parties fail to negotiate and execute an agreement before the impending deadline. Resource Impact Execution of the New Interconnection Agreement will not result in cost or resource impacts to the City. The City’s Fiscal Year 2016 Electric Operating Budget includes funding for NCPA in support of activities related to the negotiation and implementation of the New Interconnection Agreement. Policy Impact Execution of the New Interconnection Agreement is consistent with the Utilities Strategic Planning Objectives to deliver safe and reliable electricity services and to manage costs. Environmental Impact This activity would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the physical environment and is therefore not a “project” for purposes of Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. No environmental review is necessary. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution for New Interconnection Agreement (PDF) Attachment B: PGE_NCPA Interconnection Agreement - Final (PDF) Attachment C: NCPA Commission Resolution No: 15-34 (PDF) Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 150727 jjs 6053581 1 Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and Amend as Necessary a New Interconnection Agreement with the Northern California Power Agency and Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Electric Related Transmission Services RECITALS A. Since 1983, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) has provided the City of Palo Alto (“City”) and other member cities of the Northern California Power Agency (“NCPA”) with electric transmission and related services pursuant to an interconnection agreement. B. In 2002, by Resolution No. 8200, Council delegated authority to the City Manager to enter into a new interconnection agreement. C. PG&E, the City and other NCPA member cities1 became parties to Service Agreement No. 17 under the PG&E Federal Energy Commission (“FERC”) Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 (“Existing Interconnection Agreement”) which became effective on September 1, 2002. D. The Existing Interconnection Agreement contains the terms and conditions under which the City and PG&E coordinate operations of the electrical interconnections between their respective electric systems including where the City’s load interconnection with PG&E’s transmission system (“Points of Interconnection”); and E. A new Interconnection Agreement between PG&E, NCPA and the NCPA Member Customers (“New Interconnection Agreement”) has been developed as the Existing Interconnection Agreement is set to expire on October 31, 2015. F. The New Interconnection Agreement and attached appendices contain the terms and conditions under which each of the NCPA member cities Points of Interconnection will be operated in coordination with PG&E and the California Independent System Operator. G. While all of the Points of Interconnection covered under the New Interconnection Agreement are owned and operated by the NCPA member cities, NCPA nonetheless is a signatory to the New Interconnection Agreement due to its role as the portfolio manager, and in such role NCPA shall provide support services to the NCPA Member Customers as part of the current services provided by NCPA to the City and therefor the City will not incur any additional costs associated with the New Interconnection Agreement. H. The NCPA Commission has approved the New Interconnection Agreement in substantive form; however, individual member cities’ governing board approval is necessary to fully execute the New Interconnection Agreement. I. The New Interconnection Agreement will become effective on November 1, 2015 for a term of term of ten (10) years. 1 The NCPA Member Customers are the Cities of Alameda, Biggs, Gridley, Healdsburg, Lodi, Lompoc, Palo Alto, Ukiah, and Plumas Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative. Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 150727 jjs 6053581 2 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Adoption of New Interconnection Agreement is necessary to provide for the cost effective, safe and reliable delivery of electricity to the City’s electric utility customers via PG&E’s electric transmission system, and is consistent with the objectives of the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan. SECTION 2. The Council authorizes the City Manager, and/or his designee, to amend and execute as necessary the New Interconnection Agreement, including any non-substantive modifications as approved by the City Attorney. The Council also authorizes the City Manager, and/or his designee, to amend and execute any operational and procedural appendices to the New Interconnection Agreement, as approved by the City Attorney. SECTION 3. No additional costs to the City will be incurred as a result of the New Interconnection Agreement. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution approving the NCPA Governance Agreements does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since the proposed action does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065. In the alternative, execution of the NCPA Governance Agreements is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 1 Interconnection Agreement Between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Northern California Power Agency and City of Alameda, City of Biggs, City of Gridley, City of Healdsburg, City of Lodi, City of Lompoc, City of Palo Alto, City of Ukiah, and Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative Service Agreement No. ____ under PG&E FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 ATTACHMENT B PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 2 Table of Contents 1 PREAMBLE ............................................................................................................................ 6 2 RECITALS .............................................................................................................................. 6 3 AGREEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 8 4 DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Use of Terms ..................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Adverse Impact .............................................................................................................. 9 4.1.2 Agreement ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.3 Applicable Requirements ............................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Balancing Authority Area Arrangements .................................................................... 10 4.1.5 Control Center .............................................................................................................. 10 4.1.6 Cost .............................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.7 CPUC ........................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.8 Direct Assignment Facilities ........................................................................................ 10 4.1.9 Effective Date .............................................................................................................. 11 4.1.10 Electric System .......................................................................................................... 11 4.1.11 Engineering and Operating (E & O) Committee ....................................................... 11 4.1.12 Existing Contracts ...................................................................................................... 11 4.1.13 Facility Study ............................................................................................................. 11 4.1.14 Interconnection Capacity ........................................................................................... 12 4.1.15 Interconnection Facilities ........................................................................................... 12 4.1.16 Long-Term Change to Operations ............................................................................. 12 4.1.17 Modification ............................................................................................................... 13 4.1.18 New Facility Addition................................................................................................ 14 4.1.19 PG&E Transmission Owner Tariff (PG&E TO Tariff) ............................................. 14 4.1.20 PG&E Wholesale Distribution Tariff (PG&E WD Tariff) ........................................ 14 4.1.21 Point(s) Of Interconnection ........................................................................................ 14 4.1.22 Operating Agreement ................................................................................................. 14 4.1.23 Remote Telemetry Unit (RTU) .................................................................................. 14 4.1.24 Responsible Meter Party ............................................................................................ 15 4.1.25 Service Area ............................................................................................................... 15 4.1.26 System Impact Study ................................................................................................. 15 4.1.27 System Reinforcements ............................................................................................. 15 4.1.28 Third Party ................................................................................................................. 15 4.1.29 Transfer Capability .................................................................................................... 16 4.1.30 Transmission Arrangement ........................................................................................ 16 4.1.31 Transmission Operations Center ................................................................................ 16 4.1.32 Transmission Facilities Agreement............................................................................ 16 4.1.33 Uncontrollable Force ................................................................................................. 16 4.1.34 Upgrade Facility......................................................................................................... 16 5 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................... 17 5.1 Interconnected Operations .............................................................................................. 17 5.2 Effective Date ................................................................................................................. 17 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 3 5.3 Termination ..................................................................................................................... 18 6 INTERCONNECTIONS........................................................................................................ 18 6.1 Interconnection Capacity ................................................................................................ 18 6.2 Establishing or Modifying Point(s) of Interconnection .................................................. 19 6.3 New Interconnection Facilities and Upgrades ................................................................ 19 6.4 Construction Plan and Agreement .................................................................................. 20 6.5 Test Period for Interconnection ...................................................................................... 20 7 BALANCING AUTHORITY AREA ARRANGEMENTS .................................................. 20 8 SYSTEM PLANNING COORDINATION ........................................................................... 21 8.1 Planning Process ............................................................................................................. 22 8.2 System Reinforcements .................................................................................................. 22 9 OPERATING PROVISIONS ................................................................................................ 23 9.1 Good Utility Practice and Applicable Requirements Obligation .................................... 23 9.2 General ............................................................................................................................ 23 9.3 Power Delivery and Quality Standard ............................................................................ 23 9.4 Coordination Of Operations ............................................................................................ 23 9.5 Relationship To Balancing Authority Area Operations .................................................. 24 9.6 Separate Balancing Authority Area ................................................................................ 24 9.7 Reporting Significant Events .......................................................................................... 24 9.8 Engineering And Operating Committee ......................................................................... 25 9.8.1 E&O Committee Meetings .......................................................................................... 26 9.8.2 E&O Committee Expenses .......................................................................................... 26 9.8.3 E&O Committee Authority .......................................................................................... 27 9.9 Settlement of Disputes and Arbitration........................................................................... 27 9.10 Protective Devices ........................................................................................................ 27 9.11 Requirements for NCPA or NCPA Member Customer Operated Generators Connected to PG&E ................................................................................................................................ 27 9.12 Continuity Of Service ................................................................................................... 28 9.12.1 Operation Actions To Maintain Continuity ............................................................... 28 9.12.2 Unscheduled Interruptions ......................................................................................... 28 9.12.3 Scheduled Interruptions ............................................................................................. 29 9.12.4 Interruption By Protective Devices ............................................................................ 29 9.12.5 Jeopardy ..................................................................................................................... 29 9.13 Operating Records ........................................................................................................ 30 9.14 Confidentiality .............................................................................................................. 30 10 SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE ................................... 32 10.1 Significant Regulatory Change ..................................................................................... 32 10.2 Significant Operational Change .................................................................................... 32 10.3 Change in Functions or Scope ...................................................................................... 33 10.4 Notification of Significant Regulatory or Operational Change .................................... 33 10.5 Amendment of Agreement ............................................................................................ 34 10.6 Studies of Significant Operational Change ................................................................... 34 10.7 Mitigation And Costs .................................................................................................... 35 10.8 Failure To Notify Of Significant Operational Changes ................................................ 36 11 INSTALLATION AND ACCESS ....................................................................................... 37 12 METERING ......................................................................................................................... 37 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 4 12.1 Delivery Meters ............................................................................................................ 37 12.2 Requirements For Meters And Meter Maintenance...................................................... 38 12.3 The NCPA Parties’ Obligation To Provide Meter Data To PG&E .............................. 38 12.4 Consequences of Failing to Provide Meter Data .......................................................... 38 12.5 Periodic Meter Testing .................................................................................................. 39 13 BILLING AND PAYMENT................................................................................................ 39 14 ACCOUNTING ................................................................................................................... 40 14.1 Accounting Procedures ................................................................................................. 40 14.2 Audit Rights .................................................................................................................. 40 15 ADVERSE DETERMINATION OR EXPANSION OF OBLIGATIONS ......................... 40 15.1 Adverse Determination ................................................................................................. 40 15.2 Expansion Of Obligations ............................................................................................. 41 15.3 Renegotiation ................................................................................................................ 41 16 ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................................... 41 16.1 Consent Required .......................................................................................................... 41 16.2 Assignee's Continuing Obligation ................................................................................ 42 17 CAPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 42 18 CONSTRUCTION OF THE AGREEMENT ...................................................................... 42 19 CONTROL AND OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES ............................................................ 42 20 COOPERATION AND RIGHT OF ACCESS AND INSPECTION .................................. 43 21 DEFAULT ........................................................................................................................... 43 21.1 Termination For Default ............................................................................................... 43 21.2 Other Remedies For Default ......................................................................................... 44 22 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ................................................................................................... 44 23 GOVERNING LAW ............................................................................................................ 44 24 INDEMNITY ....................................................................................................................... 44 24.1 Definitions..................................................................................................................... 44 24.1.1 Accidents.................................................................................................................... 44 24.2 Indemnity Duty ............................................................................................................. 45 25 JUDGMENTS AND DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................ 46 26 LIABILITY .......................................................................................................................... 46 26.1 To Third Parties ............................................................................................................ 46 26.2 No Consequential, Special or Indirect Damages from Breach ..................................... 46 26.3 Protection Of A Party’s Own Facilities ........................................................................ 46 26.4 Liability For Interruptions............................................................................................. 47 27 NO DEDICATION OF FACILITIES .................................................................................. 47 28 NO OBLIGATION TO OFFER SAME SERVICE TO OTHERS ...................................... 47 29 NO PRECEDENT ................................................................................................................ 47 30 NO OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED ................................................................................ 48 30.1 Limitation on Parties Obligation ................................................................................... 48 30.2 Transmission Arrangements ......................................................................................... 48 31 NOTICES ............................................................................................................................. 49 31.1 Written Notices ............................................................................................................. 49 31.2 Changes Of Notice Recipient........................................................................................ 52 31.3 Routine Notices ............................................................................................................. 52 31.4 Reliance On Notice ....................................................................................................... 53 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 5 32 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ............................................................................................ 53 33 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS AND SECURITY ................................................ 53 34 RULES AND REGULATIONS .......................................................................................... 54 35 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................................. 54 36 CONTINUING RIGHTS OF THE NCPA PARTIES UPON TERMINATION................. 54 37 RIGHTS OF PG&E UPON TERMINATION ..................................................................... 55 38 WAIVER OF RIGHTS ........................................................................................................ 55 39 UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES ........................................................................................ 55 40 ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS ............................................................... 55 41 NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR OBLIGATION ............................................................. 56 42 WARRANTY OF AUTHORITY ........................................................................................ 56 43 COUNTERPARTS .............................................................................................................. 56 44 APPENDICES INCLUDED ................................................................................................ 57 45 EXECUTION ....................................................................................................................... 58 APPENDIX A POINTS OF INTERCONNECTION .................................................................. 61 APPENDIX B DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ARBITRATION ............................................. 72 APPENDIX C UPGRADE FACILITIES .................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX D BILLING AND PAYMENT ............................................................................... 77 APPENDIX E OPERATIONAL CCORDINATION .................................................................. 80 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 6 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT 1 PREAMBLE This Interconnection Agreement (Agreement) is made this ___day of ___________, 20__ by and between Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), a joint powers agency of the State of California, and the California Cities of Alameda, Biggs, Gridley, Healdsburg, Lodi, Lompoc, Palo Alto, Ukiah, and the Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., (hereinafter referred to collectively as “NCPA Member Customers”), any or all of which are hereinafter referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as “the Parties.” NCPA and the NCPA Member Customers are hereinafter referred to collectively as “the NCPA Parties.” 2 RECITALS 2.1 Whereas, it is the policy of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that open and non-discriminatory access to transmission be provided through transmission systems comprising as large an area as possible under the supervision and direction of an independent system operator or a regional transmission organization; and 2.2 Whereas, PG&E is registered with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) as a Transmission Owner (TO), and as a Transmission Operator (TOP) in accordance with the NERC compliance registry process; and 2.3 Whereas, PG&E is a public utility providing both wholesale and retail electric power and energy sales and transmission and distribution services in northern and central California and owns an extensive electric transmission system within that area; and 2.4 Whereas, PG&E transferred operational control of its transmission system to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), and is now a Participating Transmission Owner and a party to the CAISO’s Transmission Control Agreement, under which PG&E is subject to the direction of the CAISO in the operation of its transmission system and under which the CAISO becomes the provider of transmission service over PG&E’s transmission system, pursuant to the terms of the CAISO Tariff, the PG&E TO Tariff, Transmission Control PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 7 Agreement, Scheduling Coordinator Agreement, and Utility Distribution Company Operating Agreement, all of which enable PG&E to satisfy the obligations of operating within the CAISO’s Balancing Authority Area; and 2.5 Whereas, NCPA is a public agency engaged in the generation and transmission of electric power and energy and was created by a joint powers agreement first dated July 19, 1968, and as amended and restated January 1, 2008, entered pursuant to Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Code commencing with Section 6500; and 2.6 Whereas, the NCPA Member Customers are members of NCPA, and NCPA or other duly authorized entity acts as Scheduling Coordinator on their behalf; and 2.7 Whereas, NCPA has entered into certain agreements with the CAISO including, but not limited to, the Third Amended and Restated NCPA MSS Aggregator Agreement, as amended (NCPA MSS Agreement), and Scheduling Coordinator Agreement, and will have electric power delivered to or from it at each Point of Interconnection using transmission service available to it; and 2.8 Whereas, the NCPA Member Customers have individually or collectively entered into certain agreements with the CAISO including, but not limited to, the NCPA MSS Agreement and the Operating Agreement, and will have electric power delivered to or from each of their respective Points of Interconnection using transmission service available to it; and 2.9 Whereas, the relationships and obligations among NCPA and the NCPA Member Customers are determined under existing contracts and agreements among them, which this Agreement is not intended to alter; and 2.10 Whereas, this Agreement is intended to provide for the terms and conditions of interconnections between the Electric Systems of PG&E and the NCPA Parties and to replace the existing Interconnection Agreement made effective on July 12, 2002 (“Prior Agreement”), between them; and 2.11 Whereas, the Parties intend to replace the Existing Special Facilities Agreements that have been part of the Prior Agreement, and that provide for the interconnection of the PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 8 existing generator units of the NCPA Parties with Large Generator Interconnection Agreements and Small Generator Interconnection Agreements, as applicable, among NCPA, PG&E and the CAISO; and 2.12 Whereas the Parties do not intend to change the underlying rights and responsibilities of the parties to the Special Facilities Agreements by transitioning to the new format of the Large Generator Interconnection Agreements and Small Generator Interconnection Agreements, or to impose additional requirements or obligations on existing NCPA generators; and 2.13 Whereas, the Parties agree to operate their respective Electric Systems in accordance with Good Utility Practice consistent with the requirements of this Agreement; and 2.14 Whereas, the Parties intend to cooperate in the operation of their respective Electric Systems to maximize their mutual benefits under this Agreement. 3 AGREEMENT NOW, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the Parties agree as follows: 4 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Use of Terms As used in this Agreement (including the Recitals hereto), unless in any such case the context requires otherwise: The terms “herein,” “hereto,” “herewith” and “hereof” are references to this Agreement taken as a whole and not to any particular provision; the term “include,” “includes” or “including” shall mean “including, for example and without limitation;” and references to a “Section,” “subsection,” “clause,” “Appendix”, “Schedule”, or “Exhibit” shall mean a Section, subsection, clause, Appendix, Schedule or Exhibit of this Agreement, as the case may be. Unless otherwise specified in the Agreement, all references to a given agreement, instrument, tariff or other document, or law, regulation or ordinance shall be a reference to that agreement, instrument, tariff or other document, or law, regulation or ordinance as such now exists, including any amendment or modification made hereafter. A reference to a “person” PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 9 includes any individual, partnership, firm, company, corporation, joint venture, trust, association, organization or other entity, in each case whether or not having a separate legal personality and includes its successors and permitted assigns. A reference to a “day” shall mean a calendar day The following terms, when used in this Agreement with the initial letters capitalized, other than proper names, whether in the singular, plural or possessive, shall have the meanings indicated below. Capitalized terms not defined below shall have the meaning indicated in the Master Definitions Supplement included as Appendix A to the CAISO Tariff, provided, however, if a term as defined in this Agreement conflicts with the CAISO Tariff, the definition in this Agreement shall prevail. 4.1.1 Adverse Impact An effect on a Party’s Electric System resulting from a Modification, New Facility Addition, or Long-Term Change to Operations to another Party’s Electric System that (1) materially degrades reliability of the affected Party’s Electric System or (2) materially reduces the ability of the affected Party’s Electric System to physically transfer power into, out of, or within said Electric System. 4.1.2 Agreement This Interconnection Agreement among the Parties and its Appendices, as it may be amended. 4.1.3 Applicable Requirements Any applicable law or regulation; and any standards, procedures or requirements of an entity with lawful authority to control or govern, including planning, the applicable transmission system (whether in full or in part) or the Balancing Authority Area in which a Party’s Electric System is located, including but not limited to FERC, NERC, WECC, Peak Reliability, and a Balancing Authority. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 10 4.1.4 Balancing Authority Area Arrangements Arrangements, which may include, but is not limited to, an MSS or MSS Aggregator Agreement, between a Party and its Balancing Authority, or, if a Party is its own Balancing Authority, between a Party and WECC, in which the Party agrees to self-provide or procure the necessary resources and services and perform operations to meet Balancing Authority Area operating requirements and Applicable Requirements to maintain the operating reliability and integrity of the Balancing Authority Area’s Electric System(s) in an economic manner consistent with Good Utility Practice. 4.1.5 Control Center An Electric System’s designated operations manager responsible for, among other things, its Electric System switching operations. 4.1.6 Cost All just, reasonable, necessary and prudently incurred expenses or capital expenditures, including but not limited to those for operation, maintenance, engineering and facilities studies, Adverse Impact identification, Adverse Impact mitigation, contract modification, administrative and general expenses, taxes, depreciation, and fees for consultants, as determined in accordance with the FERC Uniform System of Accounts as such may be amended or superseded from time to time, and capital costs. 4..1.7 CPUC The California Public Utilities Commission or its regulatory successor. 4.1.8 Direct Assignment Facilities Facilities or portions of facilities that are owned by PG&E and which are necessary to physically and electrically interconnect the NCPA Parties to the CAISO Controlled Grid at the Points of Interconnection. All Direct Assignment Facilities that are contemplated by the Parties as of the Effective Date of this Interconnection Agreement are identified in the accompanying PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 11 Transmission Facilities Agreements attached to and made part of this Agreement. Direct Assignment Facilities shall be subject to FERC approval. 4.1.9 Effective Date The date specified as the Effective Date of this Agreement in Section 5.2 hereof. 4.1.10 Electric System All properties and other assets, now or hereafter existing, which are leased to, licensed to, owned by, or controlled by a single person or entity, that are located within or interconnected to that person or entity’s service area, and are used for or directly associated with the generation, transmission, transformation, distribution, purchase or sale of electric power, including all additions, extensions, expansions, and improvements thereto. To the extent a person or entity is not the sole owner of an asset or property, only that person’s or that entity’s ownership interest in such asset or property shall be considered to be part of its Electric System. 4.1.11 Engineering and Operating (E & O) Committee A joint committee of the Parties established pursuant to Section 9.8. 4.1.12 Existing Contracts The contracts between the Parties in existence on April 1, 1998 (including any contracts entered into pursuant to such contracts) as may be amended in accordance with their terms or by agreement between the parties thereto from time to time or by order or requirement of FERC or any court having jurisdiction, provided that any contract shall cease to be an Existing Contract when its initially specified term ends, unless extended by agreement of the parties thereto, or when it may be earlier terminated; and contracts between PG&E and the Western Area Power Administration, and contracts between or tariffs involving PG&E and the Transmission Agency of Northern California, in which NCPA has a beneficial interest. 4.1.13 Facility Study An engineering study to determine required Electric System modifications to accommodate a new Point of Interconnection or a modification of an existing Point of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 12 Interconnection, including the Cost and scheduled completion date for such modifications that will be required to provide needed services. 4.1.14 Interconnection Capacity The rated maximum capability of Interconnection Facilities for power transfers at Points of Interconnection. 4.1.15 Interconnection Facilities Electric facilities that establish or modify Points of Interconnection where PG&E’s Electric System is connected to the Electric System of the NCPA Parties, or a Third Party. Interconnection Facilities may include, but are not limited to, transmission lines, towers and supports, switching stations, buses, breakers, switches, relays, transducers, transformers, meters, protective equipment, communications and telemetry devices, and land and land rights associated with the Interconnection Facilities at each Point of Interconnection. 4.1.16 Long-Term Change to Operations An action intentionally taken, or an event permitted by a Party, that materially alters or modifies, on a long-term or permanent basis, the configuration or other operational characteristics of its Electric System. An action or event shall be deemed to have been taken, or to have occurred on a long-term basis if the action or event remains in effect for a period of more than 30 consecutive days or occurred on more than 60 days within any period of twelve (12) consecutive months. The following are examples of actions and events that qualify as a Long- Term Change to Operations when taken or occurring on a long-term basis, though this list is not exclusive: (a) materially modifying a Remedial Action Scheme (RAS) or Special Protection Scheme (SPS), or disarming a RAS or SPS contrary to the manner and conditions for which it is designed to operate; (b) opening switches that are generally kept closed under normal operating conditions, except in those cases where a modified switching configuration has PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 13 been studied and agreed to by the affected Parties in accordance with Applicable Requirements; (c) closing switches that are generally kept open under normal operating conditions, except in those cases where a modified switching configuration has been studied and agreed to by the affected Parties in accordance with Applicable Requirements; (d) material changes to ratings or operating limits of any element of a Party’s Electric System; (e) disabling or materially changing the operation of a phase-shifting transformer; (f) an increase in a Party’s peak electric load on a Party’s Electric System within a rolling twelve (12) month period that constitutes a ten (10) percent or greater increase over the Party’s peak electric load from the prior twelve (12) month period; (g) the planned shutdown of a generation facility with a generating capacity greater than 500 kW within any Party’s Electric System, other than for routine maintenance; or (h) actions or events similar in nature and/or effect to the foregoing. A Long-Term Change to Operations as defined does not include (i) outages taken for maintenance or System Emergencies in accordance with Good Utility Practice; or (ii) actions taken during maintenance or to perform maintenance or respond to System Emergencies or (iii) actions taken by a Third Party, including the CAISO, that are beyond the control of the Parties. 4.1.17 Modification The removal of or alteration or physical change to any element of a Party’s Electric System. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 14 4.1.18 New Facility Addition The addition of a new transmission facility or the addition of a new generation facility directly connected to a Party’s Electric System, whether owned by that Party or not. 4.1.19 PG&E Transmission Owner Tariff (PG&E TO Tariff) PG&E Transmission Owner Tariff on file with FERC as PG&E FERC Electric Tariff Volume 5, as it may be modified or superseded from time to time. 4.1.20 PG&E Wholesale Distribution Tariff (PG&E WD Tariff) PG&E Wholesale Distribution Tariff on file with the FERC as original PG&E FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 4, as it may be modified or superseded from time to time. 4.1.21 Point(s) Of Interconnection The physical connections of PG&E’s transmission or distribution lines with NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer’s Electric System as specified in Appendix A hereto, as that Appendix may be modified from time to time. 4.1.22 Operating Agreement The Operating Agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative, Northern California Power Agency and Sierra Pacific Power Company dated as of December 14, 2006, which describes and establishes the mutual responsibilities for operation of the interconnection points between PG&E and Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperation and Sierra Pacific Power Company and Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperation. 4.1.23 Remote Telemetry Unit (RTU) A device that relays real-time information, including but not limited to kW, kVar, voltage, and breaker status, to a Party’s Control Center or other designated recipient, to be used for monitoring purposes. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 15 4.1.24 Responsible Meter Party A Party having the responsibility for providing, installing, owning, operating, testing, servicing and maintaining meters and associated recording or telemetering equipment at each Point of Interconnection. Unless otherwise specified herein, NCPA and/or the applicable NCPA Member Customer who owns the meter or equipment in question shall be the Responsible Meter Party under this Agreement. 4.1.25 Service Area That area within the geographic boundaries of the areas electrically served at retail, now or in the future, by the Parties. 4.1.26 System Impact Study An engineering study conducted by or in coordination with PG&E at a NCPA Party’s request to determine System Reinforcements required on PG&E's Electric System necessary to establish or modify a Point of Interconnection or to address a Significant Operational Change pursuant to Section 10. 4.1.27 System Reinforcements Reinforcements to PG&E's Electric System, including but not limited to those identified by a System Impact Study, necessary to establish or maintain the Transfer Capability to a Point of Interconnection. System Reinforcements may be required when a Point of Interconnection is added or modified, when a Significant Operational Change pursuant to Section 10 is proposed, or when necessary to serve electric load reliably, or required by Good Utility Practice. System Reinforcements are limited to facilities required on PG&E's Electric System and ordinarily would not include Interconnection Facilities required at the Point of Interconnection. 4.1.28 Third Party A person or entity that is not a Party to this Agreement. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 16 4.1.29 Transfer Capability The measure of the capability of interconnected Electric Systems to move or transfer power in a reliable manner from one point to another over all transmission lines between those points under specified system conditions. 4.1.30 Transmission Arrangement An agreement or tariff, either the CAISO Tariff or a separate contract or tariff which enables NCPA to deliver power and energy to meet its electric power requirements. 4.1.31 Transmission Operations Center PG&E’s Control Center from which it directs operations of its transmission system. 4.1.32 Transmission Facilities Agreement An agreement made between one or more Parties for services, including, but not limited to, the design and installation of new facilities. 4.1.33 Uncontrollable Force Any act of God, labor disturbance, act of the public enemy, war, insurrection, riot, fire, storm, flood, earthquake, explosion, any curtailment, order, regulation or restriction imposed by governmental, military or lawfully established civilian authorities or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of PG&E or the NCPA Parties which could not be avoided through the exercise of Good Utility Practice. 4.1.34 Upgrade Facility A new or upgraded Interconnection Facility and/or System Reinforcement constructed or installed pursuant to this Agreement. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 17 5 SCOPE 5.1 Interconnected Operations This Agreement governs the interconnected and coordinated operation of PG&E's Electric System, a portion of which has been turned over to the operational control of the CAISO, and the NCPA Parties’ Electric Systems. As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the CAISO operates the Balancing Authority Area in which the Parties operate their respective Electric Systems. The Parties agree that, during the term of this Agreement and unless otherwise provided for by amendment of this Agreement, that portion or those portions of the Parties’ Electric Systems that are interconnected shall be operated in parallel pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and their respective Balancing Authority Area Arrangements. Each Party shall at all times to the maximum extent practicable avoid causing any Adverse Impact on another Party's Electric System. 5.2 Effective Date The term “Effective Date” as used in this Agreement shall mean 0000 hours of July 1, 2015, or the date on which FERC accepts this Agreement for filing and permits it to be placed into effect without material change or material new conditions unacceptable to any Party, whichever is later. If FERC sets this Agreement for hearing to determine whether it is just and reasonable and otherwise lawful, then this Agreement shall become effective on the date it is permitted to be placed into effect and subject to any conditions imposed by FERC. The ordering of such a hearing in and of itself shall not be considered a material change. However, in the event FERC makes any material change or imposes a material new condition unacceptable to any Party, the Parties shall promptly enter into good faith negotiations in an attempt to achieve a mutually agreeable modification to this Agreement to address any such material change or material new condition. The Parties agree to work diligently to obtain timely acceptance of this Agreement and all of its provisions by FERC, and agree that the NCPA Parties shall be entitled to prior review of PG&E's initial filing with FERC seeking acceptance of this Agreement for filing. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 18 5.3 Termination This Agreement shall terminate on the earliest of: (i) the occurrence of the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date or the tenth anniversary of the Effective Date if the Parties have agreed to such five-year extension by no later than the fourth anniversary of the Effective Date, where NCPA is authorized by the NCPA Member Customers to act on their behalf regarding such five-year extension; or (ii) the end of the 12th month following the date on which a Party gives the other Parties written notice that this Agreement shall be terminated, which notice shall not be given prior to the fourth anniversary of the Effective Date; or (iii) as provided in Section 10, 15, or 21. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.3, if an NCPA Member Customer provides written notice to the other Parties to terminate the Agreement on the end of the 12th month following the date on which the NCPA Member Customer provides such written notice, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining Parties. In addition, PG&E may give notice of termination to one NCPA Member Customer without terminating the agreement as to NCPA or any other NCPA Member Customers. 6 INTERCONNECTIONS Transfer of electric power between the Electric Systems of PG&E and the NCPA Parties shall occur at the Point(s) of Interconnection identified in Appendix A. 6.1 Interconnection Capacity Interconnection Capacity is determined by engineering studies that consider the physical rating of all equipment installed within the Interconnection Facilities at the Points of Interconnection. The E&O Committee shall periodically review the Interconnection Capacity to ensure that it is sufficiently maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Unless otherwise agreed by the E&O Committee, any required engineering studies shall be performed by PG&E and the NCPA Parties or an engineering professional acting on behalf of the NCPA Parties, and reviewed with the E&O Committee. The Parties shall cooperate by providing any information necessary for such studies. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 19 6.2 Establishing or Modifying Point(s) of Interconnection Whenever NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer decides to add or modify a Point of Interconnection at transmission voltage, 60 kV or more, it shall so notify the CAISO, in accordance with the CAISO Tariff, and PG&E, in accordance with the PG&E TO Tariff. Upon PG&E's receipt of such notice, the Parties shall follow the procedures described in Sections 8 through 10 of the PG&E TO Tariff. Regarding disputes that might arise under this Section 6, if the PG&E TO Tariff conflicts with Section 22 of this Agreement, the PG&E TO Tariff shall govern. If NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer decides to either modify or add a Point of Interconnection at distribution voltage, less than 60 kV, it shall so notify PG&E in accordance with the requirements of the PG&E WD Tariff. Upon PG&E's receipt of such notification, PG&E shall follow the applicable procedures and requirements of the PG&E WD Tariff to determine what Upgrade Facilities, if any, shall be required. Upgrade Facilities required for the addition or modification of a Point of Interconnection at distribution voltage shall be accomplished pursuant to the requirements of the PG&E WD Tariff. Regarding disputes that might arise under this Section 6 as related to service under PG&E WD Tariff, if the PG&E WD Tariff conflicts with Section 22 of this Agreement, the PG&E WD Tariff shall govern. 6.3 New Interconnection Facilities and Upgrades If Upgrade Facilities are needed as a result of a NCPA or NCPA Member Customer notice to add or modify a Point of Interconnection pursuant to this Section 6, then PG&E, NCPA, and, if applicable the Member Customer issuing the notice shall meet and confer on a mutually acceptable plan to complete the Upgrade Facilities. The Cost responsibility for Upgrade Facilities required as a result of NCPA’s or an NCPA Member Customer’s notice to add or modify a Point of Interconnection shall be determined based on the provisions of Section 8.1.2 of the PG&E TO Tariff or Section 15 of the PG&E WD Tariff, as applicable, and Appendix C of this Agreement. Any dispute regarding the actual capability of the existing transmission, distribution, or Interconnection Facilities, or the need for Upgrade Facilities, that will support the new or upgraded Point of Interconnection, or how the Cost responsibility for the necessary Upgrade PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 20 Facilities should be allocated, shall be resolved through the dispute resolution procedures as set forth in Section 22. 6.4 Construction Plan and Agreement Unless otherwise provided under the PG&E TO or WD Tariffs, or otherwise agreed to by the Parties, within thirty (30) calendar days after completion of a Facility Study as provided in the PG&E TO Tariff, NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer shall notify PG&E if it intends to proceed with the Upgrade Facility. PG&E, NCPA, and, if applicable, the notifying NCPA Member Customer shall then meet and confer on a mutually acceptable plan to complete the Upgrade Facility. If the conferring Parties reach agreement on a plan for construction or installation of an Upgrade Facility, including responsibility for payment of the applicable Cost, those Parties shall enter into a separate agreement pursuant to Appendix C. If the conferring Parties fail to reach such agreement, the matter should be resolved through the dispute resolution provisions in Section 22. 6.5 Test Period for Interconnection The Parties shall cooperate in the testing of the Point(s) of Interconnection and of the Parties’ Interconnection Facilities before they go into operation. 7 BALANCING AUTHORITY AREA ARRANGEMENTS All transmission, distribution and generation facilities within a Party’s Electric System shall at all times during the term of this Agreement be within a Balancing Authority Area and operated in accordance with Balancing Authority Area Arrangements. After a Party has had a reasonable opportunity to obtain or re-establish operation in a Balancing Authority Area or make the necessary Balancing Authority Area Arrangements, failure by a Party to operate in a Balancing Authority Area and to operate its Electric System in accordance with, and to maintain in effect, Balancing Authority Area Arrangements, shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and just cause for termination and disconnection of the Agreement as to such Party. If any Party operates without being located in an established Balancing Authority Area or without Balancing Authority Area Arrangements in effect, that Party shall fully indemnify and PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 21 make whole the other Parties for any penalties, fees or costs imposed or other damages caused to those Parties. Each Party shall act as its own Scheduling Coordinator or employ a Scheduling Coordinator to act for it. No Party shall have any obligation under this Agreement to serve as Scheduling Coordinator for another Party or take on any other role in which it acts on behalf of another Party as to its Party’s transactions. PG&E has and will have in effect various existing agreements with the Balancing Authority in which its Electric System is located. These agreements include, but are not limited to, the Transmission Control Agreement, the Transmission Owner Tariff, Scheduling Coordinator Agreements, Operating Agreement, and Utility Distribution Company Operating Agreement, all of which enable PG&E to satisfy the obligations of operating within the CAISO’s Balancing Authority Area. This Agreement is subject to PG&E’s obligations and responsibilities under those agreements, and in the event of any inconsistency between those agreements and this Agreement, the former shall control. NCPA and the NCPA Member Customers have and will have in effect various existing agreements with the Balancing Authority in which their Electric Systems are located. These agreements include, but are not limited to, the Scheduling Coordinator Agreement and NCPA MSS Agreement with the CAISO, the Operating Agreement, and such agreements qualified as Balancing Authority Area Arrangement that may be needed by the CAISO for operation of the Balancing Authority Area. This Agreement is subject to the NCPA Party’s obligations and responsibilities under those agreements, and in the event of any inconsistency between those agreements and this Agreement, the former shall control. 8 SYSTEM PLANNING COORDINATION Pursuant to the CAISO Tariff and Section 8 of this Agreement, PG&E conducts planning studies of its Electric System annually, including the reasonable use of information provided to PG&E pursuant to this Agreement, to identify System Reinforcements or other Modifications of its Electric System necessary to determine the Transfer Capability to reliably serve the expected loads connected to its Electric System, including expected NCPA and NCPA Member Customer loads at Point(s) of Interconnection. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 22 8.1 Planning Process In order for PG&E to include the effects of growth of the NCPA Parties’ Electric System loads in its planning studies, each NCPA Party shall provide PG&E with their respective electric load planning forecast by October 1 of each year. Each NCPA Party shall also provide PG&E with certain network modeling data as required pursuant to Applicable Requirements, including NERC Standards MOD-010 and MOD-12, as such may be revised from time to time. Such electric load planning forecast shall contain the best estimate of its gross Electric System load (actual MW and MWh as measured at the Point of Interconnection plus generation resources internal to the Electric System) and net Electric System load (actual MW and MWh as measured at the Point of Interconnection) for the next five-year period. The initial forecast shall be submitted to PG&E within 30 days of the Effective Date. Both PG&E and the applicable NCPA Party or Parties shall be responsible for participating in planning for the construction of any necessary System Reinforcements as provided in the PG&E TO Tariff Sections 8 through 10. If PG&E disagrees with the electric load planning forecast provided by a NCPA Party, PG&E shall coordinate with NCPA and the impacted NCPA Member Customer, and if necessary, either Party may request that an E&O Committee meeting be scheduled pursuant to Section 9.8.1 to review and discuss PG&E’s disagreement with the electric load planning forecast. Nothing in Section 8 prevents PG&E from using, relying on, or incorporating alternative forecasts in planning studies. 8.2 System Reinforcements If, as a result of its annual planning review process, PG&E determines, through studies conducted pursuant to the CAISO Tariff, including Section 4.8.1 thereof, and in accordance with PG&E TO Tariff Section 9, that a need exists to construct System Reinforcements that will have a direct effect on NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer, PG&E shall inform NCPA and, if applicable, the affected NCPA Member Customer through a notice pursuant to Section 31. Those Parties shall then follow the applicable procedures of the PG&E TO Tariff Sections 8 through 10. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 23 9 OPERATING PROVISIONS 9.1 Good Utility Practice and Applicable Requirements Obligation Each Party shall operate pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with Good Utility Practice and in compliance with Applicable Requirements of federal, state, and local laws, licenses, and permits. Each Party shall plan and operate its respective Electric System in accordance with Good Utility Practice and endeavor to minimize electrical disturbances on the Electric System of the other Party. No Party shall be obligated to operate in a manner contrary to Good Utility Practice. When satisfying its obligations pursuant to this Agreement, a Party shall in good faith, take all reasonable actions required to satisfy its obligations in accordance with Good Utility Practice and Applicable Requirements to timely avoid or mitigate Adverse Impacts to another Party’s Electric System. 9.2 General The Parties agree to coordinate the operations of their respective Electric Systems so as to avoid or minimize any Adverse Impacts to another Party’s Electric System in accordance with Balancing Authority Area Arrangements. 9.3 Power Delivery and Quality Standard Power delivered is commonly designated as three-phase alternating current, at nominal 60 Hertz, and at the nominal voltage described in Appendix A for each Point of Interconnection. Voltage and frequency fluctuations under system normal operation conditions shall be permitted consistent with Good Utility Practice. Each Party shall plan, design, and operate its Electric System so as to minimize the interchange of reactive power at the Point(s) of Interconnections. 9.4 Coordination Of Operations The Parties shall at all times coordinate and communicate their planned and unplanned outages and other switching operations that may have an effect on the operations of another PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 24 Party’s Electric System and may reasonably be required to protect the integrity of the Balancing Authority Area during System Emergencies. PG&E, NCPA, and the NCPA Member Customers are also responsible for maintenance and switching operations of their Electric Systems. All Parties may from time to time remove various elements of their Electric Systems from operation or initiate other actions that may affect operations or transfer of energy across Point(s) of Interconnection. The Parties shall coordinate their activities in the operation and maintenance of their Electric Systems in order to avoid or minimize any adverse effects of those activities on each other. 9.5 Relationship To Balancing Authority Area Operations The Parties currently operate in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. In the event that a Party makes any changes that significantly or materially affect its relationship with the CAISO, including, but not limited to, interconnecting its Electric System with a non-CAISO Balancing Authority Area, the Party making the change shall give a minimum of 30 days’ notice to the other Parties. 9.6 Separate Balancing Authority Area Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or limit any Party from interconnecting with, joining or forming a new Balancing Authority Area. In such event, this Agreement shall be revised as appropriate to reflect such change in Balancing Authority Area operations. 9.7 Reporting Significant Events Each Party shall promptly, after reporting to the Balancing Authority, report to the other Parties any System Emergency or other significant operating event reasonably likely to affect operation of the other Party's Electric System at each Point(s) of Interconnection. For notice to PG&E, such notice shall be by telephone to PG&E's Transmission Operations Center personnel or to a PG&E substation or switching center as may be designated by PG&E. For notice to NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer, such notice shall be by telephone to NCPA's Control Center, or as otherwise designated by NCPA or the NCPA Member Customer. Each Party, upon PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 25 request and on a case-by-case basis for reasonable cause related to operating conditions, shall, in a timely manner, provide Electric System operating information, such as loading on lines and equipment and levels of operating voltages and electric power factors. In the event of an interruption(s), including but not limited to, power quality events, of electric service at any Point of Interconnection, the Party causing the interruption shall report, in a timely manner, to the affected Party or Parties the nature and suspected cause of the event, actions being taken to restore electric service, and the estimated time until restoration of electric service. Within 30 days following the restoration of electric service to the affected Parties, the Party causing the interruption shall provide a written report to the affected Parties identifying the cause of the interruption, and what preventive actions may be taken in the future to mitigate further interruptions in electric service to the affected Parties. 9.8 Engineering And Operating Committee The Parties shall establish an Engineering and Operating (E&O) Committee. This “E&O Committee” shall jointly develop and modify, as necessary, operating procedures and engineering planning matters required to implement this Agreement. The E&O Committee shall consist of one representative designated in writing by each Party. Each Party shall also designate an alternate who may act instead of a representative at the option of that Party, and an NCPA Member Customer may designate NCPA to act as its alternate. Any Party may at any time change its representatives or alternate on the E&O Committee and shall promptly notify the other Parties of any change in designation. Any representative, by written notice to the other Parties, may authorize its alternate to act temporarily in its place. Each member of the E&O Committee may invite other members of its organization or others, as its advisors, to attend meetings of the E&O Committee. The E&O Committee shall establish procedures for the coordination and operation of the Parties’ Electric Systems, including, but not limited to, providing for the coordination of maintenance schedules and operation of the Parties’ Electric Systems as may be required to maintain the reliability and power quality of the interconnected Electric Systems, minimize outages, reduce losses, maintain voltage levels, and minimize reactive interchanges. The E&O PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 26 Committee shall also be responsible for examining and making recommendations to the Parties for Upgrade Facilities in order to: (i) ensure that the Point(s) of Interconnection are operated in accordance with Good Utility Practice; (ii) determine necessary additions or modifications to equipment or operating procedures to ensure that the Parties’ Electric System reliability and service to its customers will not be adversely affected; (iii) determine the studies that need to be performed and the manner in which the Cost of such studies shall be allocated unless the CAISO Tariff, PG&E TO Tariff or PG&E WD Tariff provides otherwise; and (iv) make recommendations for the allocation of Costs associated with the Upgrade Facilities unless the CAISO Tariff, PG&E TO Tariff or PG&E WD Tariff provides otherwise. 9.8.1 E&O Committee Meetings Any Party may call for a meeting of the E&O Committee upon reasonable advance notice to the other Parties. A written agenda incorporating any items proposed by the requesting Party shall be exchanged in advance of such meetings to the affected Parties. The meeting shall be timely scheduled, and the affected Parties shall select a meeting date that is mutually acceptable to the Parties. Meetings may be conducted in person, by telephone or by any other agreed-upon method. Meeting minutes shall be kept to document the discussions and outcome of the meetings, and such meeting minutes are to be distributed to the Parties. 9.8.2 E&O Committee Expenses The expenses of the members of the E&O Committee, their alternates and advisors shall be borne by the Party they represent. Expenses incurred by the E&O Committee in addition to those herein above mentioned shall be shared in a just and reasonable manner agreed to by the Parties. The sharing of such expenses shall be agreed to prior to the time that such additional expenses are incurred. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 27 9.8.3 E&O Committee Authority The E&O Committee shall have no authority to modify any of the provisions of this Agreement. All actions, recommendations and reports shall become effective when signed, or otherwise approved, by all members of the E&O Committee and if necessary, referred to the Parties’ respective management. Each Party's representatives shall be afforded ample time to review relevant details prior to finalizing any action, recommendation or report and may request up to 30 days to review the material to be acted upon. 9.9 Settlement of Disputes and Arbitration The Parties agree to make best efforts to settle all disputes under this Agreement between the Parties as a matter of normal business practice under this Agreement. Any unresolved disputes shall be resolved through the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Section 22. 9.10 Protective Devices Each Party shall, consistent with CAISO requirements and Good Utility Practice, install, modify, set and adjust any required protective relaying equipment associated with facilities within its respective Electric System at their own expense. Such settings, adjustments or replacement shall be consistent with settings, adjustments or replacement made by PG&E to PG&E's protective relaying equipment. The NCPA Parties shall install, modify, set, adjust or replace protective relaying equipment located within their respective Electric Systems in the event that such is required by PG&E's Modification of PG&E's Electric System consistent with CAISO requirements. Such changes shall be reviewed by the E&O Committee, unless otherwise agreed to by the affected Parties. The Parties shall exchange relay settings and fault duty information on a routine basis as agreed upon by the Parties. 9.11 Requirements for NCPA or NCPA Member Customer Operated Generators Connected to PG&E NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer shall enter into a generator interconnection-type agreement with PG&E substantially consistent with CAISO’s Generation Interconnection Agreement, consistent with NCPA’s MSS Agreement, and consistent with Section 6 of this Agreement for each new generating facility operated by NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 28 which is connected to PG&E’s Electric System at voltages of 60 kV or greater. NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer shall enter into a generator interconnection-type agreement with PG&E substantially consistent with PG&E’s Generator Interconnection Agreement under the PG&E WD Tariff, consistent with NCPA’s MSS Agreement and consistent with Section 6 of this Agreement for each new generating facility operated by NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer, which is connected to PG&E’s Electric System at voltages of less than 60 kV. This section 9.11 does not apply to NCPA or NCPA Member Customer generating facilities not connected to PG&E’s Electric System. The Parties will transition existing Special Facilities Agreements with PG&E to the appropriate Generator Interconnection Agreement, but this change is not intended to alter the rights or obligations of the Parties under the existing agreements. 9.12 Continuity Of Service 9.12.1 Operation Actions To Maintain Continuity Each Party shall take actions that are reasonable and consistent with Balancing Authority Area Arrangements as necessary to maintain continuity of service between the Parties. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, opening or closing circuit breakers or other components of the interconnections. 9.12.2 Unscheduled Interruptions A Party may temporarily interrupt or reduce any service, or temporarily separate all or any part of the facilities of its Electric System from another Party’s Electric System to implement CAISO operating orders and their respective Balancing Authority Area Arrangements or Good Utility Practice at any time that: (i) a System Emergency exists, provided that if the unscheduled interruption is not undertaken pursuant to a CAISO operating order (a) such interruption, reduction of service or separation is necessary to remedy the System Emergency, and (b) the duration of such interruption, reduction of service or separation will be limited to as short a time period as reasonable under the circumstances; (ii) the action is necessary to prevent a hazard to life or property; or (iii) the operation of the Party’s Electric System is suspended, interrupted or interfered with as a result of an Uncontrollable Force. Reasonable effort shall be made to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 29 coordinate any such interruption and such interruption will be immediately communicated to the affected Party. In the event of such interruption or reduction in service, the Parties shall restore full service on a basis comparable to the restoration of other public service and safety facilities and consistent with their respective Balancing Authority Area Arrangements. 9.12.3 Scheduled Interruptions All scheduled interruptions of service shall be made as mutually agreed to by the Parties and in accordance with Balancing Authority Area Arrangements and Good Utility Practice. The Parties shall provide a minimum of 72 hours advance notice of any such interruption, reduction or separation, and its estimated duration. 9.12.4 Interruption By Protective Devices The Parties utilize automatic protective devices in order to assist in maintaining the integrity and reliability of their respective Electric Systems and to protect their customers from damage, injury or prolonged outages. Service on the Parties’ Electric Systems is subject to interruption in the event of operation of such devices. In the event of such interruption, service will be restored consistent with Good Utility Practice and Balancing Authority Area Arrangements. In addition, the Parties shall coordinate such restoration and all installations, upgrades, and replacements of protective devices at Point(s) of Interconnection. 9.12.5 Jeopardy If at any time continuity of service within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area is being jeopardized due to failure of facilities, the Parties shall coordinate their responses to the situation in order to implement CAISO operating orders in accordance with their respective Balancing Authority Area Arrangements, Good Utility Practice, and any relevant standard promulgated by NERC or another body authorized to promulgate such standards. Such coordination may include the reduction of load; provided, except as otherwise set forth in the Parties’ Balancing Authority Area Arrangements, such reduction shall maintain, as far as may be practicable, the relative sizes of load served by each Party in the same proportion as existed before such reduction so that no one Party is required to reduce its load disproportionately. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 30 Any Party may also temporarily interrupt or reduce deliveries to Points of Interconnection or separate all or a part of the facilities of its Electric System from all or a part of the Electric System of another Party, or the Electric System that directly or indirectly serves another Party, if the first Party determines that the following conditions exist or that the described action is necessary: (i) a System Emergency; (ii) in order to install equipment on, make repairs or replacements to, make investigations and inspections of, or perform maintenance or other work on a Party’s Electric System; (iii) to prevent a hazard to life or property; (iv) as necessitated by Good Utility Practice; or (v) where the operation of a Party’s Electric System is suspended, interrupted or interfered with as a result of Uncontrollable Force. The Parties understand and agree that load curtailment under such circumstances should be coordinated among PG&E, NCPA, the relevant NCPA Member Customer(s) and the CAISO based upon the CAISO Tariff and any Balancing Authority Area Arrangements entered into between the Parties and the CAISO. The Parties shall endeavor to provide notice to the affected Party prior to such interruptions or reductions of deliveries, and such interruptions or reductions of deliveries shall be minimized and implemented after all other practical remedies have been exhausted. 9.13 Operating Records Each Party shall maintain operating records in accordance with Good Utility Practice. Each Party shall have reasonable access to such operating records kept by another Party which reasonably relate to interconnected operation of the Parties' Electric Systems; provided, that if requested to do so by the other Party, a Party requesting such records shall be required to keep such records confidential pursuant to Section 9.14. Such records shall include, but not be limited to, operating logs, scheduled transfers through each Point of Interconnection, line loadings, outage and power quality reports, voltages and reactive power. 9.14 Confidentiality The Parties anticipate that during the course of the Parties’ relationship under this Agreement, they will at times supply copies of confidential or proprietary information to each other, including information that should be kept confidential from and not disclosed to certain departments within a Party (e.g., transmission planning information that cannot be disclosed to marketing personnel) or to Third Parties, including the public. If PG&E supplies confidential PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 31 information to NCPA and/or one or more NCPA Member Customers, or NCPA or one or more NCPA Member Customer supplies confidential information to PG&E, it is the responsibility of the supplying Party to inform the receiving Party that such information is confidential and to label or otherwise mark each confidential document or electronic file “CONFIDENTIAL”. It shall be the responsibility and obligation of the receiving Party to maintain the confidentiality of such information in accordance with the supplying Party’s reasonable instructions, and to not disclose information designated confidential to any Third Party or entity to whom disclosure is prohibited under applicable regulations (e.g., the FERC Standards of Conduct), unless required to do so by law. If a Party (“Receiving Party”) receives a request from a Third Party, whether under the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Sections 6250-6270, as amended, or otherwise, for access to, or inspection, disclosure or copying of, any of the other Party’s (the “Supplying Party”) confidential data or information (“Disclosure Request”), then the Receiving Party shall provide notice to and a copy of the Disclosure Request to the Supplying Party within three (3) business days of receipt of the Disclosure Request. Within three (3) business days of receipt of such notice, the Supplying Party shall provide notice to the Receiving Party either: (a) that the Supplying Party believes there are reasonable legal grounds for denying or objecting to the Disclosure Request, and the Supplying Party requests the Receiving Party to deny or object to the Disclosure Request with respect to identified confidential information. In such case, the Supplying Party will either defend the denial of the Disclosure Request at its sole Cost (with reasonable assistance by the Receiving Party), or it shall indemnify the Receiving Party for all Costs associated with denying or objecting to the Disclosure Request. Such indemnification by the Supplying Party of the Receiving Party shall include all of the Receiving Party’s Costs reasonably incurred with respect to denial of or objection to the Disclosure Request, including but not limited to Costs, penalties, and the Receiving Party’s attorneys’ fees; or PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 32 (b) that the Supplying Party shall agree that the Receiving Party may grant the Disclosure Request without any liability by the Receiving Party to the Supplying Party. 10 SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE The procedures set forth in this Section 10 shall apply in the event of a Significant Regulatory Change or a Significant Operational Change as described below. 10.1 Significant Regulatory Change A “Significant Regulatory Change,” as this term is used in this Section 10, shall be deemed to occur if FERC, the CPUC, the CAISO or any other court, public authority, governmental, or other lawfully established civilian authorities having jurisdiction, issues an order or decision or adopts or modifies a tariff or filed contract, or enacts a law that materially interferes with the ability of any Party to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement. 10.2 Significant Operational Change A “Significant Operational Change,” as this term is used in this Section 10, shall consist of any of the following: (i) a Party making a new interconnection of its Electric System with the Electric System of a Third Party, including any generation, that would have an Adverse Impact on the operation of another Party’s Electric System; (ii) installation, operation, termination, or expansion by a Party or a Third Party of a generation facility within any Party’s Electric System where power or energy from such generation is intended to or may possibly flow through a Point of Interconnection and create an Adverse Impact on another Party’s Electric System; (iii) a Long-Term Change to Operations; (iv) any other operational change proposed by a Party that could reasonably be expected to create an Adverse Impact on another Party’s Electric System; (v) material amendments and/or revisions to any tariffs, contracts or other applicable documents referenced in this Agreement that directly affect a Party’s obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the CAISO Tariff, PG&E’s TO Tariff or PG&E’s WD Tariff; or (vi) an action taken by the Balancing Authority that may have a material detrimental impact on the way a Party operates or must operate its Electric System or the Points of Interconnection between the Parties. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 33 10.3 Change in Functions or Scope The Parties recognize that there may be a change in the functions performed by the CAISO or in the scope of the facilities under the operational control of the CAISO, or the replacement of the CAISO with a Regional Transmission Organization that may perform different functions or have a different scope than the CAISO as of the Effective Date. Such a change shall not be deemed to be a Significant Regulatory Change unless the conditions described in Section 10.1 and 10.2 of this Agreement are satisfied. Any transfer from PG&E to the CAISO of any functions contemplated in this Agreement can be a Significant Regulatory Change if the conditions described in Section 10.1 and 10.2 of this Agreement are satisfied. 10.4 Notification of Significant Regulatory or Operational Change At any time during the term of this Agreement, if any Party anticipates the occurrence of a Significant Regulatory Change that may reasonably be expected to create an Adverse Impact on any Parties’ obligations or operations under this Agreement or Significant Operational Change, such Party shall provide written notice to the affected Parties as soon as practicable. The notice shall contain a description of the change, including expected time schedules, and of the effect of the significant change to the affected Party’s Electric System. If the Party giving notice believes that it will be necessary to amend this Agreement to address the anticipated change, then the notice to the other Party may include a proposal that the Parties meet to negotiate an appropriate amendment to this Agreement. The Parties shall promptly enter into good faith negotiations and attempt to achieve a mutually agreeable modification to this Agreement to address any such significant change. If a Party is uncertain as to whether a proposed change might be Significant or might create an Adverse Impact, or if it wishes to have certainty under Section 10.8 before proceeding, the Party should also give notice to the potentially Affected Party as soon as practicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where the potential Significant Operational Change is studied in or is the result of the CAISO generator interconnection process (“CAISO Generator Change”), a Party is not obligated to give notice under this Section 10.4, provided that the other Parties are notified in writing of the CAISO Generator Change in accordance with the CAISO Tariff in reasonable time to allow the other Parties the opportunity to express concerns and to provide information to the study conducted in accordance with the CAISO generator interconnection planning process. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 34 10.5 Amendment of Agreement If the Parties agree that an amendment to this Agreement is necessary to address a Significant Regulatory Change or a Significant Operational Change, the Parties will proceed to negotiate such amendment. If the Parties have not reached agreement within 60 calendar days of the date of the first meeting, any unresolved issues may be submitted for resolution through the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section 22; provided that all Parties agree to such procedures. After the 60-day period stated above, any Party may, but is not required to, unilaterally initiate an appropriate proceeding respecting this Agreement with FERC pursuant to Sections 205 or 206 of the FPA, which proceeding could include a request for termination of this Agreement, and another Party may exercise its rights under the FPA to protest or oppose such filing. In the event of filing for termination, PG&E shall make an appropriate regulatory filing of a replacement agreement such that the replacement agreement is effective contemporaneously with the termination date of this Agreement. 10.6 Studies of Significant Operational Change The Party receiving notice of a Significant Operational Change will respond to the Party submitting such notice within 30 days. If the Party receiving such notice believes that there will be no Adverse Impact resulting from the Significant Operational Change, it shall so state. If the Party receiving notice of a Significant Operational Change believes that the proposed change may reasonably be expected to have an Adverse Impact on the operation of its Electric System, it may request a study of any such Significant Operational Change to determine the potential for any Adverse Impacts and any potential avoidance or mitigation measures thereto. The affected Parties shall cooperate in determining the scope of the study and how the study should be conducted, and shall cooperate to provide information necessary to conduct such a study in a timely manner. NCPA may, at its sole discretion, act on behalf of a NCPA Member Customer and participate in determining the scope of the study and how the study should be conducted if NCPA is not an affected Party. To the extent studies are required, those studies will be performed in a reasonable period of time. If it is determined, based on the results of the study, that, in addition, a Facility Study or System Impact Study is required, such study shall be performed within the time and in the PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 35 manner specified in Section 10 of the PG&E TO Tariff and as agreed by the Parties. All study Costs associated with a proposal shall be the responsibility of the Party whose proposal or actions will cause the Significant Operational Change, or will be split into two equal shares by (1) PG&E and (2) the NCPA Parties if the CAISO is the entity that causes or will cause the change; provided, that such Costs may be paid by a responsible Third Party and that NCPA Parties shall be responsible for dividing their share of such Costs among themselves. Any disputes over the necessity of particular studies or the Cost of such studies shall be resolved through the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section 22 unless the dispute resolution procedures of the PG&E TO Tariff or the PG&E WD Tariff apply. Upon completion of necessary studies, the Parties will each review the study results and discuss any recommendations for avoidance and/or mitigation of Adverse Impacts. 10.7 Mitigation And Costs Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the Party whose proposal or action causes the Significant Operational Change (“Modifying Party”) shall be responsible for avoiding or fully mitigating an Adverse Impact to the Electric System of an affected Party (“Affected Party”), and to the extent Adverse Impacts cannot be avoided or fully mitigated, fully compensating the Affected Party for all Costs incurred pursuant to the Adverse Impact; provided, that such Costs may be paid by a responsible Third Party. Any reasonable Cost incurred by the Affected Party in its cooperation with the Modifying Party shall be reimbursed by the Modifying Party. All avoidance or mitigation measures shall be completed before the Significant Operational Change is made. Any dispute regarding the need for, the nature of, or the Cost of mitigating Adverse Impacts or compensating the Affected Party for those Adverse Impacts that cannot be mitigated shall be resolved through the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section 22. In the event changes in transmission delivery voltages, relocation of facilities serving Points of Interconnections or other changes in transmission facilities are necessary on PG&E’s side of any Point of Interconnection with NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer because of changes to PG&E’s transmission as a result of Good Utility Practice or CAISO planning requirements, these changes shall be made by PG&E at its expense. For similar changes made to NCPA’s or an NCPA Member Customer’s side of Point(s) of Interconnection, such changes shall PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 36 be at NCPA’s or the NCPA Member Customer’s expense unless the change is made for PG&E’s benefit and at PG&E’s sole discretion or as otherwise agreed. Such change made at PG&E’s sole discretion shall be submitted to the E&O Committee for its determination of respective long term benefits of such changes, if any. The E&O Committee shall recommend a methodology for allocating the Cost of such changes based on the projected net long-term benefits to each Party. Changes required on PG&E’s side due to any changes made for NCPA’s or an NCPA Member Customer’s benefit and at NCPA’s or an NCPA Member Customer’s sole discretion shall be made at NCPA’s or the NCPA Member Customer’s expense, unless submitted to the E&O Committee for its determination of an appropriate allocation between the Parties based on projected net long term benefits to each Party. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 10.7, the Modifying Party will not be responsible for their share of any Costs associated with the changes made under this Section that are approved by FERC, or other jurisdictional authority, for inclusion in the Affected Party’s Transmission Revenue Requirement for recovery through Access Charges, as provided in Section 26 of the CAISO Tariff. Nothing in the foregoing sentence obligates or requires the Affected Party to seek recovery for any specific Costs in their Transmission Revenue Requirement. 10.8 Failure To Notify Of Significant Operational Changes Each Party has a duty to provide notice to any Affected Parties of Significant Operational Changes planned for its Electric System that could reasonably be expected to have an Adverse Impact on the Electric System of those Parties. If a Party implements a Significant Operational Change without providing such notice, the Affected Party shall have the right to open any affected Point(s) of Interconnection if, in its judgment, it is necessary to protect the integrity of its Electric System, and the right to file with FERC under Sections 205 or 206 of the FPA seeking appropriate relief, including, but not limited to, amendment or termination of this Agreement, except that the termination of this Agreement by an NCPA Member Customer will not be deemed to terminate this Agreement as to NCPA or any other NCPA Member Customer. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 37 11 INSTALLATION AND ACCESS Where it is necessary for any Party to install any of its facilities on another Party’s premises in order to accomplish the Interconnection or otherwise to perform the duties contemplated by this Agreement, the Parties hereby grant to each other, subject to any legal and regulatory requirements for any specific installation, for the term of this Agreement: i) the right to make such installation along the mutually agreed route (subject to each Party’s right to protect its operations or that of its customers in its Service Area) of sufficient width to provide full legal clearance from all structures on such property; and ii) access to each Party’s premises upon reasonable notice and at reasonable hours for any purposes reasonably connected with this Agreement. No Party shall be allowed or obligated to install such facilities unless and until all necessary licenses, permits, certificates, or other governmental authorizations or approvals that may be necessary are obtained and any necessary easements for the installation of facilities are granted. Electric facilities belonging to one Party that are installed on another Party’s premises will be relocated only with the agreement of the owner of such facilities, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. The requesting Party shall pay the Cost, if any, of any such facility relocation. If such Costs are FERC jurisdictional, PG&E shall request and obtain FERC acceptance to assess such Costs prior to collection. 12 METERING 12.1 Delivery Meters All real and reactive power deliveries shall be metered at each Point of Interconnection with meters meeting the requirements of: (i) the CAISO Tariff for interconnections at 60 kV and above; and (ii) the PG&E WD Tariff for interconnections below 60 kV. Any conflicts with regard to metering standards that may arise between this Agreement, the PG&E WD Tariff, or the CAISO Tariff shall be resolved consistent with the applicable tariff. Power deliveries shall be metered at delivery voltages described in Appendix A. At a minimum, the Responsible Meter Party shall meter all power flowing across each Point of Interconnection in either direction. The Parties shall cooperate in the installation and provision of access to the meters, as necessary for each Party to obtain the information needed to perform as contemplated under this Agreement. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 38 12.2 Requirements For Meters And Meter Maintenance The Responsible Meter Party is obligated to install and maintain metering equipment, including where necessary RTUs, in accordance with CAISO standards, at each Point of Interconnection that shall measure and record real and reactive power flows and shall be capable of recording flows in both directions. Such “in” and “out” meters shall be designed to prevent reverse registration and measure and continuously record such deliveries. 12.3 The NCPA Parties’ Obligation To Provide Meter Data To PG&E NCPA and the NCPA Member Customers, pursuant to the NCPA MSS Agreement, subject to any exemptions granted by the CAISO, supplies the CAISO with both telemetry and settlement quality meter data for each Point of Interconnection. The telemetry data includes generator status, voltage and energy output. NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer will be the Responsible Meter Party for each meter and will grant PG&E access to the same metering data in accordance with the NCPA MSS Agreement. NCPA or an NCPA Member Customers shall also grant PG&E access to metering data that is supplied to the CAISO in accordance with the NCPA MSS Agreement that is associated with generating units interconnected to the Electric System of NCPA or an NCPA Member Customers. NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer will reasonably cooperate with PG&E to ensure that PG&E can successfully access metering data under this Section 12.3. Should the NCPA MSS Agreement terminate for any reason, the Parties shall cooperate in determining an alternative method for supplying PG&E the same level of access to data as it had under the NCPA MSS Agreement and this Agreement. In addition, where there is real-time telemetry of NCPA or NCPA Member Customer generation facilities and transmission interconnections of one (1) MW or larger, NCPA and/or NCPA Member Customers shall provide PG&E with the available real-time telemetry via the existing PG&E to NCPA Inter-Control Center Protocol (“ICCP”) data link. 12.4 Consequences of Failing to Provide Meter Data In the event that the Responsible Meter Party fails to provide to PG&E access to available meter data in accordance with Section 12.3, PG&E shall be entitled to make reasonable assumptions necessary for the operation of its transmission system. The assumptions shall be PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 39 based on reasonably available information including, but not limited to, records of historical usage, available data and meter readings and general characteristics of NCPA or the NCPA Member Customers’ operation and facilities. 12.5 Periodic Meter Testing All meters necessary to operate each Point of Interconnection shall be installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with the CAISO Tariff and Good Utility Practice, and shall be tested periodically by the Party owning the meter, at intervals consistent with the CAISO Tariff, and at any other reasonable time upon request by PG&E (if an NCPA Party) or NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer (if PG&E). Meters shall be sealed and the seals shall be broken only upon occasions when the meters are to be inspected, tested, or adjusted, and representatives of PG&E (if an NCPA Party) or the NCPA Parties (if PG&E) shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to be present upon such occasions. Notwithstanding a Party’s obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for other Parties to be present for meter inspections, testing or adjustments, if metering equipment that is used to collect settlement qualify data requires immediate maintenance or repair, such maintenance or repair may be completed by the owning Party at is sole discretion. 13 BILLING AND PAYMENT PG&E shall bill NCPA and/or an NCPA Member Customer, and NCPA and/or an NCPA Member Customer shall pay any amounts owed to PG&E pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with Appendix D. NCPA and/or an NCPA Member Customer shall bill PG&E, and PG&E shall pay any amounts owed to NCPA and/or an NCPA Member Customer pursuant to this Agreement, where Sections D.1 through D.9 of Appendix D shall hereto apply to PG&E’s payment obligations to NCPA and/or an NCPA Member Customer, substituting “NCPA” and/or “NCPA Member Customer” for “PG&E”, respectively, in accordance with Appendix D. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 40 14 ACCOUNTING 14.1 Accounting Procedures The Parties shall record relevant Cost(s) and maintain accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and as to PG&E the FERC Uniform System of Accounts. 14.2 Audit Rights For good cause and upon reasonable notice, each Party shall have the right to audit, at its own expense, the relevant records of PG&E (if an NCPA Party) or NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer (if PG&E) for the limited purpose of determining whether the other Party is meeting its obligations under this Agreement. Such audits shall be limited to only those records reasonably required to determine compliance with this Agreement, and each Party agrees to disclose the information obtained in such audit only to those persons, whether employed by such Party or otherwise, that are directly involved in the administration of this Agreement and that are permitted to have access to such information under applicable regulations, including the FERC Standards of Conduct. Each Party agrees that under no circumstances will it use any information obtained in such an audit for any commercial purpose or for any purpose other than assuring enforcement of this Agreement. The right to audit shall be limited to data for two prior years from the date of the final billing for a matter or from the date of the questioned event, as applicable. 15 ADVERSE DETERMINATION OR EXPANSION OF OBLIGATIONS 15.1 Adverse Determination If, after the Effective Date of this Agreement, FERC or any other regulatory body, agency or court of competent jurisdiction determines that all or any part of this Agreement, its operation or effect is unjust, unreasonable, unlawful, imprudent or otherwise not in the public interest, each Party shall be relieved of any obligations hereunder to the extent necessary to comply with or eliminate such adverse determination. The Parties shall promptly enter into good faith negotiations in an attempt to achieve a mutually agreeable modification to this Agreement to address any such adverse determination. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 41 15.2 Expansion Of Obligations If, after the Effective Date of this Agreement, FERC or any other regulatory body, agency or court of competent jurisdiction orders or determines that this Agreement should be interpreted, modified, or significantly extended in such a manner that a Party may be required to extend its obligations under this Agreement to a Third Party, or to incur under this Agreement significant new or different obligations to another Party or to Third Parties not contemplated by this Agreement, then the Parties shall be relieved of their obligations to the extent lawful and necessary to eliminate the effect of that order or determination, and the Parties shall attempt to renegotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of the Agreement to restore the original balance of benefits and burdens contemplated by the Parties at the time this Agreement was made. 15.3 Renegotiation If, within three months after an order or decision as described in Sections 15.1 and 15.2, the Parties either: (i) do not agree that a renegotiation is feasible or necessary; or (ii) the Parties cannot agree to amend or supersede this Agreement, then: (a) any Party may initiate dispute resolution in accordance with Section 22; (b) PG&E may unilaterally file an amendment to this Agreement or a replacement agreement; or (c) the NCPA Parties may take any action before the FERC or elsewhere which it deems appropriate. The effect of any termination under this Section 15.3, and the rights of the Parties thereunder, shall be as provided in Sections 36 and 37. As used in this Section 15.3, the term “Agreement” includes both this Agreement and any tariff, rate or rate schedule that in whole or in part results from this Agreement. 16 ASSIGNMENT 16.1 Consent Required No transfer or assignment of the rights, benefits or duties of any Party under this Agreement shall be effective without the prior written consent of the other Parties except as provided herein, which consent shall not be withheld unreasonably; provided, that this Section 16 shall not apply to interests that arise by reason of any deed of trust, mortgage, indenture or security agreement heretofore granted or executed by any Party. No partial assignment of the PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 42 rights, benefits or duties of any Party shall be permitted under this Agreement unless otherwise agreed to by PG&E (if an NCPA Party) or NCPA and the NCPA Member Customers (if PG&E), except that the NCPA Parties may assign the rights, benefits and duties under this Agreement among themselves at their discretion. 16.2 Assignee's Continuing Obligation Any successor to or transferee or assignee of the rights or obligations of a Party, whether by voluntary transfer, judicial sale, foreclosure sale or otherwise, shall be subject to all terms and conditions of this Agreement to the same extent as though such successor, transferee, or assignee were an original Party. 17 CAPTIONS All indices, titles, subject headings, section titles and similar items are provided for the purpose of reference and convenience and are not intended to affect the meaning of the contents or scope of the Agreement. 18 CONSTRUCTION OF THE AGREEMENT Ambiguities or uncertainties in the wording of the Agreement shall not be construed for or against any Party. 19 CONTROL AND OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES The Electric System of a Party shall at all times be and remain in the exclusive ownership, possession and control of the Party, or licensed or leased to that Party as provided in the applicable arrangement, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give another Party any right of ownership, possession or control of all or any portion of that Electric System. All facilities owned and installed by one Party hereunder shall, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, at all times be and remain the property of that Party, except that the NCPA Parties may transfer ownership of property among themselves at their discretion. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 43 20 COOPERATION AND RIGHT OF ACCESS AND INSPECTION Each Party shall give to the others all necessary permission to enable it to perform its obligations under the Agreement. PG&E shall give to the NCPA Parties, and the NCPA Parties to PG&E, the right to have their agents, employees and representatives, on reasonable notice and accompanied by the agents, employees and representatives of the other Party, enter its premises at reasonable times and in accordance with reasonable rules and regulations for the purpose of inspecting the property and equipment of the other Party to the extent necessary and in a manner that is reasonable for assuring the performance of the Parties under the Agreement. 21 DEFAULT 21.1 Termination For Default If any Party breaches its material obligations under this Agreement, such breach shall constitute an event of default. If any Party defaults under this Agreement, another Party may terminate this Agreement as to the defaulting Party; provided that prior to such termination the non-defaulting Party must provide the defaulting Party with written notice stating: 1) the non- defaulting Party’s intent to terminate; 2) the date of such intended termination; 3) the specific grounds for termination; 4) specific actions that the defaulting Party must take to cure the default, if any; and 5) a reasonable period of time, which shall not be less than 60 calendar days, within which the defaulting Party may take action to cure the default and avoid termination, provided there is any action which can be taken to cure the default. Termination shall not become effective without approval by FERC. Application of dispute resolution pursuant to Section 22 with regard to separate disputes shall not be deemed to limit the right to terminate this Agreement under this Section 21.1. Notwithstanding the right of a non-defaulting Party to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 21.1, if less than all of the NCPA Member Customers exercise such right, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining Parties. Nor will the default of one or more NCPA Member Customers allow termination of the Agreement with respect to NCPA itself or the other NCPA Member Customers. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 44 21.2 Other Remedies For Default The remedy under Section 21.1 is not exclusive and, subject to Section 22, any Party shall be entitled to pursue any other legal, equitable or regulatory rights and remedies it may have in response to a default by another Party. 22 DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Parties shall make best efforts to resolve all disputes arising under this Agreement expeditiously and by good faith negotiation. Where this Agreement specifically calls for resolution of disputes pursuant to this Section 22, the Parties shall pursue dispute resolution according to the provisions of Appendix B. 23 GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be interpreted, governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California, as if executed and to be performed within the State of California. 24 INDEMNITY 24.1 Definitions As used in this Section 24, with initial letters capitalized, whether in the singular or the plural, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 24.1.1 Accidents (i) Accidents sustained by a Third Party (“Claimant”), which is an ultimate use customer of a Party; (ii) arises out of delivery of, or curtailment of, or interruption to electric service, including but not limited to abnormalities in frequency or voltage; and (iii) results from either or both of the following: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 45 a. engineering, design, construction, repair, supervision, inspection, testing, protection, operation, maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, use, or ownership of any Party's Electric System; or b. the performance or non-performance of any Party's obligations under the Agreement. 24.2 Indemnity Duty If a Claimant makes a claim or brings an action against a Party seeking recovery for loss, damage, Costs or expenses resulting from or arising out of an Accident the following shall apply: 24.2.1 That Party shall defend any such claim or action brought against it, except as otherwise provided in this Section 24.2. 24.2.2 A Party ("Indemnitor") shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify, to the fullest extent permitted by law, PG&E (if such claim or action is brought against an NCPA Party) or NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer (if such claim or action is brought against PG&E), its directors or members of its governing board, officers and employees ("Indemnitees"), upon request by the Indemnitee, for claims or actions brought against the Indemnitee allegedly resulting from Accidents caused by acts, errors or omissions of the Indemnitor. 24.2.3 No Party shall under this Agreement be obligated to defend, hold harmless or indemnify another Party, its directors or members of its governing board, officers and employees for Accidents resulting from the latter's gross negligence or willful misconduct. 24.2.4 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 46 In the event a dispute under this Section 24 is litigated, each Party specifically agrees to pay its own incurred Costs including attorney’s fees, expert and consultant fees, and other Costs of litigation. 25 JUDGMENTS AND DETERMINATIONS When the terms of this Agreement provide that an action may or must be taken, or that the existence of a condition may be established based on a judgment or determination of a Party, such judgment shall be exercised or such determination shall be made reasonably and in good faith, and where applicable in accordance with Good Utility Practice and shall not be arbitrary or capricious. 26 LIABILITY 26.1 To Third Parties Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any duty to, any standard of care with reference to, or any liability to, any Third Party. 26.2 No Consequential, Special or Indirect Damages from Breach Except for its willful action, gross negligence, or with respect to breach of this Agreement or the indemnity duty under Section 24.2, no Party, nor its directors or members of its governing board, officers, employees or agents shall be liable under this Agreement to another Party for any loss, damage, claim, Cost, charge or expense arising from or related to this Agreement. In the event of breach of this Agreement, no Party, nor its directors or members of its governing board, officers, employees or agents shall be liable under this Agreement to another Party for any consequential, special or indirect damages. 26.3 Protection Of A Party’s Own Facilities Each Party shall be responsible for protecting its facilities from possible damage by reason of electrical disturbances or faults caused by the operation, faulty operation, or non- operation of PG&E’s (if an NCPA Party) or NCPA’s or an NCPA Member Customers’ (if PG&E) facilities, and such other Party shall not be liable for any such damage so caused; PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 47 provided, this limitation on liability shall not extend to failure to observe the requirements of Section 10. 26.4 Liability For Interruptions PG&E shall not be liable to the NCPA Parties, and the NCPA Parties shall not be liable to PG&E, and each hereby releases the others and their directors, members of their governing board, officers, employees and agents from and indemnifies them, to the fullest extent permitted by law, for any claim, demand, liability, loss or damage, whether direct, indirect or consequential, incurred by either, that results from the interruption or curtailment in accordance with i) this Agreement, ii) Good Utility Practice, or (iii) as directed by the CAISO, of power flows through a Point of Interconnection under this Agreement. 27 NO DEDICATION OF FACILITIES Any undertaking by any Party under any provision of this Agreement is rendered strictly as an accommodation and shall not constitute the dedication by the first Party of any part or all of its Electric System to the other, the public, or any Third Party. Any such undertaking by any Party under a provision of, or resulting from, this Agreement shall cease upon the termination of that Party’s obligations under this Agreement. 28 NO OBLIGATION TO OFFER SAME SERVICE TO OTHERS By entering into this Agreement to interconnect with the NCPA Parties or any Third Party at NCPA’s or an NCPA Member Customer’s request, and filing it with FERC, PG&E does not commit itself to furnish any like or similar undertaking to any other person or entity. 29 NO PRECEDENT This Agreement establishes no precedent with regard to any other entity or agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall establish any rights to or precedent for other arrangements as may exist, now or in the future, between the Parties for the provision of any interconnection arrangements, interconnection service, or any form of electric service. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 48 30 NO OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED No Party undertakes under this Agreement the obligation to provide or make available any transmission service, distribution service, power or energy sales or services or Ancillary Services for any other Party or any Third Party, unless otherwise agreed to by a Party, and where such provision or receipt of services will be made pursuant to a separate agreement. Provided, however, this Agreement does not supersede rights or obligations as provided in Existing Contracts. 30.1 Limitation on Parties Obligation The Parties specifically intend that this Agreement shall relate only to their rights and obligations pertaining to the interconnection of their Electric Systems. Under this Agreement, no Party undertakes to provide or make available any Balancing Authority Area services, transmission service, distribution service, power or energy sales or services or Ancillary Services for any other Party or any Third Party, and in no circumstance shall anyParty be responsible under this Agreement for providing any such services. This Agreement does not supersede rights or obligations as provided in any other agreement between any or all of the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent any Party from seeking an order under Section 211 or 212 of the FPA. 30.2 Transmission Arrangements The NCPA Parties are currently party to several contracts that, among other things, provide Transmission Arrangements for the delivery of power to NCPA Parties’ Electric Systems. Nothing in this Agreement shall interfere with the NCPA Parties’ rights, including those for transmission services, provided under such contracts. All Parties may make Transmission Arrangements, other than or in addition to such service provided from the CAISO. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 49 31 NOTICES 31.1 Written Notices Any notice, request, declaration, demand, information, report, or item otherwise required, authorized or provided for in this Agreement shall be given in writing, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and shall be deemed properly given if delivered personally or by facsimile transmission (fax), sent by first class United States Mail or overnight or express mail service, postage or fees prepaid, or through electronic communication where such electronic communication shall be deemed delivered on the first business day following delivery, to each of the persons specified below: (1) To NCPA: Randy Howard General Manager Northern California Power Agency 651 Commerce Drive Roseville, CA 95678 AND Tony Zimmer Supervisor, Industry Restructuring & Interconnection Affairs Northern California Power Agency 651 Commerce Drive Roseville, CA 95678 (2) To PG&E: Mr. David Rubin Director, Service Analysis Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mail Code N9p P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 50 With a copy to: Mr. Yilma Hailemichael Manager, Transmission Contract Management Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mail Code B13L P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 And: Mr. Bruce Henry Director, Transmission System Operations Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mail Code B15A P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 (3) To City of Alameda: Glenn Steiger General Manager Alameda Municipal Power 2000 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 (4) To City of Biggs: Mark Sorensen City Administrator City of Biggs P.O. Box 307 465 “C” Street Biggs, CA 95917 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 51 (5) To City of Gridley: City Administrator City of Gridley 685 Kentucky Street Gridley, CA 95948 (6) To City of Healdsburg: Terry Crowley Electric Utility Director City of Healdsburg 401 Grove Street Healdsburg, CA 95448 (7) To City of Lodi: Elizabeth Kirkley Utility Director City of Lodi 1331 South Ham Lane Lodi, CA 95242 (8) To City of Lompoc: Larry Bean Utility Department Director City of Lompoc P.O. Box 8001 100 Civic Center Plaza Lompoc, CA 93438 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 52 (9) To City of Palo Alto: Valerie Fong Utilities Director City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (10) To Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative: Bob Marshall General Manager Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative 73233 Highway 70 Portola, CA 96122 (11) To City of Ukiah: Mel Grandi Utility Director City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 31.2 Changes Of Notice Recipient Any Party may change its designation of the person who is to receive notices on its behalf by giving the other Parties notice thereof in the manner provided in this Section 31. No more than three persons shall be designated by a Party to receive notices. 31.3 Routine Notices Any notice of a routine character in connection with service under this Agreement or in connection with the operation of facilities shall be given in such a manner as the Parties may determine is appropriate from time to time, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 53 31.4 Reliance On Notice Every Party shall be entitled under this Agreement to rely on another Party’s notice when given (or not given, when a Party fails to provide notice within the time prescribed) as having all necessary approvals of that other Party’s management, Board of Directors or other governing body, and any notice (or failure to provide timely notice) hereunder shall be binding on the noticing Party and shall obligate that Party to make such payments or to perform such duties as are necessarily associated with the notice or, if a Party fails to provide timely notice, that failure to give notice. 32 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Nothing contained herein shall be construed as affecting in any way the Parties’ rights under Sections 205 and 206 of the FPA or the regulations promulgated thereunder. The term “rates” as used herein shall mean a statement of rates and charges for or in connection with the services provided for in this Agreement, and all classifications, practices, rules or regulations that in any manner affect or relate to such rates and charges. PG&E may unilaterally make application to FERC for a change in rates, including rate methodology and the terms and conditions of service, under Section 205 of the FPA and pursuant to FERC’s rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Any party may seek changes to the terms of this Agreement pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as affecting in any way the right of the NCPA Parties to oppose such a change under Section 205 or FERC’s rules and regulations or to exercise its rights under Section 206 of the FPA or FERC’s rules and regulations. 33 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS AND SECURITY All Parties shall be fully responsible and liable to each other for payments to be made under this Agreement. The Parties shall perform unconditionally and fully each and every obligation that each has under this Agreement; provided, that this Agreement shall not restrict any right any Party may otherwise have to pledge any of its revenues, funds, assets, rights, property or interests therein. A Party’s status as a creditor shall not be subordinate to the interest of any creditor, subject to any pledge or debt obligation, provision of law or existing obligations of a Party. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 54 34 RULES AND REGULATIONS The Parties may propose, from time to time, changes to such procedures, rules, or regulations as they shall determine are necessary in order to establish the methods of operation to be followed in the performance of this Agreement or requirements of the Balancing Authority; provided, that any such procedure, rule, or regulation shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement. If a Party objects to a procedure, rule, or regulation proposed by another Party, it will notify the other Parties and the Parties will endeavor to modify the procedure, rule, or regulation in order to resolve the objection. No such procedure, rule or regulation shall be adopted absent the mutual written consent of the Parties. 35 SEVERABILITY If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement or its application is held to be invalid as to any person, entity or circumstance, by FERC or any other regulatory body, or agency or court of competent jurisdiction, then such term, covenant or condition shall cease to have force and effect to the extent of that holding. In that event, however, all other terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement and their application shall not be affected thereby, but shall remain in full force and effect unless and to the extent that a regulatory agency or court of competent jurisdiction finds that a provision is not separable from the invalid provision(s) of this Agreement. 36 CONTINUING RIGHTS OF THE NCPA PARTIES UPON TERMINATION Upon termination of the Agreement, the NCPA Parties shall continue to have such rights, if any, to be connected to PG&E's Electric System that are provided by law, regulation or other contract or agreement; provided, that the existence of this Agreement, after its termination, shall not be used by any Party to establish or defeat the existence of any rights provided by law, regulation or other contract or agreement. Termination of this Agreement, if accepted or approved by FERC, also shall terminate any other tariff or rate schedule that in whole or in part results from this Agreement, to the extent not inconsistent with a Party's aforementioned rights at law. After termination of this Agreement and any required FERC acceptance or approval of such termination, all obligations and rights provided under this Agreement or such tariff or rate schedule shall cease, and no Party shall claim or assert any continuing right other than as may be PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 55 provided by law, regulation or other contract or agreement. Such termination shall not affect rights and obligations of a continuing nature or for payment of money for goods or services provided prior to termination. This Section shall not be construed as a bar to the assertion by the NCPA Parties of any rights it may have to service following termination of this Agreement, independent and exclusive of the Agreement. 37 RIGHTS OF PG&E UPON TERMINATION Should FERC deny, condition, suspend or defer PG&E's notice of termination, PG&E shall under no circumstances be required to maintain any interconnections or to provide any services, based in whole or in part on the existence of this Agreement, beyond the minimum time necessary for compliance with FERC's denial, condition, suspension or deferral. 38 WAIVER OF RIGHTS Any waiver at any time by any Party of its rights with respect to a default under the Agreement, or with respect to any other matter arising in connection with the Agreement, shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver with respect to any subsequent default or other matter arising in connection with this Agreement. Any delay, short of the statutory period of limitations, in asserting or enforcing any right shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver. 39 UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES A Party shall not be considered to be in default in the performance of any obligation under the Agreement (other than an obligation to make payments for bills previously rendered pursuant to the Agreement) when a failure of performance is the result of Uncontrollable Forces. 40 ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS PG&E and the NCPA Parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement constitute the entire agreement between them regarding the subject matter of the Agreement and the Parties' rights and obligations with respect thereto. This Agreement is intended to be the complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Parties’ agreement that supersedes all prior and contemporaneous offers, promises, representations, negotiations, discussions or communications between PG&E and the NCPA Parties that may have been made in connection with the subject PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 56 matter of this Agreement. No representation, covenant, or other matter, oral or written, that is not expressly set forth, incorporated, or referenced in this Agreement (except for applicable laws and regulations) shall be a part of, modify, or affect this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified by written agreement of the Parties. Each subpart of Appendix A of this Agreement may be modified by the written agreement of PG&E and the NCPA Member Customer to whose Point(s) of Interconnection that subsection applies, without the agreement of any other Party. 41 NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR OBLIGATION No right or obligation contained in this Agreement shall be applied or used for the benefit of any person or entity that is not a Party. 42 WARRANTY OF AUTHORITY Each Party warrants and represents that this Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by such Party and constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of such Party, enforceable against such Party in accordance with its terms, except as enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, or similar laws effecting the enforcement of creditor’s rights. 43 COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each executed counterpart shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument and as if all the signatories to all of the counterparts had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Agreement may be detached from any counterpart of this Agreement without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Agreement identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more signature pages. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 57 44 APPENDICES INCLUDED The following Appendices to this Agreement, as they may be revised from time to time by written agreement of the Parties or by order of FERC, are attached hereto and are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein: Appendix A — Points of Interconnection Appendix B — Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Appendix C — Upgrade Facilities Appendix D — Billing and Payments Appendix E — Operational Coordination PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 58 45 EXECUTION IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have, by signature of its duly authorized representative shown below, executed and delivered a counterpart of this Agreement. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY By: Name: Randy S. Howard Title: General Manger PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By: Name: David Rubin Title: Director, Service Analysis CITY OF ALAMEDA By: Name: Title: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 59 CITY OF BIGGS By: Name: Title: CITY OF GRIDLEY By: Name: Title: CITY OF HEALDSBURG By: Name: Title: CITY OF LODI By: Name: Title: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Service Agreement No. ____ FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 5 60 CITY OF LOMPOC By: Name: Title: CITY OF PALO ALTO By: Name: Title: PLUMAS SIERRA RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE By: Name: Title: CITY OF UKIAH By: Name: Title: 61 APPENDIX A POINTS OF INTERCONNECTION NCPA Member Customer Point(s) of Interconnection Voltage (kV) Alameda Oakland Substation C and Oakland Substation J 115 (Both Points) Biggs Biggs Sub (60 kV and 12 kV) 60 and 121 Gridley Gridley Sub 60 Healdsburg Healdsburg Sub 60 Lodi Industrial Sub (Lodi Line 1 and Lodi Line 2); and White Slough STIG2 60 (Both Industrial Points) 230 (White Slough STIG) Lompoc Lompoc Sub (Lompoc Line 1 and Lompoc Line 2) 115 (Both Points) Palo Alto Colorado Sub (Palo Alto Line 1, Palo Alto Line 2, and Palo Alto Line 3) 115 (All 3 Points) Plumas Sierra Quincy Sub 60 Ukiah Babcock Sub 115 1 As set forth in the Interruptible Wholesale Distribution Service and Interconnection Agreement between PG&E and the City of Biggs (“12 kV Agreement,” PG&E Rate Schedule ____), PG&E’s 12 kV system and the facilities needed to retain the connection with the City of Biggs shall only be used for delivery in emergency conditions or during scheduled maintenance of the 60 kV system and only on an as available and interruptible basis, after notification by the party requesting such use. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement or the 12 kV Agreement, PG&E may take the 60 kV system out of operation or schedule maintenance on the 60 kV system regardless of available capacity on the 12 kV system; provided, however, that PG&E otherwise communicates and coordinates planned outages with NCPA and the City of Biggs in accordance with Section 9.4 of this Agreement. 2 Lodi Wastewater treatment plant Load will be served via the Lodi White Slough STIG Interconnection with PG&E, be separately metered, and be included in the normal, coincident and non-coincident Load information for Lodi. 62 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC CITY OF ALAMEDA The following is a single-line diagram of the City of Alameda’s (“Alameda”) Interconnection Facilities at the Points of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. City of Alameda To Oakland Sta. J Oakland C Substation –Partial City of Alameda Point of Interconnection Point of Change of Ownership 63 To Cartwright Point of Interconnection Point of Change of Ownership 64 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC CITY OF BIGGS The following is a single-line diagram of the City of Biggs’ (“Biggs”) Interconnection Facilities at the Point of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. Point of Interconnection Point of Change of Ownership 65 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC CITY OF GRIDLEY The following is a single-line diagram of the City of Gridley’s (“Gridley”) Interconnection Facilities at the Point of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. Point of Interconnection Point of Change of Ownership 66 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC CITY OF HEALDSBURG The following is a single-line diagram of the City of Healdsburg’s (“Healdsburg”) Interconnection Facilities at the Points of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. Point of Interconnection & Point of Change of Ownership 67 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC CITY OF LODI The following is a single-line diagram of the City of Lodi’s (“Lodi”) Interconnection Facilities at the Points of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. Point of Interconnection Point of Change of Ownership 68 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC CITY OF LOMPOC The following is a single-line diagram of the City of Lompoc’s (“Lompoc”) Interconnection Facilities at the Points of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. Point of Interconnection Point of Change of Ownership 69 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC CITY OF PALO ALTO The following is a single-line diagram of the City of Palo Alto’s (“Palo Alto”) Interconnection Facilities at the Points of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. City of Palo Alto Interconnection Point Point of Change of Ownership 70 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC PLUMAS SIERRA RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE The following is a single-line diagram of the Plumas Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative’s (“Plumas”) Interconnection Facilities at the Point of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. Point of Interconnection Point of Change of Ownership 71 FACILITIES AT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND OWNERSHIP SCHEMATIC CITY OF UKIAH The following is a single-line diagram of the City of Ukiah’s (“Ukiah”) Interconnection Facilities at the Point of Interconnection that identifies the owner of such Interconnection Facilities. Point of Interconnection Point of Change of Ownership 72 APPENDIX B DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ARBITRATION B.1 NEGOTIATION AND MEDIATION As provided in Section 22, the Parties agree to seek settlement of all disputes arising under this Agreement by good faith negotiation before resorting to other methods of dispute resolution. In the event that negotiations have failed, but before initiating arbitration proceedings under this Appendix B, the Parties may by mutual assent decide to seek resolution of a dispute through mediation. If this occurs, the Parties shall meet and confer to establish an appropriate timetable for mediation, to pick a mediator, and to decide on any other terms and conditions that will govern the mediation. B.2 TECHNICAL ARBITRATION The Parties agree to seek expedited resolution of arbitrable disputes arising under this Agreement that are technical in nature. Technical disputes may include, without limitation, disputes centered on engineering issues involving technical planning studies, the need for and Cost of Upgrade Facilities, and the Interconnection Capacity of a Point of Interconnection. Such technical issues may be resolved through expert application of established technical knowledge and by reference to Good Utility Practice and industry standards. The Party initiating arbitration pursuant to Section B.3 below shall indicate in its notice to the other Party whether it regards the dispute to be technical in nature. If the Parties agree that a dispute is technical in nature, then the Parties shall meet and confer to develop an appropriate timetable and process for expedited resolution of the dispute by a neutral expert, or “technical arbitrator”. If the Parties cannot agree that a dispute is technical in nature, or if they cannot agree on a neutral arbitrator, then the Parties may submit the dispute to arbitration under the procedures set forth in Appendix B, Section 3 below. B.3 ARBITRATION 73 B.3.1 Notices And Selection Of Arbitrators In the event that a dispute is subject to arbitration under Section 22, the aggrieved Party or Parties shall initiate arbitration by sending written notice to the other Party or Parties. Such notice shall identify the name and address of an impartial person to act as an arbitrator. If any Party takes the position that the dispute is not arbitrable, any Party may take the dispute to FERC for resolution. Within ten (10) business days after receipt of such notice, the other Party or Parties shall, if they agree that the decision is properly arbitrable, give a similar written notice stating the name and address of the second impartial person to act as an arbitrator. Each Party (or aligned group of Parties) shall then submit to the two named arbitrators a list of the names and addresses of at least three persons for use by the two named arbitrators in the selection of the third arbitrator. If the same name or names appear on both lists, the two named arbitrators shall appoint one of the persons named on both lists as the third arbitrator. If no name appears on both lists, the two named arbitrators shall select a third arbitrator from either list or independently of either list. Each arbitrator selected under these procedures shall be a person experienced in the construction, design, operation or regulation of electric power transmission facilities, as applicable to the issue(s) in dispute. If NCPA and any one or more of the NCPA Members Customers are acting jointly or have aligned positions regarding the subject under arbitration, NCPA and the NCPA Member Customers who are acting jointly/have aligned positions will be treated as a single Party for the purposes of selection of an arbitrator. B.4 PROCEDURES Within fifteen (15) business days after the appointment of the third arbitrator, or on such other date to which the parties may agree, the arbitrators shall meet to determine the procedures that are to be followed in conducting the arbitration, including, without limitation, such procedures as may be necessary for the taking of discovery, giving testimony and submission of written arguments and briefs to the arbitrators. Unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties, the arbitrators shall determine such procedures based upon the purpose of the Parties in conducting an arbitration under Section 22 of the Agreement, specifically, the purpose of utilizing the least burdensome, least expensive and most expeditious dispute resolution procedures consistent with providing each Party with a fair and reasonable opportunity to be 74 heard. If the arbitrators are unable unanimously to agree to the procedures to be used in the arbitration, the arbitration shall be governed by the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. B.5 HEARING AND DECISION After giving the Parties due notice of hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the arbitrators shall hear the dispute(s) submitted for arbitration and shall render their decision within ninety (90) calendar days after appointment of the third arbitrator or such other date selected upon the mutual agreement of the Parties. The arbitrators' decision shall be made in writing and signed by any two of the three arbitrators. The decision shall be final and binding upon the parties subject to rights to appeal the decision to FERC. Judgment may be entered on the decision in any court of competent jurisdiction upon the application of any Party. B.6 EXPENSES Each Party shall bear its own Costs and the Costs and expenses of the arbitrators shall be borne equally by the Parties. If the NCPA Parties are acting jointly regarding the subject under arbitration, the NCPA Parties will be treated as a single Party for the purpose of allocating Costs and expenses of the arbitrators. 75 APPENDIX C UPGRADE FACILITIES C.1 UPGRADE FACILITIES At least 60 calendar days prior to the date on which NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer is to commence payment of any Cost as a result of construction of an Upgrade Facility, PG&E shall determine and provide to NCPA and the NCPA Member Customer, if applicable: (i) an estimate of all Cost, broken down by major activities, which PG&E expects to incur; and (ii) a schedule indicating the approximate dates when PG&E expects to pay such Cost for each major activity included in the estimate. PG&E may revise the payment schedule from time to time as appropriate. C.1.1 If needed, the Affected Parties will enter into a Transmission Facilities Agreement that shall include an estimate and schedule of Cost and payments , and the applicable NCPA Party shall advance such Cost to PG&E pursuant to such schedule or any revisions to it. C.1.2 The applicable NCPA Party's total payments to PG&E for work performed under this Appendix C, Section 1 shall be for the actual Cost incurred by PG&E. PG&E shall document to the NCPA Party the actual Cost incurred upon completion, and shall refund any amount overpaid by, or request any additional payment from, the NCPA Party, with interest computed as provided in Appendix D, Section D.6 of this Agreement. C.1.3 Should an NCPA Party seek a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that its payments under this subsection should be treated as non-taxable contributions-in-aid-of- construction, PG&E shall cooperate reasonably with the NCPA Party in supporting its filing with the Internal Revenue Service. C.1.4 The NCPA Party shall have the right pursuant to Section 14 of this Agreement to audit the supporting documents upon which PG&E bases its estimate of the Cost of work and actual work performed to be advanced by the NCPA Party pursuant to the Transmission Facilities Agreement, as well as documents that show the actual Cost incurred by PG&E. C.2 ASSOCIATED FERC FILINGS 76 If required by FERC or requested by an NCPA Party, PG&E shall file, or at its election may file, with FERC a Transmission Facilities Agreement to document and seek approval of any Cost charged by PG&E to an NCPA Party associated with any facility Modifications, changes, reinforcements or advances contemplated by this Agreement. A NCPA Party shall support this filing by an appropriate submittal to FERC stating its agreement with the charges; provided, that if the Parties are unable to agree on the need or design for an Upgrade Facility or the Cost of an Upgrade Facility or the amount thereof an NCPA Party shall be responsible for, the NCPA Parties may oppose such PG&E filing. C.3 LIMITATIONS ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPGRADE COSTS C.3.1 No Double Collection PG&E may not charge an NCPA Party for any Costs associated with Upgrade Facilities that have already been or will be collected through rates paid by PG&E retail or wholesale customers or from a Third Party; provided, that this Section shall not preclude PG&E charging an NCPA Party where refunds are made to those who originally paid for such Costs. 77 APPENDIX D BILLING AND PAYMENT The NCPA Parties shall pay PG&E Costs owed pursuant to this Agreement at: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Payment Processing Center Research Unit / B5A P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 PG&E may change the place where payment is made by giving the NCPA Parties notice thereof as provided in Section 31. PG&E shall pay NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer Costs owed pursuant to this Agreement at a place to be named by NCPA or an NCPA Member Customer. D.1 PG&E shall prepare and submit bills to an NCPA Party on or after the first business day of each calendar month. The payment of any bill shall be due and must be received by PG&E not later than the 30th calendar day following the day on which NCPA receives the bill. Such date shall be referred to as the “Payment Due Date”. If the Payment Due Date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then payment shall be due the next business day. Such date shall be referred to as the Payment Due Date. A bill shall be deemed delivered on the third business day after the postmarked date unless a copy of the bill is sent by electronic facsimile, in which case it shall be deemed delivered on the same day. D.2 If charges under this Agreement cannot be determined accurately for preparing a bill, PG&E may use its best estimates in preparing the bill and such estimated bill shall be paid by the NCPA Parties. Any estimated charges shall be labeled as such and PG&E shall, upon request, document the basis for the estimate used. Estimated bills shall be prepared and paid in the same manner as other bills under this Agreement. D.3 If an NCPA Party disputes all or any portion of a bill submitted to it by PG&E, it nevertheless shall, not later than the Payment Due Date of that bill, pay the bill in full. A dispute between a Party and any Third Party shall not be a proper basis for withholding payment. Payments to PG&E of the NCPA Party's obligations arising under this Agreement are not subject 78 to any reduction, whether by offset, payments into escrow, or otherwise, except for routine adjustments or corrections as may be agreed to by the Parties or as expressly provided in this Agreement. D.4 When final and complete billing information becomes available and a charge is determined accurately or billing errors are identified and corrected, PG&E shall promptly prepare and submit an adjusted bill to an NCPA Party, and any additional payments by an NCPA Party shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this Appendix D. Refunds by PG&E shall be paid to the affected NCPA Party not later than thirty (30) calendar days after the date of the adjusted bill. All adjustments or corrections of bills under this Agreement shall be subject to the interest provisions of Appendix D, Sections 5 and 6. D.5 Interest on an additional payment shall accrue from the Payment Due Date of the applicable bill and interest on a refund shall accrue from the date payment of the applicable bill was received by PG&E. D.6 Any amount due under this Agreement which is not timely paid shall accrue interest from the date prescribed in Appendix D, Section 5 until the date payment is made. The interest amount shall be determined using the interest rate applicable to any amount due during a given month and shall be calculated using the methodology for refunds pursuant to Section 35.19(a) of FERC's Regulations, 18 C.F.R § 35.19(a). This interest rate shall not exceed the maximum interest rate permitted under California law. Interest shall be calculated for the period that the payment is overdue or the period during which the refund is accruing interest. D.7 As provided in Appendix D, Section 3, if any portion of a bill is disputed, the disputing Party shall pay the full amount, without offset or reduction, by the Payment Due Date, however, a Party can challenge the accuracy of a bill even if no dispute was identified prior to the Party’s payment of the bill and such right to dispute a bill shall extend to the end of the statutory period of limitations. In addition, the disputing Party shall, on or before the Payment Due Date, notify PG&E, in writing, of the amount in dispute and the specific basis for the dispute. The Parties shall endeavor to resolve any billing dispute within thirty (30) calendar days of PG&E's receipt of the disputing Party's notice of a dispute (or such extended period as the 79 Parties may establish). If the Parties cannot agree, any Party may initiate dispute resolution pursuant to Section 22. D.8 If, after a disputing Party has paid the full amount of a disputed bill directly to PG&E, the results of dispute resolution pursuant to Section 22 include a determination that the amount due was different than the amount paid by the disputing Party, a refund by PG&E to the disputing Party shall include interest for the period from the date the disputing Party’s overpayment was received by PG&E to the date the refund is paid to the disputing Party. Likewise, an additional payment by the disputing Party to PG&E shall include interest for the period from the original Payment Due Date to the date the disputing Party’s additional payment is received by PG&E. Interest paid pursuant to this Appendix D, Section 8 shall be at the rate determined pursuant to Appendix D, Section 6. D.9 A Party's failure to make any payment on or before the applicable Payment Due Date shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement if that failure is not corrected within seven (7) business days after the other Party delivers written notice to non-paying Party. In such event, the Party not receiving payment shall be entitled to pursue any legal, equitable and regulatory rights and remedies it may have under this Agreement or otherwise. 80 APPENDIX E OPERATIONAL COORDINATION The Parties will perform operational coordination obligations and responsibilities, which consist of but are not limited to the following: E.1 Maintenance Coordination The Parties shall coordinate, in conformance with their obligations to the Balancing Authority on an annual basis, any planned maintenance outages of transmission facilities of their respective Electric Systems that may reasonably be expected to have a material impact on another Party’s Electric System. E.2 Underfrequency Load Shedding (UFLS) Each year after the Planning Coordinator allocates automatic underfrequency load shedding (“UFLS”) obligations pursuant to Applicable Requirements, PG&E and each NCPA Member Customer shall coordinate UFLS participation for the twelve (12) month period beginning the following July 1 of that year. PG&E and each NCPA Member Customer with NCPA’s assistance shall coordinate to determine each NCPA Member Customers’ total amount of UFLS responsibility, if any, for that twelve month period (“NCPA Member Customer UFLS Share”). Each NCPA Member Customer’s NCPA Member Customer UFLS Share shall be calculated by multiplying the NCPA Member Customer’s proportionate share (represented as a percentage) of the total historical coincident peak electric load in the PG&E service area, for the prior twelve (12) month period as of the date and time specified by the Planning Coordinator, by the total amount of UFLS requirement allocated by the Planning Coordinator to PG&E, acting as the Transmission Operator. Within thirty days after the Planning Coordinator allocates UFLS obligations, PG&E and each NCPA Member Customer shall coordinate to determine how each NCPA Member Customer shall provide UFLS to meet its NCPA Member Customer UFLS Share requirement. Each NCPA Member Customer shall be responsible for ensuring that it has implemented any necessary changes to its underfrequency relay or other relay equipment as necessary to ensure that it is enabled to provide its NCPA Member Customer UFLS Share by July 1 of each calendar 81 year, pursuant to Applicable Requirements. Each NCPA Member Customer shall be responsible for ensuring that it maintains equipment necessary for the purpose of UFLS, in conformance with Applicable Requirements. If a NCPA Member Customer fails to meet any requirement of this Section E.2, PG&E reserves the right to take any measure necessary to satisfy the NCPA Member Customer’s NCPA Member Customer UFLS Share, including but not limited to, implementing automatic load shedding to shed or interrupt some or all load of the NCPA Member Customer. If at any time PG&E does not require any (one or more) NCPA Member Customer to meet its NCPA Member Customer UFLS Share requirement, this shall not waive or excuse any NCPA Member Customer’s obligation to satisfy its NCPA Member Customer UFLS Share requirement in that year or at any future date. And any action PG&E takes to satisfy any NCPA Member Customer’s NCPA Member Customer UFLS Share at any time shall not create a precedent or obligation that PG&E must take the same or a similar measure in the future. Notwithstanding any provision of this Interconnection Agreement, including Section 26, if a NCPA Member Customer fails to meet any requirements of this Section E.2, and if PG&E is assessed any financial penalties by the CAISO, WECC, NERC, FERC, or any other applicable authority as a result of such failure to meet Applicable Requirements, the applicable NCPA Member Customer shall be responsible for compensating PG&E for the share of the financial penalties directly attributable to the NCPA Member Customer’s failure under this Section E.2. E.3 Manual Load Shedding The Parties shall maintain equipment for the purpose of manual load shedding programs in coordination with Applicable Requirements and the Balancing Authority as system conditions warrant. E.4 Load Restoration The Parties shall, in conformance with Applicable Requirements and their obligations to the Balancing Authority, coordinate the restoration of load following a system disturbance, and agree to do so in coordination with the Balancing Authority when required. 82 E.5 Reactive Power As between PG&E and each NCPA Member Customer, both Parties shall maintain reactive power flow on each of their Electric Systems so that the sum of the reactive flows at the transmission Point(s) of Interconnection between PG&E and that NCPA Member Customer is within the power factor band of 0.97 lag and 0.99 lead. Both Parties will normally operate their respective systems to minimize kVar exchange between them. Operating conditions may require larger than normal kVar exchange between both Parties, and any such exchange will be done in accordance with Good Utility Practice and Applicable Requirements. ATTACHMENT C CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR August 17, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2015 The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2015. At its meeting on April 28, 2015, the Policy and Services Committee approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2015 (PDF) Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (April 28, 2015) (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR April 28, 2015 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2015 RECOMMENDATION The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Policy and Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2015. SUMMARY OF RESULTS In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan and issues quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress towards completion of the work plan. This report provides the City Council with an update on the third quarter for FY 2015. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2015 (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 Attachment A OOffice “Promotingacco Q e of th honest, efficieountable and tra Quarte he City ent, effective, eansparent city erly Re y Aud conomical, andgovernment." eport itor d fully as of Marcch 31, 2015 Attachment A 2 Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Third Quarter Update (January – March 2015) Overview The audit function is essential to the City of Palo Alto’s public accountability. As mandated by the City Charter and Municipal Code, the mission of the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) is to promote honest, efficient, effective, economical, and fully accountable and transparent city government. We conduct performance audits and reviews to provide the City Council and City management with information and evaluations regarding the effectiveness and efficiency with which resources are employed, the adequacy of the system of internal controls, and compliance with policies and procedures and regulatory requirements. Taking appropriate action on our audit recommendations helps the City reduce risks and protect its good reputation. Highlights of Activities During the Quarter The Office of the City Auditor published the 2014 National Citizen Survey™ (NCS™), which is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center (NRC), Inc., and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The NCS™ was developed by the NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government. The Office of the City Auditor published and presented the Utility Meter Audit: Procurement, Inventory, and Retirement to the Policy and Services Committee. The objectives of the audit were to determine if proper procedures were followed and to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of procuring, managing, and retiring utility meters. City Auditor Harriet Richardson, in conjunction with a member of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s standards team, presented a webinar to members of the Association of Local Government Auditors regarding the continuing professional education requirements for auditors who follow the Government Auditing Standards to conduct their work. Audits Below is a summary of our audit work for the third quarter of FY 2015 (as of March 31, 2015): Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Franchise Fee Audit Determine if 1) the City accurately accounted for and oversaw the Media Center’s use of public, education, and government (PEG) fees, 2) the City established and defined roles and responsibilities to administer its cable communications program and state franchises awarded to Comcast and AT&T, and 3) Comcast and AT&T collected and promptly remitted the appropriate amount of franchise and PEG fees. 02/14 06/15 In Process We have completed planning and field work and have drafted the report for the second and third objectives; the consultant is conducting field work on the third objective. We will issue two reports – one on the use of the fees and roles and responsibilities, and one on the collection and remission of fees. The City Attorney is currently reviewing the draft report for the first two objectives, which we expect to present to the Policy and Services Committee in June. Attachment A 3 Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Audit of Utility Meters: Procurement, Inventory, and Retirement Determine if proper procedures were followed with the procurement, inventory, and retirement of utility meters. 03/14 03/15 Complete We completed the report and presented it to the Policy and Services Committee on March 10, 2015. It is scheduled for approval on the Council’s April 27, 2015, Consent Calendar. Parking Funds Audit Determine if the City’s parking funds are properly calculated, collected, accounted for, and used in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and governing documents. The audit will focus on the University and California Avenues and Residential Parking Permit Funds, and the Parking In‐Lieu Fund. 05/14 06/15 In Process We have completed planning and field work. We have drafted the report, which is undergoing an internal review. We expect to present the results to the Policy and Services Committee in June. National Citizen Survey Obtain resident opinions about the community and services provided by the City of Palo Alto and benchmark our results against other jurisdictions that participate in the survey. 07/14 01/15 Complete We published the results of the survey on the Office of the City Auditor website on January 26, 2015. We will present the results of the survey at a Council study session in conjunction with the Annual Performance Report, which is currently underway. Annual Performance Report Provide summary information on spending and staffing, workload, and performance results, including historical trends and selected comparisons to other cities, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. 11/14 05/15 In Progress We sent requests for data to departments and have received responses. We are collecting benchmarking data and formatting the data already collected for the report. We are collaborating with the City Manager’s Office and Office of Management and Budget to identify ways to streamline the data collection process for various reporting efforts and to reorganize the way we present the data in the report to tell a better story about the City’s performance on a citywide basis. Attachment A 4 Other Monitoring and Administrative Assignments Below is a summary of other assignments as of March 31, 2015: Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews Identify and collect underreported or misallocated sales and use tax from businesses that do business in Palo Alto. Ongoing We conducts sales and use tax monitoring in‐house and also contract with an outside vendor, and submit inquiries to the State Board of Equalization for potential tax recoveries. As of the end of the third quarter, the City received $59,302 in total sales and use tax recoveries, which includes $36,181 from our inquiries and $23,121 from vendor inquiries. The State Board of Equalization has 43 potential misallocations to research and process: 11 from Office of the City Auditor and 32 from the vendor. Quarterly Reporting Provide Quarterly Status Updates and Sales Tax Digest Summaries for Council review. Ongoing Quarterly reports are published on the OCA website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/default.asp. City Auditor Advisory Roles Provide guidance and advice to key governance committees within the City. Ongoing The City Auditor continues to serve as an advisor to various boards and committees: Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration The hotline review committee, composed of the City Auditor, the City Attorney, and the City Manager, or their designees, meets as needed to review hotline‐related activities. We did not receive any hotline complaints during the third quarter of FY 2015. The chart below summarizes the status of complaints received in each fiscal year. Source: City of Palo Alto hotline case management system as of March 31, 2015 7 3 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Status of Complaints Received by Fiscal Year Closed Complaints Open Complaints Attachment A Chairpe Chamb Present Absent Oral Co None Agenda 1. A Harriet working and fie cable c with th Policy comple Retirem the aud procedu current whethe and us govern drafted meetin Survey results June 1, 1,500 Traditio year. would Po M erson Bur ers, 250 H t: Berm : ommunica a Items Auditor's O Richards g on the C eld work a ommunica he City At and Serv eted the ment, and dit was to ures when tly workin er Parking sed in co ing docum a report. g after th and pub with the A , 2015. S to 3,000onally the This year be divide olicy a MINUTE rt called t Hamilton A man, Burt tions Office Qua on, City A Cable Fran and subm ations con torney's O vices Com Audit o the Coun o determi n procurin ng on an g Funds w ompliance ments. S . Staff wo he Counci blished it Annual Pe Staff expan 0. The report co r it would d into tw and Se ES the meeti Avenue, P (Chair) D rterly Rep Auditor, r nchise Fee itted a dr nsultant to Office. St mmittee ( of Utility ncil approv ne if the ng invento n Audit o were prop with ap Staff had ould likely l vacation on Janua erformance nded the Annual overed fiv d include wo parts. ervices ng to ord Palo Alto, C uBois, Wo port as of reported a e Audit. S raft report o assist w taff expec (Committe Meters ved it on Utilities D ory and re of Parking erly calcu plicable l complete y present n. Staff c ary 26, 2 e Report a number o Performae years o ten years Part Tw s Com T der at 7:0 California. olbach March 31, as of Mar Staff had c t for revie with the au cted to pr ee) on J Procurem April 27, Departme etiring uti g Funds. ulated, co aws, reg ed plannin the audit completed 015. St at a Study f participa nce Repof historica s of histor wo would mittee Sp Tuesday, A 02 P.M. in . , 2015. rch 31, 20 completed ew. Staf udit and w resent the June 10, ment, In 2015. Th nt followe lity meter Staff w llected, a ulations, ng and fie at the fir d the Nat aff would y Session ants in the ort was al data an rical data contain t e April 28, Pa pecial Mee April 28, 2 n the Cou 015 Staff d the plan ff had hire worked clo e audit to 2015. S nventory he purpos ed the pro rs. Staff was review ccounted policies, eld work rst Commi tional Citiz d present scheduled e survey f in progrnd the cur . The re he traditi 2015 age 1 eting 2015 uncil was ning ed a osely the Staff and se of oper was wing for, and and ittee zens the d for from ress. rrent eport onal Attachment B MINUTES April 28, 2015 Page 2 department-by-department information with all data tables. Part One would be based on themes to better describe interrelated activities among departments. Staff continued to review sales and use tax allocations. As of the end of the third quarter, the City had received $59,302 in total sales and use tax recoveries. The City's vendor collected approximately $23,000 of the $59,302. Staff had submitted 43 research documents to the State for review. The City Auditor's Office continued to serve in advisory roles to the Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Securities Steering Committee. Staff anticipated the Library Bond Oversight Committee would conclude its work now that both libraries had been constructed. The Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline did not receive any complaints during the quarter; the second consecutive quarter of no complaints. She planned to review and update the protocols during the next few months. Council Member DuBois noted the Annual Performance Report was usually provided to the Council for use in the Budget process; however, it seemed to be late. Ms. Richardson planned to release the data tables on April 30, so that the Council would have those for use during the Budget process. Council Member DuBois indicated the National Citizens Survey data would be almost a year old by the time it was published. Ms. Richardson advised that Staff had issued data in January 2015; however, it was usually presented to the Council with the Annual Performance Report in a Study Session. The delay was the result of Staff's questions about changes the National Research Center made in compiling information. The Annual Performance Report was late because of the changes made to the report. Council Member DuBois asked if those items would return to their usual timeframe. Ms. Richardson replied yes. She would present the Work Plan at the next Committee meeting. Traditionally, she did not present that until after the Council Vacation. Council Member DuBois inquired whether any other performance audits were under way. Ms. Richardson reported Staff completed the Animal Services Audit in March 2015 and presented it to the Finance Committee in April. She would update Attachment B MINUTES April 28, 2015 Page 3 her report to include the Animal Services Audit prior to providing it to the Council. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach that the Policy & Services Committee recommend the City Council accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2015. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Attachment B CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR August 17, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Work Plan At its meeting on May 12, 2015, the Policy and Services Committee unanimously recommended the City Council accept the City Auditor’s Office Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Work Plan. The Auditor’s Office will be issuing quarterly reports describing the status and progress of the work plan. The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Work Plan (PDF) Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (May 12, 2015) (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR May 12, 2015 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Work Plan RECOMMENDATION The Office of the City Auditor recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council approval of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Proposed Audit Work Plan. BACKGROUND The mission of the Office of the City Auditor is to promote honest, efficient, effective, economical, and fully accountable and transparent City government. To fulfill this mission, the Office of the City Auditor shall conduct performance audits and perform nonaudit services of any City department, program, service, or activity as approved by the City Council. The purpose of these audits is to provide the City Council, City management, the residents of Palo Alto, and other stakeholders with independent and objective analysis as to whether management is using its financial, physical, and informational resources effectively, efficiently, economically, ethically and equitably, and in compliance with laws, regulations, contract and grant requirements, and City policies and procedures. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to submit an annual work plan to the City Council for review and approval. The proposed FY 16 audit work plan is based upon Council priorities, risk, and the City Auditor’s professional judgment. The attached report presents the proposed audit work plan for FY 2016. NEXT STEPS As audit work proceeds, we will issue quarterly reports summarizing the status and progress of each of the approved assignments. The quarterly reports will be issued to the City Council and discussed with the Policy and Services Committee as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Work Plan (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Attachment A Page 3 Attachment A O “Promot a Fis Office o ting honest, accountable scal Y of the , efficient, e and transpa Year City A ffective, eco arent city go 2016 Audito onomical, an overnment” 6 Aud r nd fully dit Wo ork PPlan Attachment A Fiscal Year 2016 Audit Work Plan 2 Overview The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to submit an annual audit work plan to the City Council for approval. This proposed audit work plan represents ongoing administrative responsibilities of the Office of the City Auditor, as well as required audit responsibilities. It estimates approximately 8,800 hours of direct time1 for six full‐time staff. It accounts for reclassifying the Administrative Assistant to a Performance Auditor I to more effectively use the employee’s time, and for continuing to increase our efficiency in conducting performance audits. The proposed audit work plan considers risk factors that, if addressed, will provide opportunities to mitigate those risks and improve operations: Financial – Is there an opportunity to improve how the City manages, invests, spends, and accounts for its financial resources? Operational – Are City programs/activities performed and City services delivered in the most efficient, effective, and economical manner possible, and do they represent sound business decisions, including appropriate responses to changes in the business environment? Regulatory – Do City programs and activities comply with applicable laws and regulations? Health and Safety – Are City services delivered in a manner that protects our residents and employees from injury or unnecessary exposure to factors that can affect an individual’s health? Information Security – Is City, resident, and employee information (electronic or physical) protected against unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, inspection, recording, or destruction? In addition, the proposed audit work plan considers several factors: Relevance – Does the audit have the potential to affect Council or City management decision‐ making or impact City residents? Best Practices – Does the audit provide the opportunity to compare current performance to best practices? Return on Investment – Does the audit have the potential for cost savings, cost avoidance, or revenue generation? Improvement – Does the audit have the potential to result in meaningful improvement in how the City does its business? Actionable – Is it likely that the audit will produce actionable recommendations that are feasible and practical? Manageable – Is the audit scope narrow enough to ensure it is completed in a timely manner? The audit work plan also considers risks related to major functions within the Utilities Department, as identified through a 2011 Utilities Risk Assessment and a 2013 Utilities Organizational Assessment conducted by external consultants. 1 The estimated hours consider available time after accounting for holidays, vacation, required training, and administrative time. Attachment A Fiscal Year 2016 Audit Work Plan 3 Special and Ongoing Projects The following table lists special and ongoing projects for the FY 2016 audit work plan: Project Scope Planned Hours Annual Performance Report (Service Efforts and Accomplishments) Annual. We prepare the annual performance report to provide the City Council, City staff, Palo Alto residents, and other stakeholders with relevant information and data regarding the performance of City programs, functions, and activities. The reduced hours for FY 2016 represent our transition to a more streamlined process for collecting information and preparing the report. 800 National Citizen Survey Annual. We contract with the National Research Center (NRC) to conduct The National Citizen Survey™. The survey contains a series of standardized questions that the NRC uses to benchmark Palo Alto residents’ opinions of City services against other jurisdictions. In addition to the NRC’s report, we will tabulate the results in Tableau software to allow users of the Palo Alto Open Data website to perform an interactive analysis of the results (e.g., how people within different demographic categories answered a question). 250 Annual Citizen Centric Report Annual. We prepare a four‐page summary of highlights from the annual Performance Report, financial data, and an overview of our City's economic outlook. The Citizen Centric Report follows the Association of Government Accountants' recommended report format, which is designed to provide information to the public about Palo Alto’s financial condition and performance in an easy‐to‐understand and visually appealing format. 40 Sales Tax Allocation Reviews Ongoing. We identify misallocations and underreporting of local sales and use tax through in‐house monitoring and a contract with an outside vendor (currently MuniServices, LLC). We also look for opportunities to receive direct allocation of sales and use tax on large commercial construction projects. We report sales and use tax recoveries in quarterly reports to Council, and also provide a quarterly sales and use tax information report which includes information from MuniServices, LLC. 250 Administration of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Ongoing. We receive notification of complaints filed through the hotline, reply to the complainant, route and monitor cases for investigation, and convene the Hotline Review Committee (City Manager, City Attorney, and City Auditor) to determine the routing of cases and their closing upon completion of an investigation. The hours include time to review and update the procedures for administering the hotline and investigating complaints received. 80 Annual External Financial Audit Annual. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the Office of the City Auditor to contract with an independent certified public accounting firm (currently Macias, Gini, & O’Connell, LLP) to conduct the annual external audit of the City’s financial statements. The firm also conducts the federally required Single Audit. The hours include time to issue a request for proposal and award a new contract because the current contract expires at the end of FY 2015. 120 Review and Monitor the Implementation Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Ongoing. We review and provide feedback to departments on their reports of the implementation status of prior audit recommendations. We include a summary of the status in our Quarterly Reports. 120 Attachment A Fiscal Year 2016 Audit Work Plan 4 Project Scope Planned Hours Office of the City Auditor Quarterly Reports Quarterly. We prepare and issue quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress toward completion of our annual work plan, as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 80 Advisory Roles Ongoing. The City Auditor is a nonvoting, advisory member of the Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. 20 Performance Measurement and Management Training One‐time. Provide training to key staff on developing performance goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time‐bound; evaluate the results; and use the results to improve policies, programs, and outcomes. 80 Internal Control Training One‐time. Coordinate with the Department of Administrative Services to conduct internal control training, with a focus on the recently revised publications, “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” and “Internal Control: Integrated Framework.” Federal grant regulations now require recipients and subrecipients of federal grant dollars to comply with a recognized internal control framework. The regulations specifically identify these two frameworks. This project is a carryover project from our FY 2015 because we are awaiting the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s update of the “Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool,” a companion document to the “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” that provides a systematic, organized, and structured approach to assessing the internal control structure. 60 Total Hours for Special and Ongoing Projects 1,900 Performance Audits The following audits are proposed for the FY 2016 audit work plan: Audit Department Preliminary Scope2 Planned Hours Parking Funds Planning and Community Environment and Administrative Services Departments In progress. Determine if the City’s parking funds are properly collected, accounted for, and used in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and government documents. The audit is focusing on the University Avenue and California Avenue Parking Permit Funds, the Residential Parking Permit Fund, and the Parking in‐Lieu Fund. 180 Utilities Customer Service – Rate and Billing Accuracy Utilities Department Carryover from FY 2014. Evaluate whether the Utilities Department properly implements rates and accurately bills customers. 800 Disability Rates and Workers’ Compensation People, Strategies, and Operations Department From the FY 2014 Work Plan, Audit Horizon. Assess the effectiveness of activities to manage and minimize disability retirements and workers’ compensation claims. Review of processes to ensure employee safety, tracking and reporting activities, contract administration, and efficiency of claim processing. 700 2 The preliminary scope and planned hours may change after completing the planning phase of the audit. Attachment A Fiscal Year 2016 Audit Work Plan 5 Audit Department Preliminary Scope2 Planned Hours Fee Schedules Citywide Carryover from FY 2014. Evaluate City processes for establishing fees to determine if the fees cover the cost of services provided when expected. The specific fees to be reviewed will be narrowed down during the planning phase of the audit. 800 Meter Routes Utilities Department Carryover from FY 2014. Evaluate the process for establishing routes and assigning them to meter readers to determine if the process optimizes the efficient use of staff. 600 Public Benefits Planning and Community Environment Department From the FY 2014 Work Plan, Audit Horizon. Evaluate whether benefits and funds are properly accounted for; if funds are used in accordance with relevant regulations, policies, and governing documents; and if the funds generated the anticipated benefits. 800 Procurement Processes Administrative Services Department From the FY 2014 Work Plan, Audit Horizon; City Manager requested. Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement process. The audit will focus on efficiency, consistency in application of processes, compliance with City regulations and policies, and use of best practices. 800 Contract Risk and Oversight Administrative Services Department From the FY 2014 Work Plan, Audit Horizon. Develop a systematic, data‐driven process to identify high‐risk expenditures and revenues that should occur under formal contracts. Audit selected high‐risk contracts to determine if the City has received the goods and/or services it paid for and/or the revenues to which it is entitled and that the contracts are needed and do not result in unnecessary overlaps in services. 600 Citywide Analytic Development and Continuous Monitoring Citywide New. Develop and implement a continuous monitoring system to increase audit efficiency and coverage through the use of read‐only access to City data. The project will involve developing data analytics to identify high‐risk areas and improvement opportunities in the City’s core processes, such as procure‐to‐pay and time and expense. 350 *Utilities Asset Management Utilities Department From the FY 2014 Work Plan, Audit Horizon. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Utilities Department’s asset management practices, including whether the department effectively implements best practices in infrastructure asset management and whether its practices allow efficient identification of the location and condition of its physical assets. 800 *Mobile Device Utilization and Security Information Technology Department From the FY 2014 Work Plan, Audit Horizon. Identify the existence and effectiveness of security controls over selected mobile devices used to access City data, and to assess the adequacy of the City's mobile computing security policies and procedures, governance, and the City's risk assessment of these devices. 700 Attachment A Fiscal Year 2016 Audit Work Plan 6 Audit Department Preliminary Scope2 Planned Hours *Impact Fees Planning and Community Environment and Development Services Departments From the FY 2014 Work Plan, Audit Horizon. Evaluate the processes for determining the amount of each type of fee and who should be assessed the fee. Evaluate the processes for assessing and collecting established impact fees to determine if they are collected as required, are assessed fairly among those required to pay, and if they achieve the intended benefits. 800 Total Hours for Performance Audits 7,930 *These audits are expected to be initiated in FY 2016, but are unlikely to be completed during the year. On the Horizon The following list of audits topics are expected to be on the Fiscal Year 2017 audit work plan or to be moved into Fiscal Year 2016 if circumstances warrant eliminating or delaying an approved audit on the Fiscal Year 2016 audit work plan: Audit Department Preliminary Scope3 Planned Hours3 Payroll Processes Administrative Services Department Evaluate the effectiveness of payroll processes to ensure that payroll calculations and deductions are accurate and in compliance with federal and state laws and relevant labor agreements, and that appropriate security controls are in place to prevent unauthorized access to the payroll system and employee data. 600 Sustainable Purchasing Practices Citywide Assess the City's purchasing practices to determine if environmental sustainability is adequately considered in all purchases as appropriate. 600 Application Controls for Critical City Applications Information Technology Department Evaluate the effectiveness of controls in critical applications relative to authorization, data integrity, data availability, data privacy, and segregation of duties. 500 Allocated Charges Administrative Services Department Evaluate the accuracy and use of allocated charges within the budgeting process to ensure charges are allocated equitably based on the benefit each department receives for centralized City services. 700 Utilities Staffing Utilities Department Assess the effectiveness of staffing decisions as they relate to specific projects and ongoing work to determine if work can be performed more efficiently and effectively with different staffing levels. Assessment will include an evaluation of the ratio of supervisors and managers to staff (i.e., span of control). 800 Data Reliability Citywide Assess data obtained from critical systems to ensure it is complete, accurate, and relevant to the Council’s and management’s decision‐making processes. 800 Total Hours for Future Performance Audits 4,000 3 The preliminary scope and planned hours may change after completing the planning phase of the audit. Attachment A Chairpe Meeting Present Absent Oral Co None. Agenda 3. C Harriet the Co present conside want to manage informa whethe improv actiona that it risks r identifie some r Annual Report, tax; ad reviewi quarter with th and aw will co continu Po D erson Burt g Room at t: Berm : ommunica a Items City Audito Richardso ommittee. t our Fis ers severa o make s es its fina ation and er best p ements i able recom can be co related to ed in a 20 routine, n Performa , as well dministeri ng the s rly reports e externa warding a nduct pe ue improv olicy a raft M t called th t 250 Ham man, Burt tions or's Office on, City A Harriet cal Year al risks th sure that ances, op security. ractices c n how t mmendatio ompleted o major f 011 Risk on-audit w ance Repo as ongoin ng the F tatus of s. As pa al financia new cont rformance ing and s and Se Minutes 1 he meeting milton Ave (Chair) D Fiscal Yea Auditor: G Richards 2016 Au hat we ide we're foc erations, We also can be u he City ons; and w in a timel functions Assessme work that ort, Natio ng monito raud, Wa prior aud rt of our l audit firm tract as th e manage streamlini ervices s 1 g to order nue, Palo uBois, Wo ar 2016 P Good eve son, City udit Work entify befo cusing on regulator consider sed; retu can do i whether th y manner in the U ent condu t we'll con onal Citize oring and aste and dit recomm responsib m, we wil he curren ement tra ng the An s Com T r at 7:02 Alto, Cali olbach roposed W ning, Mr. Auditor. k Plan. ore we pu ways to ry risks, h other fact urn on in its busine he audit s r. Our Au Utilities D cted by a ntinue to ens Surve recovery Abuse Ho mendation bility to a l be issuin nt contract aining as nnual Per mittee Sp Tuesday, P.M. in th ifornia. Work Plan. Chair and I'm he Our Aud ut topics improve health and tors such nvestment ess; the scope is na udit Plan a Departmen a consulta do. That ey, the C y of misa otline; mo ns; and p administer ng a new t will be e part of rformance e pecial Mee May 12, 2 he Commu . d Member re tonigh it Work on here. how the d safety, as releva t; meanin potential arrow eno also consi nt that w nt. We h t includes Citizen Cen llocated s onitoring preparing r the cont RFP this y expiring. our effor Report. eting 2015 unity rs of t to Plan We City and nce; ngful for ough ders were have the ntric sales and our tract year We rt to We Attachment B 2 May 12, 2015 will also conduct some internal control training in an effort to increase awareness of management's responsibilities regarding internal controls. Our Audit Plan includes broad topic scopes. We refine these as we conduct the audit. We start our audit with a broad scope and then we do a project- based risk assessment and refine our audit objectives to get more focus. We continue to finish our Parking Funds Audit which is in progress right now. Then we have eight audits on here that I anticipate completing this year, and three that I anticipate we will start but not complete. This is an aggressive Audit Plan, but it reflects my vision. Council has expressed a desire for my office to do more focused audits that can be completed in less time; trying to narrow the scope and reduce the number of hours that we spend on each audit as well as the amount of time lapse. We have three audits on here for Utilities. As you know, we have one Auditor who is dedicated to Utilities. The first audit, Rate and Billing Accuracy, we expected to start it in March, but the Utilities Auditor had an unexpected two-month medical leave and just came back to work. We'll get going on that one pretty quickly. We'll also do a Meter Routes Audit and a Utilities Asset Management Audit. We will be doing an audit in People Strategies and Operations of disability rates and workers' compensation. We have two audits scheduled for Citywide. Those include looking at fee schedules and the process used to set fees; and developing some analytics for continuous monitoring which would allow us to do things on a routine basis, such as making sure we're not making duplicate payments or things like that. We have two audits scheduled for the Administrative Services Department. One is procurement processes, and one is contract oversight. On the Contract Oversight Audit, that is one that we expect to do more Citywide. It's focused on processes in Administrative Services, but we'll look at contracts on a Citywide basis. We have two audits planned for Planning and Community Environment. One of them will evaluate if expected public benefits for projects were achieved. The other is looking at the process for calculating, assessing and collecting Impact Fees. That audit will also cover Development Services. We also have six projects on the horizon. These are audits that would be substituted for others if, for some reason, we can't do one or if someone asks us to rearrange and put things in a different order. Those are payroll processes, whether the City uses purchasing practices to maximize environmental sustainability; application controls for critical City applications; how the City allocates charges to departments; then Utilities staffing; and data reliability. The data reliability one would feed into how City departments collect the data that they use and that they report in the Annual Performance Report, so we can ensure that the data represents what we think it does and that it's collected in a consistent and reliable manner. Those are the audits that I have planned for this next year. I'm open to questions on any of these. Chair Burt: Colleagues, any questions? Attachment B 3 May 12, 2015 Council Member DuBois: I have two. Chair Burt: Tom. Council Member DuBois: Looking at the list for 2016, most of these make a lot of sense to me. The one that seems to jump out at me is the disability rates and workers' comp. Why is that a priority and why is that on the list? Ms. Richardson: That is one that has been on the list for two years. It was on the list prior to me coming here. I have talked to Kathy Shen, the Director of People Strategies and Operations. She is interested in us doing that. One of the things we will look at is making sure that the claims are legitimate, that people are not getting paid for something that they shouldn't be, and looking at if the City is maximizing ways to get people back to work when they've been injured. Council Member DuBois: Do we have a lot of claims? Ms. Richardson: Most of the claims are in Public Safety. Chair Burt: Millions of dollars. Council Member DuBois: For some reason I thought there was a TDR Audit on the horizon. Has that ever been discussed, looking at sender and receiver sites and what our TDR inventory is? Ms. Richardson: No. Council Member DuBois: I'd be interested in adding that, if my colleagues support it. Either on the horizon ... Chair Burt: Can you repeat that again? I'm sorry. Council Member DuBois: An audit of TDRs (Transfer Development Rights), sender sites, receiver sites, what's the outstanding inventory. Are we accounting for them properly? When people show up and say they have this many TDRs, can we track them back and see where they came from? Maybe it's in the parking lot, but I'd like to see it get on the list. Chair Burt: Colleagues? I had said that the disability and workers' comp is millions. Let me correct myself and say it's a very high number. Ms. Richardson: It's a high number, and I don't have the exact number. Chair Burt: That leaves Tom's question, whether transfer should be the subject of a future audit. Attachment B 4 May 12, 2015 Council Member Berman: A question I'd have is—it might not be possible to answer—but how many hours would something like that take. Council Member DuBois: I'm just suggesting we look at it, and it'd be on the future work list. Looks like 2017 at this point. Council Member Berman: This is something they're going to analyze the possibility of. Council Member Wolbach: I want to make sure that we assign that task to the right department to perform. I'm sure others have thoughts on it. Chair Burt: Is your question whether that is something that would be more appropriate to be performed by the Planning Department or by the Auditor's Office? Is that your question? Council Member Wolbach: Or some third ... Chair Burt: I don't think there is a third. Council Member Wolbach: You're probably right. Ms. Richardson: It seems like an auditable topic. What I'm trying to do is scope most of them in the 600-800 hour range, so that we're not going into the 1,500-hour range like the audits typically have been doing. Council Member Berman: Again, I'm not opposed to it. Is there a real concern that there's gaming of the system? How big of a problem is this? Council Member DuBois: I don't know. At some point, I'm suggesting we put it on the work list. It seems like it's not tracked very precisely. It feels like something that could be auditable. Chair Burt: Everything's auditable. That doesn't mean there's a high value to it. We have seen some recent examples where we've had that concern raised. The question would be do we have enough information to put that request in or do we have some means to get additional information that ... Council Member DuBois: I'm asking Harriet to evaluate the scope. Mr. Richardson: We can do that. Usually during the first month of starting an audit, we can tell if we have something that ... Chair Burt: Scope is different ... Council Member DuBois: I'm saying scope out the work. Ms. Richardson: Right. Attachment B 5 May 12, 2015 Chair Burt: That's different from whether there is a need for it. Council Member DuBois: We are seeing pretty high rates. The value of these things is there, so there's potential for abuse. Chair Burt: What I'm asking is, is there a way for us to have any additional input on establishing the need separate from how big of a project it would be to do it. Ms. Richardson: I can look at that and get back to you. Chair Burt: I'm not opposed to it. I think that's proper procedure. Council Member Berman: The threshold question would be how many are outstanding. Council Member DuBois: I don't know if we know. Chair Burt: Our Planning and Urban Environment Staff should have some parameters on that readily available. Council Member DuBois: They should. The list they had didn't have some of the ones that came up recently. Chair Burt: I'm not saying that they have a list that is all inclusive. Part of the question was how many do we have. They have a good sense of it, maybe not a perfect sense. Council Member Wolbach: My question is do we want the Planning Department to take a stab at improving their own records before assigning it to the City Auditor. I'm open (crosstalk). Chair Burt: That's why we're not making that determination. I would recommend that we don't make that determination to add it to the list tonight. We ask the City Auditor to return with a preliminary evaluation of whether it appears to be an item ... Council Member Wolbach: That is worthy of further work. Chair Burt: May be worthy of an audit and the approximate scope of work that would be involved in such an audit. Council Member Berman: That makes sense. Council Member Wolbach: I'm comfortable with that. Chair Burt: We can add that to our Motion. Are we otherwise ready to have a Motion? Attachment B 6 May 12, 2015 MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois that the Policy and Services Committee recommend the City Council approve the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Proposed Audit Work Plan and that the Auditor come back to the Policy and Services Committee after conducting a preliminary review to determine whether an audit of the TDR sites would be warranted and, if so, the preliminary scope and time required to conduct the audit. Chair Burt: Any other discussion? No. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 11:07 P.M. Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 5979) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Establishing GO Bond Tax Levy Title: Adoption of Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2015-16 Secured and Unsecured Property Tax Levy for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N) From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Adopt a resolution (Attachments A and B) approving the establishment of the Fiscal Year 2016 property tax levy of $14.77 per $100,000 in Assessed Value (AV) for the secured and utility tax roll and $15.94 per $100,000 in AV for the unsecured tax roll for the City of Palo Alto's Measure N General Obligation Bond Library Bonds (First and Second Series). Background On November 4, 2008, City voters passed Measure N which gave the City authority to issue a maximum amount of $76,000,000 of General Obligation bonds (the "Bonds") for capital improvements to the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and to the Mitchell Park community center. The City successfully sold the Bonds in two series to provide $76 million in funds for the design and construction costs. Both Standard and Poor's (S&P) and Moody's awarded their highest credit ratings, Triple A, to both series of Bonds. Discussion Debt service payments on these Bonds are paid through ad valorem taxes on all taxable land and improvements (both secured and unsecured assessment roll) within the City. Staff is seeking Council approval of the attached resolution (Attachment A) which authorizes the placement of an ad valorem property tax levy in the amount of $0.01477 per $100 or $14.77 per $100,000 in AV for the secured tax roll; and $0.01594 per $100 or $15.94 per $100,000 in AV for the unsecured tax roll. In comparison, prior years secured and unsecured tax levy was $15.94 and $17.72, respectively, per $100,000 of AV. The assessment rate for FY 2015-16 is decreasing for both the secured and unsecured property taxes. The rate decreases is attributable to the rise in the Assessed Valuation for properties throughout Palo Alto by 8.2 percent, an increase of $2.2 billion. In addition, the rise in Assessed City of Palo Alto Page 2 Valuation during FY 2014-15, due to property sales and new construction, resulted in $0.2 million in excess collections. The collections plus part of a bond issuance premium (see explanation below) will offset the FY 2016 annual assessment by $0.3 million. General Obligation Bonds are unique in that they must be issued, by Government Code, at a par value that does not include an amount to pay the underwriting fee. To generate this fee and to market the bonds, interest rates on the bonds to be paid to investors were set slightly higher than the market rates. The par amount of bonds issued in June 2010 and June 2013 was $55.3 million and 20.7 million, respectively. Of this amount, $75.8 million was deposited into the Project Fund for the projects described above and $0.2 million paid for cost of issuances expenses on the first series bonds (e.g., disclosure counsel, rating agencies). As a consequence of the interest rates to be paid on the bonds and investor demand, a premium of $4.8 million was generated. Of this, $0.8 million went for the underwriter’s discount and $0.2 million for cost of issuance expenses on the second series bonds leaving $3.8 million in remaining premiums. The remaining premium must be used to offset annual debt service. In effect, use of the premium lowers the true interest cost to property owners to that cited at the time of the bond issuances, 4.2 percent for the 2010 (first series) and 3.85 percent for the 2013 (second series) Bonds. Based on the 30 year life of the bonds, staff will amortize the $3.8 million in premiums over 30 years or offset the annual assessment by $126,985 per year. To date $0.7 million of this has been already applied; leaving a balance of $3.1 million to be used to reduce future assessments. As for the unsecured property taxes, per the County of Santa Clara’s methodology, the prior year’s secured tax rate becomes this year’s unsecured tax rate as a result this rate won’t benefit from the coming year’s Assessed Value increase until FY 2016-17. With the new assessment for FY 2016, a house with an assessed value of $1.0 million, for example, would see an annual assessment of $147.70 on their property tax bill. In FY 2015, a $1.0 million home had an assessment of $159.40. Resource Impact The bond issuances result in a 2016 calendar year debt service expenditure of approximately $4.7 million and Council approval of the attached resolution will result in ad valorem tax levy revenue of $4.4 million with the $0.3 million difference attributable to available funds on hand. Again, secured and unsecured property owners will see a levy of $14.77 and $15.94, respectively, per $100,000 of AV on their 2015-16 property tax statement. Environmental Review There is no environmental review required for this report. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Establishing FY 2015-16 Property Tax Levy (PDF) Attachment B: General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2010 and 2013 Tax Rate Calculation Based on 2015-16 AV (PDF) Not Yet Approved 150713 jb 0131461 1 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Fiscal Year 2015-16 Property Tax Levy of $14.77 Per $100,000 of Secured and $15.94 Per $100,000 of Unsecured Assessed Valuations for the City’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N Library Projects) R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto’s (“City”) general election held on November 4, 2008, more than two thirds of voters approved Measure N, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount not to exceed $76,000,000 (the “Authorization”) to fund construction of a new Mitchell Park Library and Community center and renovation and improvements to Downtown and Main libraries. B. Pursuant to the Authorization, the City issued two series (Series 2010A and 2013A) of general obligation bonds in June 2010 and June 2013 that yielded $75.8 million for project needs. C. The City is obligated to levy ad valorem taxes on all property within the City subject to taxation by the City, without limitation on rate or amount (except with respect to certain personal property which is taxed at limited rates), for the payment of the debt service on the Bonds. D. The City is obligated to direct the County of Santa Clara to collect such ad valorem taxes in such amounts and at such times as is necessary to ensure the timely payment of debt service on the Bonds. E. The amount of the annual ad valorem tax levied by the City to repay the Bonds is determined by the relationship between the assessed valuation of taxable property in the City and the amount of debt service due on the bonds. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the Authorization, an ad valorem property tax is hereby established to be levied on all land and improvements in the City of Palo Alto during fiscal year 2015-16 in the amount of $0.01477 per $100 in assessed value for the secured and utility tax roll and $0.01594 per $100 in assessed value for the unsecured tax roll based on the calculations set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. The City’s Director of Administrative Services shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be delivered to the Auditor of the County of Santa Clara for entry in the assessment book of the respective sums in dollars and cents. Not Yet Approved 150713 jb 0131461 2 SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services A) Assessed Valuations (AV) 1)2015-16 Taxable Secured Assessed Valuation (AV)27,620,832,865.00$ 2)2015-16 Taxable Unsecured AV 1,794,920,762.00$ 3 ) Less: Estimated Delinquency 0.00%- 4 ) Net Taxable Unsecured AV 1,794,920,762.00 5 ) Total Assessed Valuation 29,415,753,627.00$ B) Tax Levy Requirement 5)2015-16 Debt Service Payments 6)2010 Bonds February 1,2016 1,190,334.38$ 7)2010 Bonds August 1, 2016 2,300,334.38 3,490,668.76 8)2013 Bonds February 1,2016 405,600.00$ 9)2013 Bonds August 1, 2016 795,600.00 1,201,200.00 10 )Total Calendar Year 2013 Debt Service Payment 4,691,868.76 11 ) Excess Funds on Hand Applied Toward Debt Servce (336,984.64) 12 ) Sub-total 4,354,884.12 13 ) Santa Clara County Administration Fee (0.25% of Principal & Interest)10,887.21 14 )Total 2015-16 Annual Debt Service Requirement 4,365,771.33 C) Secured and Unsecured Tax Rate 15 )2015-16 Unsecured Tax Rate per $100 of Unsecured AV (Prior Year's Secured Tax Rate)0.01594$ 16 )2015-16 Unsecured Tax Rate per $100,000 of Unsecured AV 15.94$ 17 )2015-16 Estimated Revenue from Unsecured AV (line 4 divide by 100 times by line 12) 286,110.37$ 18 )2015-16 Estimated Revenue from Secured AV (line 11 minus line 13) 4,079,660.96 19 )Total 2015-16 Annual Debt Service Requirement 4,365,771.33$ 20 )2015-16 Secured Tax Rate per $100 of Secured AV (line 14 divided by line 1*100) 0.01477$ 21 )2015-16 Secured Tax Rate per $100,000 of Secured AV (line 14 divided by line 1 times 100,000) 14.77$ Attachment B City of Palo Alto General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2010 and 2013 Tax Rate Calculation Based on 2015-16 Assessed Values City of Palo Alto (ID # 5894) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Park Improvement Ordinance for Pilot Batting Cages Project Title: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Pilot Batting Cages Project at Former PASCO Site at the Baylands Athletic Center From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) recommend that Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A), authorizing the addition of two batting cages and converting one standard parking stall to a handicapped accessible parking stall (Attachment B) at the former Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) site located adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center. Background The former PASCO site is approximately one-acre of parkland located adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center. In 1958, the City entered into a contracted with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) for garbage collection. The City leased approximately one acre of land at Geng Road to PASCO to be used as a service yard. In 1983, the City and PASCO expanded the lease area to approximately two acres. The additional one-acre parcel that was added to the PASCO lease was dedicated parkland, and Council required that parcel revert to parkland upon the termination of the PASCO contract. The City’s current contractor for recycling and garbage collection is Green Waste, and it holds the lease of the non-parkland adjacent to Geng Road. The one-acre parcel of parkland has been vacant and unused for numerous years. Staff explored options of putting soccer fields on the site, but determined that due to the size and configuration of the parcel that it was not possible to fit playing fields on the site. Council previously approved batting cages at the Baylands Athletic Center On September 20, 2004, a Council staff report recommended that Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for a Capital Improvement Project for the Baylands Athletic Center that included adding a batting cage to the existing Baylands Athletic Center site. The staff report states: City of Palo Alto Page 2 Most baseball and softball facilities of the same size and caliber as the Baylands Athletic Center have a dedicated space where batting practice can take place within a confined space in case the regular field is either occupied or otherwise unusable. The batting practice cage proposed for the Baylands would be a rectangular enclosure made of galvanized chain link mesh supported by galvanized steel poles. Its dimensions would be 84 feet long, 26 feet wide and 12 feet high with a mesh roof and a mesh divider lengthwise down the center to create two separate practice areas accessible by lockable gates. On October 4, 2004, Council unanimously adopted the Park Improvement Ordinance, which includes an 84’x26’x12’ batting cage located along the first baseline. Due to limited budget for the project, the batting cage was never built. Discussion In May 2014, Palo Alto Babe Ruth Baseball League (Babe Ruth) approached Parks staff with the concept of adding batting cages to the Baylands Athletic Center. Staff informed Babe Ruth that the City is currently working on a Parks Master Plan (scheduled to be completed in early 2016) which will provide guidance on priorities and best locations for amenities like batting cages. Babe Ruth proposed a pilot batting cage project at the former PASCO site. It would provide a much-needed batting facility for the Baylands Park Athletic Center and also provide helpful information about how many batting cages are needed, how much use they would receive, guidance on preferred design with regards to durability and security, and guidance on how a more substantial long-term batting cage facility could be integrated into the Parks Master Plan. The existing site is fenced and secure, and has gates and a pathway to allow access. Bordering the site is an office park to the south (8’ high chain-link fence with slats), the Green Waste facility to the east (6’ high chain-link fence), and Baylands Athletic Center field to the north (10’ high chain-link fence with slats). PG&E Easements on the Site There are three PG&E easements on this parcel. There are two power line easements and a gas line easement. All of the easements prohibit building any structures within the easement. The layout of the batting cages is configured to avoid conflict with the easements. Staff met with PG&E and confirmed its approval of the plans. Project Description Two batting cages would be constructed on a synthetic turf surface on the former PASCO site. One existing parking stall in the Baylands Athletic Center Parking Lot (located closest to the existing entry gate to the former PASCO site) would be converted to a handicapped accessible parking stall. Entry to the site will be through an existing locked gate to the north. There is an existing base rock pathway that connects the parking stall to the existing gate. Each batting cage will measure approximately 18’W x 16’H x 80’L. No electrical or water connections are City of Palo Alto Page 3 necessary for this project. This will be an unlit facility. No trees or vegetation will be removed as part of this project. As this is a pilot project, it is designed so that the entire area can be easily returned to its original condition with minimal disassembly and removal effort. The current design is a simple, sturdy cage that will stand on its own without any foundation or footings. The artificial turf will be applied directly onto the existing base rock surface at the site, and the batting cage will be assembled directly on top of the artificial turf. This simple design not only keeps costs low, it is easy to assemble and disassemble to move it elsewhere if desired. City Recreation staff will document the use of the facility to help track how often it is used and by whom. Maintenance of the site Apart from the periodic clearing of leaves, the cages are expected to require little maintenance. The City will perform this leaf clearing as part of their maintenance of the existing Baylands baseball field. If the pilot is continued, the long-term maintenance of the facility would be funded by Babe Ruth. Management of the batting cages Palo Alto Babe Ruth Baseball will fund the construction of the batting cages. For the first two to three months of the pilot project, only Palo Alto Babe Ruth Baseball and the City of Palo Alto Parks will have access to the site. This limited time period will allow staff to work out the details around access, safety, theft, vandalism, over-utilization by one group, and any other unforeseen issues. Once the operational details are resolved, the batting cages will become part of the Baylands Athletic Center facility. The City will oversee the batting cages and use and rent them to sports groups just as the City does with the with the Baylands Athletic Center fields. While no fees are recommended in FY 2016, user fees will be considered for the FY 2017 Municipal fee Schedule for Council consideration. Parks Master Plan and the duration of the pilot project Once the Parks Master Plan completes the analysis on the additional 10 acres of future park recreational space between the golf course and the Baylands Athletic Center, as well as their overall park and recreation system analysis, the City will have additional guidance on the best use of the PASCO site. At that time we can reevaluate if the pilot batting cages should remain at this site or be removed or relocated. If the batting cage pilot is successful (success will be defined as the facility is safe, vandalism kept to a minimum, and park users are satisfied), the pilot will continue until the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is complete and alternative recommendations for the site are considered for Council approval. Planning Review Palo Alto Planning Department has reviewed and approved the project. Parks and Recreation Commission City of Palo Alto Page 4 On February 24, 2015, the Commission reviewed the pilot batting cage project. The Commission supported the project and thought it was a good use for the former PASCO site. One Commissioner suggested a public meeting to ensure that there is an opportunity for a public discussion. On March 23, 2015, a public meeting was held at the Baylands Athletic Center to discuss the project. Six members of the public, two Commissioners, and four staff attended the meeting. The public participants all supported the batting cage project. There was a request to include a gate at the west end of the former PASCO site to allow more efficient access to the batting cages from the softball field. There is an existing pedestrian gate that will provide this access. On April 28, 2015, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend that Council adopt and approve the Park Improvement Ordinance authorizing the batting cage project (Attachment C). Timeline The batting cages will be installed 31 days after the second Council reading of the Park Improvement Ordinance. Resource Impact No staffing increases are proposed as a result of this project. The cost of the batting cages will be funded by Palo Alto Babe Ruth Baseball. City Recreation staff will manage the use of the batting cages. City Parks staff will provide periodic maintenance to blow the site free of leaves. The maintenance is expected to be minimal. Policy Implications The batting cages will be installed 31 days after the second Council reading of the Park Improvement Ordinance. Environmental Review This project is not subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A 00710593 ORDN Baylands Athletic Center Batting Cages (PDF) Attachment B PIO Batting Cage Exhibit A (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. _____ ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT FOR TWO BATTING CAGES LOCATED AT THE FORMER PASCO SITE AT THE BAYLANDS ATHETLIC CENTER The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor. (b) The former PASCO site at the Baylands is dedicated to park purposes. (c) The City intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements within the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center, as shown at Exhibit “A”. The improvements include, without limitation, the following: (1) Construction two batting cages. (2) Converting one standard parking stall to a handicapped parking stall. (d) The improvements do not require removing any vegetation or trees. (e) The improvements described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit "A" are consistent with park and conservation purposes. (f) The Council desires to approve the projects described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit "A”. SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for construction of improvements within the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center and hereby adopts the Plans, attached hereto at Exhibit "A" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements within the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the construction of the new batting cage facilities at the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines section 15303. 1 150423 jb 00710593 Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Community Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 2 150423 jb 00710593 Exhibit A -Install two batting cages on a synthetic turf surface. Each batting cage will measure approximately 18’W x 16’H x 80’L. There are no foundations or footings for the cages. The artificial turf will be applied directly onto the existing base rock surface at the site, and then assemble the cage on top of it. -Convert one existing parking stall in the Baylands Athletic Center Parking Lot (located closest to the existing entry gate to the former PASCO site) to a handicapped accessible parking stall. -Entry to the site will be through an existing locked gate to the north. There is an existing base rock pathway that connects the parking stall to the existing gate. Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 5893) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Park Improvement Ordinance for Monroe Park Title: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Improvements at Monroe Park From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council adopt and approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) authorizing the construction improvements at Monroe Park (Attachment B). Background Monroe Park, developed in 1975, is located at Monroe Drive and Miller Avenue and is 0.55 acres. The existing park amenities consist of a park destination sign, an asphalt park trail, a mounded turf area, a playground, and park benches. The Monroe Park Capital Improvement Project (CIP PG-11002) has $237,500 remaining to provide the necessary upgrades to the pathway, benches, trash and recycling receptacles, and play equipment at Monroe Park. Funding focuses on repairing the existing infrastructure and does not entail full-scale park renovation. Discussion A public meeting to discuss the project was held on Tuesday, August 26, 2013. Draft plans for the park improvements were shared with the participants. The meeting participants had several concerns and comments regarding the initial draft plan. These comments included: suggestions regarding the mounded turf area, landscaping, appropriate play structure (including sand), and the type of benches. The contract landscape architect, Eddie Chau, briefly discussed the issue of adding a dog off-leash area to the park. The meeting participants agreed that Monroe Park is too small to include a dog off-leash area. A second public meeting was held on October 19, 2013. An updated renovation plan was presented incorporating the input received from the previous public meeting. The public input City of Palo Alto Page 2 from the two public meetings included the following recommendations which were incorporated into the design: -Maintaining the turf on the corner of Miller Avenue and Monroe Drive -Maintaining as much sand as possible in the playground area -Installing a larger swing set with an accessible swing and ADA rubberized access pathway -Installing two additional benches and an added area light along Miller Avenue. -Reducing the turf area along Miller Avenue for sustainable purposes -Installing a new walkway to replace the damaged asphalt walk -Adding drought tolerant planting, planting 11 new trees (three valley oaks and eight Cercis trees) -Replacing the two existing area light poles -Installing a new more efficient irrigation system -Installing a playhouse The revised design was well-received by the majority of the public meeting participants. A question concerning having a play structure in the playground instead of swings was brought up, but was voted against by the attendees in favor of the swing. A playhouse has been added to the design to increase the play opportunities in the playground. The Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) reviewed the project on February 25, 2014, generally supported the design. (Attachment C) They appreciated that sand would remain in the playground and noted that sand is an important part of a playground experience. The Commission also noted recommendations for placement of trash cans, lights, and benches. The Commission’s recommendations were incorporated into the design. On May 27, 2014, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Council adopt and approve the Park Improvement Ordinance for the improvements at Monroe Park (Attachment D). The reason for the delay in bringing this park improvement ordinance from the Commission to Council was due to a number of other park improvement projects (Hopkins Park, Scott Park, and El Camino Park) that required significant staff time. Resource Impact The Monroe Park CIP was funded for $250,000. Project design costs were $12,500. The contract construction costs ($235,000) have been encumbered to complete the project. The remaining $2,500 will be used for advertising and signage for the project. Policy Implications This project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan: POLICY L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City City of Palo Alto Page 3 welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. POLICY L-61: Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours. PROGRAM L-70: Study the potential for landscaping or park furniture that would promote neighborhood parks as outdoor gathering places and centers of neighborhood activity. Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Sections 15301 and 15303. Attachments: Attachment A - Monroe Park PIO (PDF) Attachment B - Monroe Park Improvement Plan (PDF) Attachment C - 02-25-14 PARC transcript approved (DOCX) Attachment D - 5-27-14 PARC Minutes (DOCX) 130416 dm 00710210 *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Monroe Park The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore. (b) Monroe Park is dedicated to park, playground, and recreational space. (c) The City intends to authorize the construction of certain park improvements within Hopkins Park, as shown on the Monroe Park Landscape Improvement Plan (the “Plan”), attached as Exhibit “A,” including: (1) Installation of new playground equipment; (2) Installation of new pathway; (3) Installation of new light poles; (4) Installation of new irrigation; (5) Installation of new landscaping; and (6) Installation of new benches, drinking fountain, bike rack, and trash enclosures (d) The Project will be constructed in a manner as to avoid protected trees and other sensitive natural resources, if any. In addition, the existing park uses will be restored following the completion of construction of the Project. (e) The Project is consistent with park and recreation purposes. (f) The Council desires to approve the Project, described above and as more specifically described in the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A.” SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for the construction of the improvements at Monroe Park, and it hereby adopts the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A,” as part of the official plan for the construction of the park improvements at Monroe Park. 130416 dm 00710210 SECTION 3. The Council finds that the project to construct the facilities at Hopkins Park is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Community Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 130416 dm 00710210 Exhibit “A” APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 SPECIAL MEETING 7 February 25, 2014 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie 13 Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl 14 Commissioners Absent: 15 Others Present: 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter 17 Jensen 18 I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19 20 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21 22 None. 23 24 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 25 26 None. 27 28 IV. BUSINESS: 29 30 1. Approval of Draft January 21, 2014 Minutes. 31 32 Approval of the draft January 21, 2014 Minutes as amended was moved by Vice Chair 33 Lauing and seconded by Commissioner Ashlund. Passed 6-0, Reckdahl absent 34 35 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 2 2. Review and feedback from Commission to Staff to designate three redwood 36 trees at Cogswell Plaza as a Memorial Grove in honor of Palo Alto Police 37 Officers lost in the line of duty. 38 39 Rob de Geus: Good evening, Commissioners. Good to see you all. May I ask Peter 40 Jensen to kick off this one? It is a real honor to bring this forward as a memorial for our 41 police officers that lost their lives in the line of duty. We also have Police Chief Dennis 42 Burns in the audience here. He's been very supportive of this. This actually came out of 43 Canopy. Urban Cummings is here from Canopy, that's going to help with the 44 presentation as well. I'll pass it on to Peter. 45 46 Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 47 City of Palo Alto. I think you've read the report and know what this project is about. It's 48 about basically establishing a memorial in Cogswell Plaza for police officers. I'm going 49 to introduce and let Urban Cummings from Canopy discuss the history and how this 50 came to be. Then I'll come back and talk a little bit about the plan and what we're 51 proposing to do. Without any further ado, Mr. Cummings. 52 53 Urban Cummings: Thank you Commissioners for the opportunity to present you with 54 this idea. It all started because one day months ago walking through from City Hall 55 through the Police Department hallway, I saw these three plaques on the wall of three 56 officers that died in the line of duty. Everything happens at the Program Committee with 57 Canopy, so it occurred to me that it would be a great idea to plant three trees to honor 58 these three men who died in the line of duty. I approached Chief Burns with the idea and 59 he gave it his blessing. I presented it to the Program Committee of Canopy probably six, 60 eight weeks ago. They were all in favor of it. We had a little subcommittee, and Marty 61 Deggellar and Catherine Martineau and I decided we would scan the parks or the area in 62 general looking for an appropriate place to plant three trees for these officers. It's a 63 emotional thing for me. We were going to start at Eleanor Pardee Park and Marty 64 suggested going down to Cogswell. We came down here early one morning. It didn't 65 look like an appropriate spot to plant three trees for this purpose. About the time we were 66 leaving, I looked over towards Ramona and I spotted these three, big, beautiful redwood 67 trees. We walked over there and looked at them and saw that they were near the 68 sidewalk. They way they're situated, you'll see it in the pictures, there's two of them right 69 near the sidewalk, maybe 5 feet away. There's a third one back to the rear, so it was a 70 perfect arrangement to put a plaque here in the center surrounded by the great trees. 71 Then I approached Peter about the idea, and he's done a marvelous, magnificent job. Rob 72 stepped in to help. Everybody's been wonderful about it. I'm here to answer any 73 questions. I'll just add one more thing. It turns out that it's been 20 years since the last 74 police officer, Brassinga, died in the line of duty. It was May 15, 1994. We all decided 75 that 20 years later would be a perfect opportunity to honor these three wonderful police 76 officers. We're hoping to be able to put this altogether and have the dedication on May 77 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 3 15th. It also coincides with National Police Officer Association recognition of fallen 78 officers. So the timing is just handed to us, just like the redwood trees. Are there any 79 questions? 80 81 Commissioner Markevitch: I don't have any questions, as much as a comment. I love the 82 idea. I went by there today. I walked past those trees and it's a perfect spot. 83 84 Mr. Cummings: Exactly. 85 86 Commissioner Markevitch: It's a really good choice. 87 88 Mr. Cummings: We just looked into it. I think there is some power-that-be that planned 89 all this and now it's coming together. Thank you very much. 90 91 Chair Hetterly: I think we have another question. 92 93 Mr. Cummings: I'm sorry. 94 95 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think this, first of all, is a very good idea and the location is 96 very good. We're not interrupting anything else in the park. That location was not used 97 for playing Frisbee or anything else. I think it is a good location, a good cause. I'm 98 curious, have we lost firefighters or other City employees? 99 100 Mr. Cummings: Good question. That came up in the Program Committee at Canopy, 101 because we didn't want to restrict it to just police officers. Chief Burns, who was the Fire 102 Chief as well as the Police Chief for a period of time there, said that no, there hadn't been 103 a fireman lost in the line of duty. We certainly would include that. There's always room 104 for planting another tree. That's my motto. I hope it never happens. 105 106 Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 107 108 Mr. Cummings: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. 109 110 Chair Hetterly: Any other questions? I also think it's a lovely location and a great idea. I 111 do have a process question just about how memorial grove dedications work. The City 112 doesn't have to do anything to make it happen; we just approve the design. Is that the 113 story? Is it protected in perpetuity? Are the trees protected? How does it work 114 procedurally into the long term? 115 116 Greg Betts: Good evening, Commission. I'm Greg Betts, Director of Community 117 Services. This falls under the City's policy for naming City facilities including parks and 118 subareas of parks. As you may know from some of your experience, if we were going to 119 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 4 name a new park such as Heritage Park, there's an elaborate procedure that involves the 120 Palo Alto Historical Association, the Parks and Recreation Commission and ultimately 121 the City Council. For subareas within parks, the procedures allow the Director of 122 Community Services to designate those areas. Like we do for any of our park activities, 123 we always like to have a public component, really for two reasons. One is to inform the 124 public of this very fitting tribute; also to provide a public opportunity for questions and 125 input and suggestions in getting it absolutely correct. There is no motion tonight. I'm 126 also in favor of this project, but I'm taking any notes. Tonight's discussion will serve as a 127 public record for this discussion. 128 129 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Commissioner Reckdahl. 130 131 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is this simply a naming or is this protection? Does this tie our 132 hands down the road if we want to do something else with that park? Let's say they 133 wanted to build some other type facilities at that location. 134 135 Mr. Betts: No, it is a protection of that grove. There's a similar designated and protected 136 grove of redwood trees at El Camino Park that was created as a memorial or as a tribute 137 to Olympians from Stanford and Palo Alto. As we've experienced with the 138 redevelopment of El Camino Park, it really didn't impinge on the designs of the baseball 139 field or softball field. That area was respected as a grove and we made certain that 140 pathways for the fence lines or lighting did not encroach on that memorial. This is a very 141 appropriate area of Cogswell Plaza. We don't envision that there's going to be any need 142 for tables or benches or any type of development in this area that would at any point 143 jeopardize this memorial. 144 145 Commissioner Reckdahl: But if this location ended up 40, 50 years from now being 146 inconvenient and we wanted to move it to the other side of the park or because of some 147 construction issue, would we have that latitude or are our hands tied? 148 149 Mr. Betts: No, our hands aren't really tied. I can think of one other example at Eleanor 150 Pardee Park. The Daughters of the California Revolution had placed a plaque on a 151 redwood tree that unfortunately died at Eleanor Pardee Park. That plaque had been 152 placed there 50 years or so ago. We would go through a process where we'd reach out to 153 the Police Department first and foremost, to Canopy and to the Commission at the time to 154 suggest an adjustment of the memorial, but trying to keep it in the same location so that 155 there was not a disruption of people wanting to go and pay tribute to those officers. 156 157 Commissioner Reckdahl: OK, thank you. 158 159 Chair Hetterly: Any other comments? OK. Thank you very much. This is exciting. 160 We'll look forward to seeing it. When do you anticipate placement of the plaque? 161 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 5 162 Mr. Jensen: As Mr. Cummings noted, there are some significant dates that it would be 163 nice to have a memorial done on. Canopy and staff are working in conjunction to get the 164 boulder in place which I'm hoping will be within the next few weeks. It coincides very 165 well with some boulder placement that we're doing at Eleanor Pardee Park. It shouldn't 166 be a very big issue to get the boulder set in place. The plaque, we will work with Canopy 167 on getting a schedule for how that is made and mounted, and setting a date for some type 168 of memorial service as well to denote the area. 169 170 Chair Hetterly: Anything else? Did you want to show your pictures? Are they the same 171 as what we have in our packet? 172 173 Mr. Jensen: I think you've seen this in the packet. This was calling out where it was 174 going to go. I've mocked up something that would like the boulder and the plaque there. 175 The next slide is what the plaque would look like, something in this size. I think the size 176 of the boulder's going to depend too on the size of the plaque. It's either going to be 177 12x12 or 16x16 size range. It's all about the flat surface we can get on it. It will be 178 significant and definitely be readable from the sidewalk, which I think is important for 179 the memorial itself. 180 181 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Lauing. 182 183 Vice Chair Lauing: I just wanted to say kudos to Canopy for taking the initiative on this 184 and working with PAPD. Canopy's just a great partner to the City. We see it 185 everywhere. Thanks very much for bringing this to our attention and taking the initiative. 186 Thanks to the Chief for cooperating and getting this thing done. 187 188 Mr. Jensen: I would like to recognize that Chief Burns is here. I don’t know if he had 189 any words to say about this. The support shown for the project itself is nice. 190 191 Mr. Dennis Burns: Good evening, Commissioners. Dennis Burns, Palo Alto Police 192 Department. I do want to thank Urban and Canopy as well as the CSD staff and Peter for 193 all of his assistance. This is an emotional issue but I think it says a lot about the 194 community that it wants to remember the officers who died in the line of duty. Thank 195 you so much for considering this request. We sincerely appreciate it. Thank you. 196 197 3. Palo Alto Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan update and 198 consideration to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee. 199 200 Rob de Geus: Good evening, again. I'll begin again and then I'll have Peter join in and 201 talk a little bit about the next steps here. We're finally beginning the Citywide Parks, 202 Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Facilities Master Planning process. It's pretty 203 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 6 exciting. Just as a reminder, the intent of the Master Planning process is for the 204 identification and prioritization of short-term (5 years), mid-term (10 years) and long-205 term (25 years) improvements, enhancements or acquisition of park and recreation 206 facilities and a strategic funding plan to successfully complete the Master Plan. We'll not 207 only have a Master Plan for the entire park system, but there will also be complementary 208 individual park plans for each of our parks and recreation facilities. The consultant, 209 MIG, has been selected and is on-board. They are reviewing many materials that we 210 have provided them to orient them to Palo Alto. The consultant team has already begun 211 an inventory and a study of the current parks and trails and recreation facilities as well as 212 our programs and services. An initial all-day tour for the consultant team was conducted 213 on February 11th to get familiar with Palo Alto. They'll be doing a lot more tours, I 214 expect, in the months ahead. This evening we're here to talk about the schedule and 215 primarily focus on the public engagement plan as it's drafted and to think about and 216 consider how the Commission can be most productively engaged in the process. I also 217 wanted to mention on March 10th there will be an important study session with the City 218 Council. The Parks and Rec Commission is invited to be there. It will be here in the 219 Chambers at 6:00. This will be an introduction, orientation of the Master Planning 220 process with MIG presenting. They'll be talking about the public engagement plan at that 221 time as well. That's what I had to say just to get us started. I'll ask Peter just to talk a 222 little bit about the timeline and then the public engagement plan. 223 224 Peter Jensen: Good evening again, Commissioners. Tonight we're going to focus our 225 conversation on reviewing the timeline and the schedule of the project, talking about how 226 the PRC can be integrated and involved in the process of producing the long range plan, 227 and then reviewing the public engagement plan that has been proposed by the consultant. 228 There is going to be a joint study session with the Council on March 10th with the 229 consultant. They are going to get more into the bulk of the plan and how it's produced 230 and what we get from that. Then there will be a more extensive question and answer 231 period that will talk about the Master Plan as a whole. With that said, I do want to start 232 with the schedule, just so we have a feeling of what it is. It is a very long process. It 233 basically takes us from now until August 2015. That process is broken up into a series of 234 steps. The first step is happening right now, which is the collection of information and 235 analyzing that information. Going to the parks, looking at the parks, looking at materials 236 like the Comp Plan, the Bicycle Plan, things of that nature, and the consultant becoming 237 familiar with all those things so they can start analyzing and then giving us a plan at the 238 end. The next step in this is a community engagement part of the process. That part will 239 start sometime within the next few months and last through the summer time. That will 240 engage the community and get feedback from them of their priorities and what they 241 would like to see with the Parks Master Plan and what they find as important. That's very 242 important for our prioritization. This is going to be a process of prioritizing how we want 243 to maintain the parks, what things we would like to add to the parks, and how we would 244 like to expand our parks system, if that's something we're interested in doing. That's what 245 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 7 we're going to find out along this process. After that the consultant takes all that 246 information and starts to draft a long range report, which will happen in the winter to 247 spring of next year, 2015. They will be bringing that draft back to Boards and 248 Commissions. You will definitely be involved with that, with reviewing the draft, 249 making comments about the draft. The draft will go through its edits and then around 250 August 2015, the final draft of the Master Plan report will be completed and adopted by 251 Council. That's our process and our timeline and schedule. This next slide talks about 252 specific meetings set up for the Parks and Rec Commission. In the packet, you've got 253 this very detailed schedule. It's not the easiest thing to read. What I've done here is I've 254 combed through that and set up the dates and times of when the plan will come back to 255 the PRC and what will be discussed at those meetings. In July 2014, we come back and 256 discuss the public engagement and have a little bit more discussion about that. We also 257 talk about the survey and the demographic study. This is providing feedback to the 258 consultant on these topics right as it kicks off. There will be a community meeting before 259 this, so they'll actually be reporting on information as well as receiving information from 260 the community. The next step after that is a meeting in January 2015, and that's to review 261 the community results, to talk about what was found in the community meetings and 262 online survey. There's a few other different types of public engagement events that they 263 have set up that they'll get into more detail as we talk about this more. All that will be 264 covered in that January 2015 meeting to keep the Parks and Rec Commission involved 265 with the process and up-to-date with what has been found to that time. In March 2015 266 there will be discussion of the Master Plan outline. This will also be discussion about the 267 prioritization. At this meeting, the consultant will start to put a list together of items that 268 they feel are important to add or enhance in our parks and open space and recreational 269 facilities. That discussion then will be brought to the Parks and Rec Commission to flesh 270 those out and make sure that they're on track of what we feel those priorities should be. 271 May 2015, the draft of the Master Plan report comes. There's a presentation on that, 272 allowing you to have comment on the written draft of the report itself. In August 2015 it 273 comes back again for approval of the report. Those are the main meetings that are set 274 through the schedule for the Commission to comment on and provide review and 275 recommendations of those steps. This leads to the next topic that I do want to review 276 tonight. We can leave it here and talk about this for a while, but how the Parks and Rec 277 Commission would like to see themselves involved further, besides the meetings but with 278 either subcommittees or ad hoc groups. I know that there's been an expressed interest 279 from the Commission to have all the members involved, to try not to break it up and have 280 an ad hoc committee. I would agree with that. I think one ad hoc committee is not 281 enough. There can be multiple subcommittees or ad hoc committees that breakdown 282 different aspects of this process. What I've started to set up here is recommendations of 283 what I think those things can be. The first thing is a stakeholder group representative. 284 That stakeholder group is composed of community members that represent institutions in 285 the City, like Canopy, Acterra, things like that, that provide more feedback into the 286 Master Plan process. I would like one of the Parks and Rec Commissioners to be on that 287 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 8 stakeholder group. I think that it's probably deserving of two just in case someone can't 288 make it, then someone else can come and do a backup for them. The other ones are the 289 public engagement subcommittee. We're going to talk a little bit tonight about the plan. 290 If there's an interest by the Commission to have a subcommittee discuss that further and 291 develop that, then that is a proposal as well. One for the community survey and setting 292 up the questionnaire for that. I think that's an important one and can definitely have more 293 of the Commission involved with that besides just the meetings it's set up for. Of course, 294 the report itself and the draft of that. Those are my proposals for it. I'd like to open up 295 discussion to the Commission and have a conversation about how you feel you would 296 like to proceed and be involved with the process. 297 298 Chair Hetterly: Peter, if you don't mind, could we go through the public engagement plan 299 that was in our packet first? I have some questions about that. Then come back around 300 to the ad hoc issue after we've discussed what we have before us already. Great. Were 301 you going to go through this at all? 302 303 Mr. Jensen: We're definitely going to go through that. This is the proposal from the 304 consultant about the public engagement plan. This plan focuses on going out to the 305 community and extracting information from the community about their feelings about 306 parks and recreation in Palo Alto to give us feedback on how they would like to see this 307 plan assembled. This is a multi-pronged task. The core of it is community meetings, 308 multiple community meetings, centered around developing and extracting information 309 from the community about what they like about the parks. During those community 310 meetings, there's going to be different tactics used; games, writing on boards, to get this 311 information. There's that aspect of the public engagement plan. It also includes a 312 community survey. We can talk about the development of that and the questionnaires 313 that go out to the entire community. There is a special aspect of it that our consultant 314 provides which is a Mapita. It allows people to go online and provide information of 315 specific sites in the City to make it easier to understand where we are lacking or have a 316 good amount of recreational opportunities throughout the City. The last one is the 317 intercept groups that have the consultant or City staff going out to parks or facilities and 318 doing face-to-face interactions with the community to get feedback on specific 319 questionnaires that they have. That is the structure and the different elements of the 320 engagement plan. That engagement plan will happen from now for the next four, five to 321 six months. This proposal is for us to comment on and give feedback to the consultant. 322 If there's anything else or any further ideas that we have about engagement or trying to 323 get information about our park system, this is the opportunity to discuss that and get 324 feedback from you that I can relay back to them to revise this a little bit if that's 325 necessary. 326 327 Chair Hetterly: Thanks. I had a bunch of questions. I don't know if others had a lot of 328 questions. I'm seeing no reaction. 329 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 9 330 Commissioner Ashlund: Just a few. 331 332 Chair Hetterly: OK. Then why don't we go one-by-one with questions and comments. 333 334 Commissioner Ashlund: Thanks, Peter. What does CBO stand for? It's under Public 335 Information, Number 1, content will be shared with CBOs and partner organizations. 336 337 Chair Hetterly: Community-based organizations. 338 339 Commissioner Ashlund: Community-based organizations? 340 341 Chair Hetterly: Community-based organization. 342 343 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 344 345 Commissioner Ashlund: OK, thank you. On the project website, is that 346 cityofpaloalto.org? It says just paloalto.org. 347 348 Mr. Jensen: Yes, it will be cityofpaloalto.org. 349 350 Commissioner Ashlund: The Mapita inclusion is a really nice tech solution. The 351 intercept activity is an awesome personal approach to this. I really like that and was very 352 impressed with that approach to discuss with people in person. I really like that. Overall 353 I thought it had excellent coverage, but those were my highlights. Thank you. 354 355 Mr. de Geus: Commissioner Ashlund, I'm glad you said that last one. The intercept 356 activities are something I think all the Commissioners can participate in. It's actually 357 getting out, onsite with a survey or an iPad and talking to residents in the park. We 358 would love your help with that. 359 360 Commissioner Ashlund: I'd be glad to be involved. That's wonderful. Thanks. 361 362 Chair Hetterly: Other questions or comments from anybody? 363 364 Commissioner Markevitch: Are these just now for the public engagement or is this 365 questions about any of the subcommittees? 366 367 Chair Hetterly: Let's just stick with public engagement for now, and then we'll know 368 what we're talking about when we figure out subcommittees. Commissioner Lauing. 369 370 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 10 Vice Chair Lauing: I just had a clarification question. On our little draft, there was a 371 possibility of a public engagement subcommittee and a community survey subcommittee. 372 Those seemed really close, so maybe you could differentiate those. They're all about 373 getting public comments. 374 375 Mr. Jensen: I guess the more specific one is the survey subcommittee, that would just 376 look at the questions that were generated by the consultant that were going to be part of 377 the survey. The engagement plan would be much broader and talk about these intercept 378 groups and where the best place would be and how many we should have and who's 379 involved in that along with the community meetings, if there's any further ideas along 380 with that and how to develop those or little programs inside of that. I would say that both 381 of them are specific tasks, but definitely the survey one has more specific guidelines to it. 382 If that was a subcommittee, it would probably be a shorter amount of time that it would 383 last. The other thing I'm trying to convey up here is the stakeholder group representative 384 would start now and go until May 2015. That's a long commitment. The engagement 385 subcommittee would be now until December of this year. There are things to consider 386 there along with breaking down subcommittees, that there's timelines to them. 387 388 Vice Chair Lauing: OK. The intercepts are great. I saw that weaved in here. Back in 389 the day I participated in those for certain kinds of market research. That's known as 390 qualitative not quantitative which supposedly is not as good. It is great because you get 391 unvarnished opinions on topics and sometimes visuals that change your perceptions. Just 392 one other quick question. At the bottom of page 4, the project team is going to present to 393 Council three times. Is that the consultant or is that consultant plus City, just what's the 394 makeup of that? 395 396 Mr. de Geus: Consultant plus City staff. 397 398 Vice Chair Lauing: OK, great. That's all. Thanks. 399 400 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Reckdahl. 401 402 Commissioner Reckdahl: I have a question about the community survey. It's bilingual. 403 We have a lot of Mandarin speakers now. Was that arbitrary or is there City policy just 404 to have bilingual surveys? How was that chosen? 405 406 Mr. Jensen: That is a good question. I would say that we could look at having other 407 languages represented with the survey as well. I don't know if the bilingual just specifies 408 that it is Spanish that needs to be in. That's something we can definitely look at more. I 409 think there is some demographic information that does talk about a language in Palo Alto. 410 It would just be looking to see if that was a large enough group, I guess, to go and 411 develop that material specifically. 412 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 11 413 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. It's not trivial to get Mandarin, I would think. We're 414 used to translating into Spanish. The learning curve going into Mandarin is not as much. 415 I know when I'm at the park, my neighborhood park, there's a lot of elderly Chinese. In 416 small talk with them, they speak Mandarin much better than English. I would think 417 Mandarin would be useful. 418 419 Mr. Jensen: That is interesting that you bring that up. That was brought up as one of the 420 intercept activities. One of the parks was specifically recognized as being a hub of an 421 Asian community. I can't recall what that was now. I can't remember if it was Mandarin 422 or not. The consultant did say that they did have access to, if the intercept was going to 423 be in that park, that they would bring someone along that was able to speak in the 424 language there. If that is an intercept group that we do decide to have, the consultant has 425 a means of providing that service to us. 426 427 Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 428 429 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 430 431 Commissioner Crommie: I don't have a lot of voice tonight. I have laryngitis. Are we 432 going to get to do any phone surveying or not? I heard sometimes the quality of that is 433 better as far as you can't stack it. 434 435 Mr. Jensen: We don't have anything planned for doing a phone survey at this point. 436 That's something that we can discuss with the consultant. They have not really brought it 437 up as something that is viable to them. I think if it was important and they've used that 438 process before and it was successful, they would have brought it up. We can discuss that 439 with them. I think phone surveys have a more specific questioning that happens about do 440 you like this or not. I think that the survey we are going to do is going to be broader than 441 that. I don't know if he can set up for that. That is something that we can converse with 442 them more on. 443 444 Commissioner Crommie: Has he commented on bias in online surveys? 445 446 Mr. Jensen: That is something that they do account for in their surveys. I can't tell you 447 how they do that, but they have mentioned that they do look at bias for their online 448 survey. 449 450 Chair Hetterly: I had a couple of questions and comments. The target audiences for City 451 residents including current and potential park users, we want to have recreation users as 452 well. Do we have an intercept process for rec users? We're not just going to be out in the 453 park or somewhere? 454 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 12 455 Mr. Jensen: Yes, recreation would be part of it. The consultant did bring up that it's not 456 just intercept groups at parks, but also farmers markets, events at Lucie Stern, concerts in 457 the park. There should be a variety of community events hit to get the broadest user 458 group that's happening. 459 460 Chair Hetterly: Great. I think one of the things we really want to understand more about 461 is the geographic distribution of our facilities and our users. It would definitely be 462 important to tap into the neighborhood coordinator network for each of the distinct 463 neighborhoods. I don't know if they would be on the stakeholder group. I don't know 464 how to best do that, but we would want to be able to use them to send out the survey to 465 their community. They might want to bring the community together, have a discussion 466 about it. We should keep them on the list. Thinking more about surveys, presumably for 467 a survey we want to get it out to the widest reach possible. Will we be using our partners 468 and the various stakeholders to distribute that survey? I think you said we would. 469 470 Mr. Jensen: The stakeholders are important as spokesmen for their groups to disseminate 471 information back to them. They should be providing them with emails that say the 472 survey is available to take or do. Our plan is to send out the survey as a written form in 473 the utility bill that goes to all residents in Palo Alto, so everyone will have the 474 opportunity to do it. It will also have the direction that you can go online and do it there 475 as well if you so choose. Then you can mail it back. 476 477 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 478 479 Commissioner Crommie: Do you know how many residents do automatic payment on 480 utilities? I know I do, so I don't any longer open up utility bills. It would be really good 481 to get a number on that. 482 483 Mr. Jensen: Sure. 484 485 Chair Hetterly: Yeah, I think we would want to know how successful we would be in 486 reaching people through that method. That makes me nervous as well. 487 488 Commissioner Crommie: Can we take a poll on the Commission? How many people 489 open up their utility bills? That's pretty good. Three, four, OK. 490 491 Commissioner Knopper: We pay online but sometimes we look and cry over the water 492 bill. 493 494 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 13 Mr. de Geus: To your point about leveraging our partner organizations and neighborhood 495 associations and the schools to help get the survey out, that's absolutely going to be a 496 strategy. 497 498 Chair Hetterly: I was talking to Rob about this earlier. On the mapping tool, I wanted to 499 understand how we can manipulate that, not for sinister purposes. Can we, for example, 500 ask the map to show us the geographic distribution of tennis courts or the user group 501 distribution of, this facility has a majority of this age group, this facility has a majority of 502 this age group? Is that the kind of thing that the mapping tool will be able to do for us 503 after they've completed the inventory and the surveying? 504 505 Mr. Jensen: We did not specifically ask that question today when we were talking to 506 them. I do imagine that, yes, that it has the capability of quickly deciphering the 507 information that's been put into it into different categories, to extract different types of 508 information. That's why they're interested in it, because it's helping them catalog very 509 quickly people's responses to sidewalks or how they feel about parks. It allows them to 510 then group all those things and figure out how many people were talking about the same 511 thing or interested in the same thing or liked this specific thing or didn't like this thing. 512 I'm sure that it has that capability. I will ask them more about it, but I'm going to say that 513 it does. 514 515 Chair Hetterly: OK. Will they also be collecting information about users for specific 516 facilities? What the user profile looks like for Lucie Stern versus Mitchell Park versus 517 whatever? That would be useful to have in terms of age groups in particular. Also times 518 of maximum and minimum usage, it'd be great to glean from this that this site is used 519 very heavily during these periods but there are big gaps here and here and here that might 520 influence pricing for rentals. It might influence how we program that site differently to 521 increase usage during the downtimes. That would be useful also. I don't know where 522 that would fit in here or if that's part of the scope already. On page 3, the community 523 Master Plan review meeting. It says that there will be one community-wide workshop to 524 solicit feedback from the general public on the draft Master Plan and individual park 525 Master Plans. It seems to me that we might want at least two of those. We have three 526 meetings for the general public asking them to help us say what they want. If we only 527 have one, where you miss it, you're done. To see the draft of where we've taken that 528 information, it would be much more appropriate to have at least two to report to the 529 community before it goes to decision making. 530 531 Mr. Jensen: We have discussed this a little as well. I do agree with you. If we feel that 532 another meeting is necessary at the time, then we definitely will have it and make that 533 part of the process. We do also want to get the report out there to people as well, so they 534 can see it before the meeting. We talked about putting it in libraries and then advertising 535 that so people could go see the plans and the written material so they have an opportunity 536 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 14 to look at it. Also posting it online so people have the opportunity to look at it there and 537 providing the opportunity for them to comment on it as well. Yes, I do agree. It needs to 538 be not just a meeting, but it needs to be out there more. If it needs to have more 539 meetings, even more than two, maybe three, then ... 540 541 Chair Hetterly: We have the flexibility to do that? 542 543 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 544 545 Chair Hetterly: Great. On the top of page 4, you're listing the stakeholder groups who 546 are going to be consulted. This is not the community stakeholder groups. This is the 547 boards and commissions, looks like. Oh, I see the stakeholder advisory committee. I 548 think it'd be great to be able to plug in the Teen Council and the other teen groups. I don't 549 know if they need their own meeting or if we invite them to one of the other meetings. It 550 would be great to formally solicit their input. That's it for my questions and comments. I 551 guess that brings us to ... 552 553 Commissioner Reckdahl: Just talking about teens, I think that's a very good idea. There's 554 a lot of teen use of the parks. Through the schools would be a prime opportunity to get 555 them involved and get some feedback, what they want in the parks and also in recreation 556 too. 557 558 Chair Hetterly: That reminds me. Another partner that might be worth leveraging is the 559 PTAs in particular, in terms of getting people to fill out the survey and turn it back in. 560 They're good at that. Any other comments before we move on to the ad hoc question? 561 Questions about the schedule? Nothing. OK. Yes? 562 563 Commissioner Markevitch: The Master Plan report subcommittee, could you touch on 564 that a bit and what that's going to entail? 565 566 Mr. Jensen: The subcommittee for that or ... 567 568 Commissioner Markevitch: For the Master Plan, yeah, the subcommittee. 569 570 Mr. Jensen: That would be talking about the outline and how that report is set up and 571 drafted and structured. That would be engagement with the consultant about that, and 572 then reviewing the draft before the actual rest of the Commission did to provide comment 573 and also to report back to the Commission of how that draft was proceeding. That would 574 be the scope of being on that committee. 575 576 Commissioner Ashlund: Quick addition to that. That timeline on there should be 577 December 2014 to August 2015, instead of from 2015 to 2015. 578 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 15 579 Mr. Jensen: You are correct. We'd actually have to go back in time to do that too. That 580 would be hard. 581 582 Chair Hetterly: I have another question about the ad hocs then. You have these four 583 suggestions for separate groups that we might set up. On page 4 of this public 584 engagement thing, the second full paragraph suggests that the ad hoc committee would be 585 used to shape the community survey, to weigh in on priority projects, expansion 586 opportunities, prioritization exercise, feedback on phasing, revenue and funding options, 587 cost models. We haven't talked about that tonight at all. 588 589 Mr. Jensen: Those also could be opportunities to have. I was allowing the Commission 590 to have a few options of what the ad hoc or subcommittees could be. There is a broad 591 range of information that is discussed in this. If you didn't have a specific one that talked 592 about budget, then that scope would be part of the draft of the report itself. If the ad hoc 593 committee was just for the report, then it would cover those aspects as well. 594 595 Chair Hetterly: But the full scope of the kinds of input you would like from the 596 Commission is what's listed in this paragraph here? 597 598 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 599 600 Chair Hetterly: OK. But you're not suggesting that we necessarily have an ad hoc for 601 each of those? 602 603 Mr. Jensen: Some of those things can also just come from our general full meetings as 604 well. 605 606 Chair Hetterly: OK. I was going to say I think that most of the Commission is going to 607 be interested in weighing in on most of those issues. Maybe that's the kind of stuff that 608 we want to do with the full Commission. I'd like to open it up to discussion about what 609 everybody thinks in terms of ad hocs. I'd like to gauge people's interest in participating in 610 one of these or some reconfiguration of these. Last time we talked about it, everybody 611 wanted to be on the ad hoc, but that was a long time ago. I don't know if that's still true. 612 I'd love to hear what you all think. Maybe we only need a community outreach ad hoc or 613 maybe we need two. 614 615 Commissioner Ashlund: Chair Hetterly, can I ask a question of clarification before you 616 proceed on that? 617 618 Chair Hetterly: Mm-hmm. 619 620 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 16 Commissioner Ashlund: Is there going to be a Master Plan ad hoc committee in addition 621 to those four subcommittees that are listed here? 622 623 Chair Hetterly: That's what we are discussing right now. 624 625 Commissioner Ashlund: OK. 626 627 Mr. de Geus: I was just going to add that there may be multiple ad hoc committees and 628 they don't all need to be decided today or this evening. I think having an ad hoc 629 committee, either one or two, focused on public engagement and then maybe also survey 630 or combining the two. I could see that making sense, that we had one ad hoc committee 631 working on that as a start. This is a year and a half process. As we get feedback, I think 632 other things will emerge where we'll say, "Oh, we ought to look at that a little more, a 633 little closer," and decide that we should establish an ad hoc committee specifically for 634 something that has come out of the survey results. I don't think we need to decide this 635 evening about all the ad hoc committees that we might want to create during this process. 636 Does that make sense? 637 638 Chair Hetterly: Yes. 639 640 Commissioner Crommie: My feeling is that we shouldn't have one committee that we 641 call the Master Plan ad hoc, because it just seems too significant. We should just name 642 ad hocs on a topic rather than saying this is the main one and all these other ones are 643 subordinate. 644 645 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Reckdahl. 646 647 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, one of the problems is I don't have a clear idea of all the 648 tasks we're doing. I don't think we do right now. Like you said, you look at the survey 649 results and that may bring up more tasks. I'm not sure if we want to get an ad hoc 650 together to look at this more and then propose the other ad hocs or we talk about it at the 651 retreat. This is something that will take some time to chew on. 652 653 Chair Hetterly: It seems to me all we know about at this point is the public engagement 654 plan. We know that there's going to be a stakeholder group, and we know that there's 655 going to be a survey as part of this plan. Those things are going to happen in, what's the 656 timeline? It says current, but they're still doing the inventory now. When are you going 657 to start? 658 659 Mr. Jensen: The community meetings will start in four to six weeks. It will start pretty 660 soon. 661 662 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 17 Chair Hetterly: OK, four to six weeks. Our retreat is March 7th, but we don't get the 663 presentation from the consultant until the 10th. We won't have any new information 664 before the retreat. 665 666 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is there a draft that we can get? 667 668 Mr. de Geus: Is there a draft of the staff report? 669 670 Commissioner Reckdahl: From the consultant. 671 672 Mr. de Geus: It's being prepared. It's not ready to be made public yet. No, there isn't one 673 available. 674 675 Chair Hetterly: Would it be available before March 7th? 676 677 Mr. de Geus: Yes, it'll be in the packet for Council on Thursday, March 6th. You 678 wouldn't get it much earlier than that. We're just in the process of writing it now and 679 going through the review process. I don't know that there's a lot more information in 680 there. More context as to the why, we're doing the Master Plan for Council orientation. 681 There's a presentation from MIG that they're going to be putting forward. A lot of the 682 focus is going to be on the public engagement plan. 683 684 Mr. Jensen: That is the first phase of this project, the public engagement plan. That's 685 why I start to break out the top three things there as being that aspect and then the third 686 one as being the Master Plan report subcommittee. Again, when it comes time to 687 forming the subcommittees of that, we'll talk about the Master Plan report and how its 688 broken down. Then there may be sections of that report that people are interested in 689 making a subcommittee of those as well. 690 691 Vice Chair Lauing: I think Chair Hetterly summarized it well. We know that the first 692 two items, really first three items, are going to happen and that we need to participate in 693 that. What if we committed that within four weeks we would have ad hoc committees to 694 cover those first three items and then we could maybe formulate them at the retreat, after 695 we've thought about it a bit? Maybe even two to begin with. Let's put community survey 696 and public engagement as one and then have that committee decide if it should split off. 697 We would just commit to have two of those by the end of our retreat or some timeframe 698 like that. I mean as opposed to doing it tonight. If people want to do it tonight, that's OK 699 too. But that's not going to change, that's all I'm saying. That is fixed and we need to 700 participate in both of those. 701 702 Chair Hetterly: My preference is to do it tonight if nobody expects any more information 703 or wants to think any more about it. I'm not sure what different conversation we would 704 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 18 have on March 7th than we would now. We've got it on the agenda and we're all here. I 705 do have another question about the stakeholder group representative. It seems to me 706 that's probably the most time-consuming, well maybe not. It'll be multiple meetings. The 707 question is whether somebody who's working on public engagement and community 708 survey, they're going to need to be able to reflect on what was shared at the stakeholder 709 group in order to participate. It almost seems to me like it makes more sense to have one 710 ad hoc covering all three of those first things, though that would be a huge time 711 commitment. I don't know that anyone is able to do that. Any thoughts? 712 713 Commissioner Ashlund: I think that's too much to combine. 714 715 Chair Hetterly: OK, yeah. 716 717 Vice Chair Lauing: There was no second to that motion. 718 719 Commissioner Crommie: I agree with the need for integration. We're going to have to 720 come up with a way to do that. 721 722 Mr. Jensen: Another option would be just to have an ad hoc committee for the public 723 engagement part that would include these three things. If it was composed of three 724 members, then each one of the members would go to a stakeholder meeting through the 725 process. There's another opportunity as well. 726 727 Chair Hetterly: That's true. So you could have two ad hocs, one for public engagement 728 and one for the survey, that have representatives who go to the stakeholder group. Right? 729 730 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 731 732 Chair Hetterly: So it intertwines. 733 734 Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we envision the ad hoc is going to be just basically 735 reporting what's happening and come back and we'll discuss it in the full Commission? 736 Or will it be more autonomous in making small decisions along the way? 737 738 Chair Hetterly: Will there be enough time to go back and forth like that or are we really 739 looking for a representative who can speak on the spot? 740 741 Mr. de Geus: I think it's representatives, just to move it along. The Commission doesn't 742 meet that often. The consultant will be looking for feedback that they can act on. 743 744 Chair Hetterly: Any other thoughts or comments? Is there any interest in participating? 745 746 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 19 Mr. de Geus: We intentionally have this coming to the Commission five times for the 747 whole Commission to discuss it. The idea is that most of the substantive discussion 748 happens with the full Commission. That's the intent. 749 750 Chair Hetterly: I'm not seeing much enthusiasm on the panel this evening. Maybe we 751 should table it for the retreat, when we talk about other ad hocs and other work of the 752 Commission, so we can balance it out. People can figure out what kind of workload they 753 want to take on and where their priorities are. Does that work? 754 755 Commissioner Crommie: There's probably interest here. 756 757 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. Oh, go ahead. 758 759 Commissioner Crommie: I bet there is a lot of interest. I suspect. 760 761 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think there is interest. I'm looking at this community survey 762 and public engagement and how we delineate what is responsible for what, and even the 763 stakeholder, what topics. When we're talking to the stakeholders, are they just going to 764 be spewing their opinions or are we trying to form a consensus within these stakeholder 765 meetings? I don't really know how this whole process is going to work. 766 767 Mr. Jensen: It'll operate in both ways to allow them to spew, as you say, and then also to 768 build consensus about a prioritization over the planning of the Master Plan. 769 770 Commissioner Reckdahl: The stakeholder group will be issuing an opinion, a 771 recommendation for the Commission? 772 773 Mr. Jensen: Their opinions will be, yes, considered as part of building the prioritization 774 list. 775 776 Commissioner Reckdahl: But will they be voting a recommendation or will they just be 777 saying certain members of the stakeholder group had this concern, other ones had this 778 concern, and then dumping those concerns on us and then we have to digest them and 779 figure out what our recommendation to Council will be? 780 781 Mr. de Geus: That's a good question. I'm not sure I know the answer. My sense is that 782 they'll be trying to do both, as Peter said. They'll try and gather as much input as possible 783 from all these diverse stakeholders and then try and draw out the themes from that group 784 of stakeholders and focus in on those areas of highest interest or need. I suspect that's 785 what it'll be. 786 787 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 20 Commissioner Reckdahl: Part of it is when you get these individual groups, they all have 788 their favorite topic. The dog park people, first in line is going to be dog parks. The teen 789 groups, well, they want stuff for the teens. Will you be able to create consensus when 790 you have a bunch of fragmented groups that all have their personal opinions? 791 792 Mr. de Geus: Yes. That's a good point and we've talked about this. We want to find 793 individuals and representatives for the stakeholders group that have a broad perspective, 794 that are not there for one issue. While that one issue is important to that one group, for 795 this kind of work for a Master Plan you need to think about the entire community and 796 multiple interests. That's what we're looking for. We will have people that are focused 797 on athletic fields, but they need to have a broader perspective than just fields to be on the 798 stakeholders committee. Do you know what I mean? 799 800 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. 801 802 Mr. de Geus: We're really looking for broad participation, broad perspective from the 803 members. 804 805 Commissioner Reckdahl: For me there are two different types of input we want, like Ed 806 was talking about. You want to make sure that anyone in the community who has an axe 807 to grind gets their say. If they organize their little group, they can say their piece. But 808 we're just trying to gather opinion. We're not trying to quantify and say, "Oh, well this 809 percentage of people at the meeting had this opinion; therefore, this percentage over the 810 whole City has that same opinion." We're not trying to extrapolate that. We're just 811 saying, "These people have these concerns." But we're not saying there's any numerical 812 representation of the City as a whole. 813 814 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 815 816 Commissioner Reckdahl: And the second thing, what the consultant will do is try to do 817 numerical surveys where they give us more quantitative results. I think those are two 818 separate issues and we should try to do both. Part of this is for us to gather information. 819 But a part of it also to give people an outlet that they know they're being heard. 820 821 Mr. de Geus: We definitely want to do both. I hear what you're saying. We can pose 822 this question back to the consultant to flesh out their thinking around the stakeholder 823 committee. There's three meetings, I think, planned. What does that look like? The 824 Commission wants to figure out how to represent on that. We need to do know more 825 about what is expected of that committee. We can certainly get that by the 7th and have 826 answers for you. 827 828 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 21 Mr. Jensen: I can briefly elaborate on that. I believe that the first meeting is the 829 opportunity for the groups to state what they want and what they'd like to see as far as 830 parks and recreation in Palo Alto goes. The second meeting is to discuss all those things 831 and then have them talk about what the prioritization is. I think the key aspect of the 832 stakeholder group is it allows those groups to see that there are other groups that have 833 interests in this as well. They get to understand what those interests are. From that 834 dialog, then start to really talk about what are the prioritizations. When it comes to dog 835 parks, how does that fit in with the tennis users or the athletic field users? Have the 836 opportunity to have that dialog between themselves. The key aspect of the stakeholders 837 themselves is that they are representing a larger group, so they bring the interests of that 838 group. They should also be disseminating back to that group what is taking place in these 839 meetings and what is being discussed. That is the second meeting. The third meeting 840 then is more of a review. Here’s what we heard from you. This is the Master Plan draft. 841 We'll review that and then take further comment. That's the process and steps that'll be 842 involved with the process itself. 843 844 Commissioner Reckdahl: Do you anticipate that the stakeholder group will give you the 845 priorities or will they just give the feedback to staff and then staff will digest that and 846 come with the priorities? 847 848 Mr. Jensen: They will be an element that will inform those priorities. Yes, they'll be 849 providing feedback. They won't be setting what the priorities are. 850 851 Commissioner Reckdahl: The stakeholders group will or staff? 852 853 Mr. Jensen: No. The stakeholders will be involved in the process of recommending. 854 The staff and the consultant then will take that information with all the other information 855 and construct the prioritization list. 856 857 Commissioner Reckdahl: I agree. That's the better way of doing it. You will get 858 fragmentation within that stakeholder group. Staff has the ability to digest that and come 859 up with something where everyone is treated equally. 860 861 Chair Hetterly: Are we done with this topic? 862 863 Vice Chair Lauing: Mm-hmm. 864 865 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. 866 867 Mr. de Geus: So is there any other questions that you'd like us to pose back to the 868 consultant before the retreat? That would help inform selecting ad hoc committees. I've 869 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 22 got one which is the stakeholder group and the role of the stakeholder group. Is there 870 anything else you'd like us to ask between now and the 7th? 871 872 Commissioner Crommie: I'd like to know their opinion on phone surveying versus 873 online. 874 875 Mr. de Geus: I've got that one. 876 877 Commissioner Reckdahl: Phone surveys, I never pick up my phone now unless I look at 878 caller ID and it's someone I know. If some survey person is trying to get a hold of me, 879 they'll never get a hold of me by the phone. If you go to SurveyMonkey, they can be 880 stacked. Phone surveys I don't think necessarily are even too. I think it's very difficult to 881 get a broad cross-section and not stack somehow. The consultant should be able to 882 address that. 883 884 Chair Hetterly: I have another question. Is there any anticipation of looking at school 885 facilities? 886 887 Mr. de Geus: I don't believe so. I don't think that's in the scope. 888 889 Mr. Jensen: We are going to have a meeting with the School District to discuss the play 890 field use and any opportunity for expansion of use. We haven't had that meeting yet, so I 891 can't elaborate on that. That is the idea, to definitely bring them into the conversation. 892 Within the next few weeks, we need to set up that meeting. 893 894 Chair Hetterly: I think it would be extremely useful to be able to coordinate some kind of 895 tie-in with them regarding inventory of services or who their users are. 896 897 Mr. Jensen: Right. Currently, the athletic fields at the grammar schools and middle 898 schools are utilized by the City and maintained by the City. We have used and are using 899 those facilities for our recreational programs now. 900 901 Chair Hetterly: Right. But we don't have any involvement in the high school fields or 902 pools nor do we have any involvement in the classroom space. It would be interesting to 903 know if the School District is already providing tutoring for this group to a great extent at 904 Paly. Then maybe we don't want to do the same kind of tutoring in the same part of 905 town. It would be very helpful to know what they're offering and where in order to 906 prioritize what we want to offer and where. We can't do that without understanding what 907 it is they're doing. I'm not saying we should force them to cooperate. I know there's turf 908 issues about who controls rents and tenants. It would be really useful to know at least 909 what type of service or what type of user is geographically using a school site. 910 911 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 23 Commissioner Markevitch: Are you talking about the rec programs or the summer 912 school programs? 913 914 Chair Hetterly: I'm talking about after school, weekends, summer school, summer 915 programs. 916 917 Commissioner Reckdahl: Anything that would compete with (INAUDIBLE). 918 919 Mr. Jensen: You've lost your mike. 920 921 Commissioner Markevitch: You've been cutoff. 922 923 Commissioner Reckdahl: To compete with recreation? 924 925 Commissioner Markevitch: OK, good. Because summer school for the high school level 926 does not have recreation. That's just remedial and living skills and that switches campus 927 to campus. Last year it was at Paly. This summer it will be at Gunn, for example. For 928 sports, I'm not sure. 929 930 Chair Hetterly: I was thinking more of services that are generally available to the public, 931 like classes, tutoring, whatever else, summer camps. That kind of thing. 932 933 Mr. de Geus: OK. 934 935 4. Review capital improvement plan for Hopkins Park. 936 937 Daren Anderson: Good evening. I'm Daren Anderson, Division Manager for Open Space, 938 Parks and Golf. We're here tonight to ask for your feedback on the proposed design associated 939 with the Hopkins Park Capital Improvement Project. Hopkins Park is a 12.4 acre park that's 940 largely undeveloped. The park has three separate developed areas located along San 941 Francisquito Creek. It's on Palo Alto Avenue at Webster, Cowper and Middlefield. I'll be 942 referring to those three developed meadows as Site 1, 2 and 3. I'll walk you through two 943 photos of each site as they exist now, and then the design for that site that's been drawn up by 944 our contract landscape architect, Eddie Chou. The funding from the CIP is limited to $95,000, 945 and it's intended to replace the existing site amenities and the irrigation system. We had a 946 public meeting on August 26th, 2013 where we shared some draft plans with the community 947 members who attended the meeting. We received a number of comments and suggestions, 948 ranging from recommended trail size and material to the configuration of the trail itself and the 949 associated turf, plant species, and an idea on adding interpretive signage to the park. We've 950 incorporated these suggestions into the revised design that's before you tonight. If we could 951 open the Hopkins photo. Here we've got the existing Hopkins Site 1, that's at Palo Alto 952 Avenue and Cowper Street. In the photograph, you can see the turf area, a bench, a picnic 953 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 24 area, and a sign. Not a lot of amenities to this area. It's just a little pull-out. The game plan 954 would be to trench out that turf to put in a new irrigation system and add some other design 955 features. Can you change to the next photo? This is the same park segment, Site 1, just from 956 the other angle. You can see what it looks like. If you could go to the design and the third of 957 those three. This design is also in your packet, so you've seen it. It includes a 6-foot 958 decomposed granite pathway. Again this is one that community members weighed in on, both 959 in terms of the size of that trail, the material and to some degree the shape of it. You can see 960 there's a nonlinear fashion to the trail closest to the street side, where it weaves in and out. 961 That was a request from the public to give it a slightly more natural feel. It was a compromise 962 between accounting for that and at the same time making sure we had the opportunity to 963 maximize the turf area. It's limited as is, but some community members did say that it can be 964 used for play or some of them use it themselves and wanted to retain as much as possible in 965 this particular instance. It was a compromise and appeasing. The same thing with the corners 966 of the trail. They wanted them round. The original design came to a sharp edge. They said, 967 "Can we soften that?" It's just another element that we incorporated in the design that you see 968 before you tonight. We had two new park benches and two picnic tables, both on concrete 969 pads. The existing benches have no pad, so they're often sitting on wet mud. This is another 970 improvement that adds more accessibility to those features. We also added a vegetated area on 971 the street side of this park. Both the vegetated area and the species that we used were all 972 feedback from those community members. I can go through the species if you'd like, but the 973 primary element was, "Can you make sure they're drought resistant? Can you by-and-large 974 make sure they're California natives and reflect the proximity to the Creek?" San Francisquito 975 Creek is right along both of these. I should also mention that at the beginning of this meeting, 976 per our direction from the Commission, we threw out the concept of, "Is anyone here 977 interested in a dog park at this site?" Fortunately we were already informed by the El Camino 978 Park dog issue that it wouldn't fit in this one, because of the setback off the Creek. It's 100 feet 979 which would put you out in the street in this park. It wasn't really an option, but we posed it 980 both at this one and at the next discussion on Monroe Park. It was posed so that we followed 981 through on the direction of the Commission that we hear from people and make sure they're 982 heard and they know that this is one that we will be looking at every time we do this 983 community outreach for a project. It just so happened that no one was interested in a dog run 984 at this site anyway. Looking at Hopkins Site 2, this is Palo Alto Avenue and Webster. If we 985 can go to the Site 2. Much like the previous one, the photo will show you a turf area, a bench 986 and a sign. Again, very, very simple. You'll also note in this particular site, there's a utility 987 pole which greatly affects what you can do with that area. It's small already, but that puts 988 some limitations on it. All the existing trees will remain in all the sites except for the palm 989 tree in this one. Can you change to the next photo? You can see the palm a little more clearly 990 in this one. This was one of the items we discussed in the meeting. The majority of the 991 meeting participants felt that the palm tree, which was a volunteer. That is not planted; it just 992 self-seeded and grew. The tree didn't belong at the park. It wasn't in keeping with the riparian 993 nature of the park, being so close to the adjacent San Francisquito Creek. Now if we can 994 switch to the design for this site and the third one please. We relocated the sign of this park a 995 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 25 little closer to the front. It's a little more visible. Again you've got that 6-foot wide 996 decomposed granite pathway, a new picnic table, a new park bench, and an added interpretive 997 sign. Some of the added vegetation to this is a Quercus agrifolia which is the coast live oak, 998 again responding to those meeting participants who wanted to have those native trees. Also it 999 addresses that drought tolerant concern that we've got and a myriad of other native vegetation. 1000 If we could go to Site 3. This is located on Palo Alto Avenue and Middlefield. In this existing 1001 photo, again it's got a park sign. In this particular site, there is an existing path. I think at one 1002 time it was decomposed granite. Over many, many years, it's come to resemble a dirt path, so 1003 that pathway would be rebuilt with decomposed granite with header board and the proper 1004 width. In that existing photo you'll see ivy and a few shrubs and a few trees. The old shrubs 1005 and the ivy in this site are removed with this new design. The ivy is often associated with 1006 vermin problems. This was again a request from the community. It's not always a problem. 1007 In this particular site, they said it was and they'd like to see it removed and replaced with 1008 mulch, which we've added to this design. New plantings were placed around the sign. There's 1009 two small trees that are in poor health. They're very, very small. They may already be dead, 1010 but those will be removed as part of the project as well. That concludes that my presentation, 1011 and we welcome your questions and comments. 1012 1013 Vice Chair Lauing: I'd just like to ask, Daren, how many people were at the meeting, the 1014 outreach meeting? 1015 1016 Mr. Anderson: I believe it was eight participants. 1017 1018 Chair Hetterly: We have a public comment. Why don't we go ahead and take that before we 1019 have our questions and comments. This is Howard Hoffman and he's addressing this agenda 1020 item. Are you going to speak three times? I'm confused by how you filled this out. Do you 1021 want to speak to each item? 1022 1023 Howard Hoffman: No, just this one right now, but probably the next part too. This item and 1024 the next one. 1025 1026 Chair Hetterly: OK, go ahead. 1027 1028 Mr. Hoffman: But I'll speak right now just to this one. 1029 1030 Chair Hetterly: OK. 1031 1032 Mr. Hoffman: OK. Howard Hoffman, president of Palo Alto Dog Owners. I understand that 1033 at some point or other somebody made a decision that it was environmentally not a good thing 1034 to have a dog park next to San Francisquito Creek. The Hoover Park dog park is right next to 1035 a creek. There's no impact on the Creek from the dogs. I don't really understand how this 1036 concept of the 100-foot setback was arrived at. I think that if you look at the way dog waste is 1037 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 26 handled, it doesn't end up in the Creek. At El Camino Park, I know that this was one of the 1038 reasons a dog park was not included ultimately. Once again, we have another park revision 1039 with no provision for a dog park. Just the bottom line in this situation right now. We have 1040 three very limited facilities right now. I would like to see the staff really figure out what they 1041 can do in everyone of these park plans to do what they can to find some way of working in 1042 more dog parks. This is north Palo Alto. There are no dog parks in all of north Palo Alto. As 1043 far as these meetings are concerned, I just wondered how they're noticed. Since I came and 1044 announced our organization to the Commission, I've not been notified of any of these 1045 meetings. I would like to make sure that personally and my organization always gets notified 1046 of every single meeting related to every proposed park update. Thank you. 1047 1048 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Questions, comments? Any reactions to the Hopkins Park 1049 improvements? 1050 1051 Commissioner Crommie: It looks like there's going to be a provision to retain grass, because 1052 it's a small area. I think that's good, because visually it's really nice. 1053 1054 Chair Hetterly: I have a question. The staff report says there was $95,000 approved for 1055 repairing existing features. I was just out there today because I didn't know much about this 1056 park myself. It looks like a fabulous plan. I think it's going to be a tremendous improvement 1057 to what they have. It does add DG pathways where they weren't before and adds quite a bit of 1058 plantings that aren't there now. Is that going to impact the budget or are you going to be able 1059 to squeeze it in there? 1060 1061 Mr. Anderson: I believe it'll be real close. We don't have the finalized budget for this yet. 1062 We'll learn more when we get the construction drawings done. Typically we have those done 1063 concurrent with the PIO process. We'll have usually Peter or our contractor help put together 1064 those cost estimates. I know we're right around that $95,000 figure. Like other park projects, 1065 every once in a while when we're really, really close, for example the benches, I could fund 1066 with another CIP assuming there's funding available for that. Since we're really talking a few, 1067 small-ticket items, I think it's four benches, something like that, I could probably 1068 accommodate it in another CIP if this one turns out short just by a little bit. I know we're in 1069 the ballpark. 1070 1071 Chair Hetterly: My other question is, I think it's on Site 1 but I'm not sure. I can't recall now 1072 which one was which. One of the funny-shaped grassy sections had a bench on the right-hand 1073 side that had a little plaque on it in memory of someone. I thought it was located where this 1074 concrete pad is on Site 1 that you're going to remove. I just wanted to make sure that you 1075 followed whatever protocol was appropriate for protecting that bench or moving the bench. I 1076 don't know what's going to happen to the bench. 1077 1078 Mr. Anderson: For this particular memorial bench, the plaque will be put onto a new bench. 1079 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 27 1080 Chair Hetterly: In the same location? 1081 1082 Mr. Anderson: I don't know if that bench is in the exact same place. There is no guarantee 1083 that if you have a memorial bench, (a) that it will be there for perpetuity. Usually it's the 1084 lifespan of the bench. In this particular case, the bench has not reached the end of its life 1085 completely. Rather we're going to improve it by putting the concrete pad under it and we have 1086 a better location. It's been there so long, the vegetation has changed. There's just better ways 1087 of improving it, especially when you're adding a trail. For that reason, we will be putting that 1088 plaque onto this new bench. I think it is slightly relocated. 1089 1090 Chair Hetterly: But still in Hopkins Park? 1091 1092 Mr. Anderson: That's right. Still in the same park. 1093 1094 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Crommie. 1095 1096 Commissioner Crommie: Do they have the same kind of benches as Monroe Park? Those big 1097 green ones? 1098 1099 Mr. Anderson: The existing? 1100 1101 Commissioner Crommie: In Hopkins. 1102 1103 Mr. Anderson: No. 1104 1105 Commissioner Crommie: They look they are from the pictures. 1106 1107 Mr. Anderson: I don't think they're quite the same as the ones in Monroe. 1108 1109 Commissioner Crommie: Are they getting as many feet of bench replaced? 1110 1111 Mr. Anderson: It's more. 1112 1113 Commissioner Crommie: More, OK, good. 1114 1115 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Markevitch. 1116 1117 Commissioner Markevitch: If you're looking at this picture, you have Palo Alto Avenue and 1118 then on the other side of this little green crescent is the Creek. There's no fence between the 1119 edge of the park and going down into the Creek, is there? 1120 1121 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 28 Mr. Anderson: There is a fence. 1122 1123 Commissioner Markevitch: For that little green piece, OK. It's a cute little park. It's 1124 interesting though, because the majority of what usage I see is off-leash dogs. I can't speak to 1125 the legality of that. I see people using that more for that than anything else. 1126 1127 Mr. Anderson: And the same was true for the section of El Camino Park, the northern 1128 undeveloped section where we thought it would be appropriate to have a dog run. We tried 1129 and were denied by the regulatory agencies and the setback requirement from the City. 1130 1131 Commissioner Reckdahl: I do have one comment about El Camino Park. I'm not sure if the 1132 City did this or I suspect the train put it up, a big fence that cut that area in half. Apparently 1133 that area that we were looking at as a potential dog park, some of that was right-of-way for the 1134 railroad. That now has been cut in half by that fence. If we had tried to pursue that, I suspect 1135 we would have had a much smaller dog park than we had thought we were going to get. 1136 1137 Chair Hetterly: Any other questions or comments? This is a discussion item. Sounds like 1138 there are no concerns about the design. 1139 1140 Mr. Anderson: Yes, staff was really seeking your input. We appreciate it and we intend on 1141 bringing it back next month with the Park Improvement Ordinance. Thank you. 1142 1143 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. 1144 1145 5. Review capital improvement plan for Monroe Park. 1146 1147 Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks and Golf. Peter 1148 Jensen, the City's Landscape Architect, and myself will co-present the Monroe Park Capital 1149 Improvement Project. Again we're here for your review and your feedback on this Monroe 1150 Park Capital Improvement Project. The park was developed in 1975 and it's located on Miller 1151 Drive and Monroe Drive. It's a small park, 0.55 acres. The existing park amenities are a park 1152 destination sign, an asphalt park trail, a mounded turf area, a playground, and park benches. 1153 We've got a CIP for $250,000 to provide the necessary upgrades to the pathway, benches, 1154 trash, recycling, and play equipment at Monroe. The funding focus is on repairing the existing 1155 infrastructure and does not entail a full-scale park renovation. We had a public meeting to 1156 discuss this project on August 26th, 2013. This was the same date of the Hopkins public 1157 meeting. Draft plans were shared with the meeting participants. The participants had several 1158 concerns and comments regarding this initial draft plan. Suggestions regarding the mounded 1159 turf area, the landscaping, the appropriate play structure that we include, the type of benches to 1160 make sure we were replacing in-kind the length, and the total seating area were critical. Our 1161 contract landscape architect, Eddie Chou, had briefly discussed the issue of adding a dog off-1162 leash area to the park. The meeting participants agreed that Monroe Park was too small to 1163 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 29 include a dog off-leash area at this site. Peter Jensen hosted the second public meeting on 1164 October 19th at the park. An updated proposed renovation plan was presented incorporating 1165 the input we had received from that previous meeting. These revised plans addressed many of 1166 the concerns; maintaining that turf on the corner of Miller Avenue and Monroe Drive, 1167 maintaining the sand in the playground area, installing a larger swing set with an accessible 1168 swing and a rubberized play surface, additional park benches with added light along Miller 1169 Avenue. Other proposed renovations to the park introduced at the first community meeting 1170 included reducing the turf area along Miller Avenue for sustainability purposes, installing a 1171 new walkway to replace the damaged asphalt walk, adding drought-tolerant plantings, and 1172 planting new trees, large scale valley oaks and small Cercis trees. This was well received 1173 amongst the majority of the community in attendance. A question concerning having a play 1174 structure at this playground instead of swings was brought up, but was voted against by the 1175 attendees in favor of the swing. A playhouse has been added to the design to increase the play 1176 opportunities in the playground and addresses the concern of just having a swing in favor of a 1177 play structure. You've probably seen, I believe it was three emails that came in subsequent to 1178 this public meeting from other adjacent homeowners, who said, "Hey, we really would 1179 appreciate having a play structure." Again, it's unfortunate that they weren't present at the 1180 public meetings, either of the two, to have a voice to say that was a critical element. It was 1181 discussed at the second of these two public meetings. Again, the consensus was that the swing 1182 and the sand and this play house were preferred. Again the resource impact of $250,000 was 1183 allocated for this project. We're here and available for questions and comments. 1184 1185 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. We do have one public comment, Howard Hoffman. 1186 1187 Howard Hoffman: Thank you again. Howard Hoffman, Palo Alto Dog Owners. A couple of 1188 months ago, I took Peter Jensen of your staff over to Mountain View to see the new Mountain 1189 View dog park that is behind the new Safeway and roughly at the corner of San Antonio and 1190 El Camino. I think was done with private developer money and then turned over to the city. 1191 In an incredibly small space with artificial turf, the City of Mountain View has a dog park that 1192 puts the dog parks of Palo Alto combined to shame. On a rainy day, there's not a place you 1193 want to take your dog in Palo Alto. On a rainy day in Mountain View, your dog can play on 1194 nice artificial turf and not get muddy. There's beautiful art there. I don't think it's a quarter of 1195 an acre. It's a very small area, very nicely done. It shows what, when people want to be 1196 creative and use technology available, people can do. I would like to see Palo Alto, whether 1197 it's specifically at Monroe Park, maybe it's late for getting a change in here. Again, I don't 1198 quite get the community notice aspect of this whole process yet. Maybe Monroe Park is not 1199 the ideal place. There are opportunities within this park system. I don't want to wait until the 1200 end of the Master Plan to see people talking about it, then the capital improvement, and then 1201 three years later we'll get a dog park. Thank you very much. 1202 1203 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Commissioner Crommie. 1204 1205 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 30 Commissioner Crommie: I live across the street from this park and I also go to the dog park in 1206 Mountain View, that the speaker just commented on, which is a 10-minute walk from this 1207 park. This park is on the border of Palo Alto and Mountain View. Monroe Park is full of dog 1208 owners, yet I can't imagine a single one of them wanting our grass park to go to artificial turf. 1209 I don't think that would be the right plan for a neighborhood park that doesn't really have open 1210 areas at all. It's a very small park. I talked a lot with neighbors about this plan. People are 1211 really happy with it. We had a lot of good attendance at the meetings, especially I think the 1212 second one. I have some technical comments that people are saying. Should I give those 1213 now? I tried to save my voice for this, but I'm not really doing that well. Just starting at one 1214 corner where you have the trail coming in from the right-hand side. People don't think that's 1215 the best place for trash cans. The bike rack is fine. I'm just looking at the handout here. 1216 That's what I'm going by, or the picture. Those trash cans are on the right-hand side of the 1217 map. I talked to about five people. I surveyed people. I walked around the park with hardly 1218 any voice to do interception work. Luckily one of my neighbors came with me who could 1219 speak, but I listened a lot. People didn't think that was the best place for the trash cans, 1220 because we feel like people in the park won't use them, just people walking past the park. 1221 You'll pick up a lot of trash from people in cars who might want to dump it or other places. 1222 Right now there are existing trash cans that are more central into the park. We feel like that 1223 needs to be reconsidered. 1224 1225 Commissioner Reckdahl: There are two over here also. 1226 1227 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, but where most people sit in this park is up here. People sit 1228 on the benches in the central spot, and that's where the trash needs to be. There's a trash can 1229 there now. I think it would be prudent to put one close by if possible. You have one over 1230 there to the left-hand side and then just have one basically where it is now. As far as the new 1231 light that's going in, people are really looking forward to that, because there's a dark area n the 1232 pathway. The light is not in the dark area is the problem. To get into the dark area, the light 1233 needs to move up the pathway. At the bend of the path is the dark area. I personally agree 1234 with that as well. 1235 1236 Chair Hetterly: Near the bench? 1237 1238 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, past the new proposed bench, beyond the bench. 1239 1240 Commissioner Markevitch: Where the grass is about to start, like down in here? 1241 1242 Commissioner Crommie: It's the dark area here; at the curve is the darkest area. 1243 1244 Mr. Anderson: We’ll make sure we've got that? 1245 1246 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 31 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, yeah. That's the darkest area. That's where it would create 1247 the least amount of light contamination for that house as well; although, I didn't personally talk 1248 to them. 1249 1250 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think that this is a very dark park. When you go through it in the 1251 evenings, my wife won't step foot in it in the evenings. She'll walk on the street. She just feels 1252 it's just too dark back there. One thing you have to take into account is that the grassy area is a 1253 big hill. That shields a lot of the light that would be coming from the street lights across the 1254 way. I think we should have two or three lights in there. Right now we have two lights and I 1255 would move that on over, but also have another one on the upper left near the trash cans. If 1256 you could have another light there, I think that would be useful there also. What do you think, 1257 Deirdre? 1258 1259 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. Right now there's only one to my knowledge. 1260 1261 Commissioner Reckdahl: Mm-hmm. 1262 1263 Commissioner Crommie: You're putting in the new one in the darkest area at that curve. Then 1264 they're proposing a new one behind the proposed swing set. Do you see that one? There's one 1265 being proposed here. This one here. 1266 1267 Commissioner Reckdahl: OK, I didn't see that one. 1268 1269 Peter Jensen: Yeah, there are two lights that exist out there. There is one in this location. The 1270 other one that's existing sits out here, more in the turf area. We're proposing to move it back to 1271 illuminate that corner, since that's the dark corner there, to provide light. 1272 1273 Commissioner Reckdahl: The hill especially, you really get a feeling like no one can see you. 1274 There's a safety issue there. I would want to make sure that we get as much light along that 1275 path as we can. 1276 1277 Mr. Jensen: The other thing, along with the light, is that the light poles and fixtures will be 1278 changed themselves. The ones that are out there now, they're not doing anything. Yes, the 1279 new fixtures will provide much more light than what is occurring out there now. I would 1280 agree, it's definitely very dark. 1281 1282 Commissioner Reckdahl: OK, thank you. 1283 1284 Commissioner Crommie: As far as the benches go, we have these big, long beautiful benches. 1285 They're about 15 feet long. They're just wonderful. I think they're all going to go. One or two 1286 are falling apart. People have expressed a lot of interest in having nice benches. I assume the 1287 benches on the plan, are they 8 feet wide? The ones that are being proposed. 1288 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 32 1289 Mr. Jensen: I believe that I selected that particular bench because it got up to a 12-foot size. 1290 That was one of the comments. I think we had a different style in there before, but this was 1291 the longest one that they made. I don't think it quite gets to the 15-foot length, but it's not a 6- 1292 or 8-foot. It's definitely a lot bigger. The other thing too, it's a little bit wider on the seat. I 1293 think that was something that people expressed interest in. They used the bench for a picnic 1294 table, to lay stuff out on. I did try to accommodate that by specifying a larger bench in those 1295 locations. 1296 1297 Commissioner Crommie: We also have to be concerned about the bench height. Right now 1298 the benches are very low. I've just been hearing from people that when shorter people are 1299 sitting on these benches, they like to be able to touch their feet. We have a big Asian 1300 community that uses this park. A lot of grandparents come here with their grandkids, a lot for 1301 a small park. You might just want to look at bench height and see if you can do any variation 1302 on that. The benches are so low currently, and I think people have a cozier experience. 1303 1304 Mr. Jensen: The typical height of a bench is between 18 and 20 inches. The benches 1305 themselves though can be set at any height. The base of the post is put down in concrete. If 1306 that is something the community would like to keep, we can specify in the plans to install them 1307 at 16 inches, which is probably what they are right now. A little bit lower than standard. 1308 1309 Commissioner Crommie: I can't speak for everyone on that, but I just wanted to alert you that 1310 people using the park are used to that. I don't know really what to say beyond that. Also I 1311 wanted to make a suggestion of another bench idea. Right now the most popular bench is the 1312 one shown to the left of the sand area on the map. It's a 15-foot long bench, and people use it 1313 as a table. A lot of nursing mothers sit there. It's a very popular bench. It's going to be moved 1314 down because it's impeding a tree right now. I was wondering if you might want to consider 1315 putting another bench across from that one, since it is the most popular area for sitting. You 1316 also have the play house there, so you'd have to work out if it would fit. The only new bench 1317 that's pretty much on this map is the one on the right-hand side of the map by the long, skinny 1318 pathway. That's an OK place to put a bench, but it's not a popular place. You might want to 1319 consider the popular areas for sitting. I'm almost done. This park has gone through a lot of 1320 changes. It had the most beautiful, huge trees lining the whole rim. That is shown on Miller 1321 and Monroe Drive. It was just full of these mature trees and every one of them died. Every 1322 one has been cut down. We've suffered a big loss of tree canopy in this neighborhood. That's 1323 why I understand the sustainable movement. I'm now speaking for myself. It's a little bit of a 1324 loss to lose all that grass, because right now you're taking out the grass down the entire strip. 1325 Maybe other Commissioners will weigh in on this, just as a principle of design and where we 1326 want to go, sustainability over the aesthetic visual of an open space feeling in a very small 1327 park. I just feel mixed about it. I feel like it's a loss. We're getting new plants and everything, 1328 but I don't feel it's replacing what we had because of the removal of all the turf. 1329 1330 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 33 Mr. Jensen: Let me speak to that. I think there are a few factors that will answer some of your 1331 questions there. The trees actually died because of the grass, the surface water, and the 1332 constant mowing and maintenance around them. That was definitely the main contributor to 1333 the perishing of those trees. The trees were beech trees. They do not live a very long life. 1334 They have gotten to the point where they have declined and are being removed. I would say 1335 for sustainability reasons I probably would not have planted more there. The tree department's 1336 started to replace them, and they will be incorporated into the existing planting. I am 1337 proposing to plant in this area here, where a big impact of the large trees being removed is to 1338 play, Quercus lobada which is a native oak tree that will be larger than the existing trees. That 1339 doesn't help the neighborhood at the current time. Unfortunately this is the situation with 1340 replacing the trees. It is beneficial in that area along the frontage to eliminate the grass 1341 because it is not used as far as activity. The main turf area and the sloped area helps us to 1342 achieve sustainable goals by reducing the amount of water and maintenance that's needed 1343 there. For the existing beech trees, the new ones that have been planted and the proposed trees 1344 for that area will live a longer, happier life if they are not growing in the turf area. That is the 1345 thinking behind removing the grass from that area. We're talking about this area that exists 1346 right in here. You can see the pathway as it works south to the larger portion of the park. 1347 There's this turf zone that exists along the street there that is a primary opportunity for 1348 sustainable planting besides grass. 1349 1350 Mr. Anderson: I should add to that, at the first public meeting, there were numerous 1351 comments from the participants saying, "If you were going to get rid of grass, that would be 1352 the area, the handle of that park." Saying, "We don't use that. We don't use that section and 1353 that would be the appropriate plot for either vegetation." I think one of the concepts that was 1354 thrown around was adult exercise equipment at one point. There also happens to be a park 1355 very nearby, I think it's less than a five-minute walk, that happens to have adult exercise 1356 equipment and a play ground. That's the Del Medio Park over in Mountain View, very close 1357 by. The majority of the participants at that first meeting at least did say that would be the area 1358 to do the native planting. 1359 1360 Commissioner Crommie: I will finish up by saying when I was doing the surveying in the 1361 park, we asked people with young children about the style of the play house. People liked that 1362 it was rustic, because it fits in with the park. Two parents said that their kids really liked a 1363 door on a play house. Those young kids like to play hide and seek a lot. People felt like they 1364 might want a few more amenities if it works within the budget to add a couple of other 1365 features on that house for kids to have places to hide. 1366 1367 Chair Hetterly: If you're finished, Deirdre, let's take a break. We have another public 1368 comment and then we can take the rest of our comments. Peter Krutzik. 1369 1370 Peter Krutzik: Yeah, you pronounced it well. That was impressive. So, yeah, my name's 1371 Peter Krutzik. I was actually at the last meeting that we had that was out at the park that Peter 1372 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 34 Jensen gave. The plans are great. We actually just bought a house that's just down the street 1373 in the new place that Classic Communities built that's on El Camino and Monroe. I just 1374 wanted to point that out. I think some of the emails have probably been coming from some of 1375 the people moving into our new development there, where this park is a couple of minutes 1376 down the street basically for us and is the closest park. Pretty much that first meeting, my wife 1377 and I and our young baby, we happen to live down the street so we only moved very close. 1378 We saw that this meeting was announced and we came out. Pretty much everybody else in our 1379 development just started moving in after that meeting happened. There's 26 new homes there. 1380 They're all 2,100 square feet. Of the ten people that we know have moved in, seven of them 1381 have young kids too. None of these people have been able to voice any feedback on this park. 1382 That's just one thing. I don't really have any specific things that I want to say about the design 1383 or anything. I know it's pretty far along at this point, but it's also a shame to put in this big of 1384 an investment and have a large group of people moving in, all with kids, and not have some 1385 feedback on what's going in there. That's all I wanted to throw out, that it'd be great to have 1386 another opportunity for some of these other people. We let a few people know, and I think 1387 those are probably the people that have sent in some emails. I'm not sure. But anyway, I think 1388 it'd be a great chance for some of those people to give some feedback too. The homes are still 1389 closing right now, so it's still going to be a few more months before all those places have been 1390 moved into. I think that's a pretty significant number of homes relative to the size of that 1391 neighborhood in general for that local park to have 26 new places coming up. That's it. 1392 1393 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. OK, go ahead. 1394 1395 Commissioner Reckdahl: We live, I don't know, half a dozen blocks from here, so we use this 1396 fairly often. We would like to see more play equipment there, a climbing structure or 1397 something like that. But it is a small park. You're trying to really squeeze a lot in there. I 1398 think we've done a pretty good job with this plan. I think any type of other climbing apparatus 1399 probably would have now meant that you lose some of the turf area. We do have Del Medio 1400 Park, this new park in Mountain View, which is probably three blocks away from this, a very 1401 short walk. That is flat, no turf, just the spongy rubber with a lot of swings, a lot of play 1402 equipment. It's a stark contrast to this. I like the fact that this is one style of park, that's 1403 another style of park. They're very close together. I wouldn't try and squeeze more in. I think 1404 it's a losing battle to try and squeeze more climbing equipment here. I think you've done a 1405 decent job with that. What about picnic benches? Were you at the meeting? What did people 1406 think about that? 1407 1408 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. People are not really in favor of picnic benches because of 1409 just taking up more space. These benches serve a dual purpose. We discussed if there would 1410 be a good place to stick any benches. The idea is that we just take away from the open space. 1411 One thing you can't tell from this picture is there's a beautiful hill and the kids love to ride 1412 bikes down the hill, go in wagons down the hill. It's a park that has a lot of potential for 1413 creative play. I've lived in the neighborhood for 14 years and what the newcomers don't 1414 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 35 realize is that we used to have a big swing set there. All of the 150 families that have lived 1415 there for a long time lost that. Everyone has been really sad since it was taken away. All the 1416 other 150 families, all of them who were represented at the meeting, had been waiting for 1417 swings to come back. That's the history of this park. That's what the park had. We have also 1418 a pocket park down Wilkie Way that has a play structure. If you go see it, it's so small it's not 1419 that much fun. It's again a very short walk, but it's one of these examples where you put 1420 something that isn't that exciting in a small space. That's what we don't want in this park even 1421 though in concept it sounds good. 1422 1423 Chair Hetterly: Are you done? 1424 1425 Commissioner Reckdahl: I just have a couple more. Another thing is we haven't used this turf 1426 area for quite a while. My kids are older now; they're teenagers. When we used it, there was 1427 quite often drainage problems. Has that been fixed? 1428 1429 Mr. Jensen: That's going to be an aspect we'll work on. 1430 1431 Commissioner Reckdahl: OK, very good. You also talked about on the right side there, that 1432 grassy area, I'm like Deirdre. I agree with yanking the grass out of there. It's not used by 1433 anyone. It's visual but I think you can get other things that are visual that are lower water that 1434 won't be a loss. Also if it helps the trees, that'd be good. That concrete walk goes right next to 1435 the redwood trees. Are you replacing that at all or is that remaining as-is? 1436 1437 Mr. Jensen: The walkway will be replaced. We are proposing to move it away from the 1438 redwood trees a few feet. Not very far, but we would like to supply in that area, I'm still 1439 showing on the plan the bend that it has, but I think we can look at maybe pulling it even 1440 further away from the redwood trees and give them more room. 1441 1442 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think that'd be a really good idea. 1443 1444 Mr. Jensen: Gives them a little bit more area to grow. 1445 1446 Commissioner Reckdahl: Especially if you're not going to have turf there. If you're just going 1447 to have more trees there, then you'd really want to split the difference and have that path go 1448 down the middle. It's right on top of some of those redwood trees, and redwood trees don't 1449 like that. 1450 1451 Mr. Jensen: No, they don't. That is definitely one of the key aspects of the park itself, the 1452 redwood grove that exists there along the edge. We want to protect that as much as possible. 1453 1454 Commissioner Reckdahl: The concrete walkway on the left side, is that being moved at all or 1455 is that basically the same location? 1456 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 36 1457 Mr. Jensen: That again slides out a little bit away from the redwood trees. The grass is being 1458 diminished there by 2, 3 feet. I think it's a fair trade-off too. There is a lot of damage 1459 occurring to the pathway, because of the redwood trees now. We'd like to move them away 1460 and limit that from happening in the future. 1461 1462 Commissioner Reckdahl: OK, I think that's a good idea. Thank you. That's it. 1463 1464 Vice Chair Lauing: OK, first of all, go sand. You're listening. That's great. We've been on 1465 that bandwagon for a few years now, and it's working. It's getting worked in there. Kids love 1466 it; parents love it while they're in the park. When they go home and it's in the bathtub, not so 1467 much. But it's a good thing for kids. Secondly, you said when you had the outreach meetings, 1468 there was discussion and at that point the structure was rejected in favor of, am I stating this 1469 correctly, in favor of a playhouse? Or was that something that you guys inserted as a 1470 alternative? I'm just wondering why. Was it because of size or the constituents felt they 1471 wouldn't really be using it? Just a little bit more detail on that. 1472 1473 Mr. Jensen: If we were to install other play equipment there, the playground is a tot lot 1474 playground now, which means that it's basically constructed for 2-5 year olds. We have, and 1475 with the support of the neighborhood, wanted to bring back the bigger swings. It'd still supply 1476 a bucket seat for a tot as well as the accessible which is also used for tots, as well as two large 1477 swings. In response to the neighbors that wanted to see a play structure there, we added the 1478 house to add an element of imaginative play that could be associated and easily incorporated 1479 into the area. It doesn't have a fall zone, which most play equipment does. That was basically 1480 our addition there to add more imaginative play to that area. With the playground itself, it's 1481 either a play structure or a swing, just because the size of the fall zone in that area dictates that. 1482 For historical purposes and for the majority of the attendees of the meeting, the swing was the 1483 way to go, and not just the tot swing but a real swing to bring back the old-school-style that 1484 was there. 1485 1486 Vice Chair Lauing: OK. I presume that you didn't really look at designs that had dog areas in 1487 there. If not, I'm not going to ask you to speculate now. With the hill and the turf and the 1488 narrow area over here, it looks unlikely as a place where you could put it. 1489 1490 Mr. Jensen: I would agree. It's a small area. It would be a very small space. If you had an 1491 opportunity to do it, it would be that area right along the street. I don't know if that's the 1492 greatest place to have a tiny dog park with a little fence around it. That would be the location 1493 in this park to do it. I don’t think, from the size and the response of the neighborhood, that it's 1494 something for this park. 1495 1496 Vice Chair Lauing: OK, thanks. 1497 1498 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 37 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Ashlund. 1499 1500 Commissioner Ashlund: A couple of questions and comments. I think we need to do a little 1501 bit of balancing of the history of the park with the swings as well as the needs of the new 1502 families. I was struck by the email comments. That's a lot of new families with young kids. 1503 Would the CIP allow for adding a slightly larger or a bit more play equipment? For example, 1504 the play house here is very nice, but there's one at Briones Park which is similar to this but a 1505 little raised. Although it's for ages 2-5, it's really enjoyed by older kids as well. It's footprint 1506 is only slightly larger than what you have here. Is that something that there's room in the CIP 1507 for increasing? I understand the community feedback as well, but I think that maybe it was a 1508 little bit limited given that so many new families have moved in since then. 1509 1510 Mr. Jensen: We can look at different options for the play house, to add more amenities to it. 1511 That's definitely an option. 1512 1513 Commissioner Ashlund: OK, thanks. Also, I was wondering about the picnic table, because 1514 it's so nice to be able to have a birthday party with some cupcakes and balloons at this park. If 1515 people are using the benches for that purpose anyway, it seems like it would be worth 1516 considering although it is small and we would have play with the layout a little bit. It seems 1517 like it might not even take up too much more room than we're already using and would really 1518 add to a nice, clean, dry place to set your snack that people aren't sitting on at the same time. 1519 1520 Mr. Jensen: We did show a table in the original design, and the community members that 1521 attended both meetings were not in favor of having a picnic bench in the park. 1522 1523 Commissioner Ashlund: I just wonder about so many new young families moving in and still 1524 more coming in, that did we really get representative feedback there or if there is any way to 1525 incorporate the feedback from those new members. 1526 1527 Mr. Jensen: That would be up to the Commission to request either having another meeting or 1528 allowing them to have feedback. I think their feedback is that they would like to see play 1529 equipment there. I would reiterate that the play equipment would be tot-age play equipment. 1530 It would not be a very extravagant play structure. The Del Medio Park and the Wilkie Way 1531 Park do provide many options of play structures as well. 1532 1533 Commissioner Ashlund: I visited today and it is a stark contrast. The greenery here is so 1534 beautiful and it is so rubberized over at Del Medio Park. I'm just wondering if we can do a 1535 little bit of balancing. When you have young kids and you're heading out to the closest park, 1536 sometimes you're really only there 20 or 30 minutes before somebody has to go home. I just 1537 wonder if we could balance those needs a little bit. It might be worth looking at something 1538 like we have over at Briones. Although it's got the young age range, I've just seen it used all 1539 the way up to middle school age. They still cluster around there plenty of time. 1540 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 38 1541 Mr. Jensen: I think that is something that we could address in the actual Master Plan. I 1542 believe that the community that was built there does not have ample green space for the 1543 housing that was built there. They were required to have green space. I can't say it's very well 1544 developed as far as green space goes or very large to meet the demand of the housing that was 1545 there. That's something to address with that. I think there was a missed opportunity that could 1546 have provided a little bit more open space that would have lessened the impact on Monroe 1547 Park and perhaps provided a play structure at that location. Something to think about in the 1548 future I would say. 1549 1550 Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah, it's really overshadowed by that whole development right on 1551 El Camino. Thank you. 1552 1553 Chair Hetterly: Other comments? Commissioner Markevitch. 1554 1555 Commissioner Markevitch: I like this design the way it is. It looks like a lot of thought was 1556 put into it. I don't see adding any more tot-sized play equipment would actually be beneficial, 1557 because at some point you're going to have that tipping point of too much. I like the way it's 1558 laid out now. Mixed in with the trees and the green, I think it's a good design. 1559 1560 Chair Hetterly: I also like the design. I especially like the sand and I really especially like the 1561 sand underneath the swing. This is exactly the kind of middle ground I've been looking for in 1562 many previous park designs, where you could have swing access as well as sand on the ground 1563 under the swings. I'm really happy to see that. I also like the current selection of amenities. I 1564 think that area is facing a lot of new density. I've been to Del Medio Park as well. It has very 1565 intense use and it's fabulous. They've managed to squeeze in a tremendous amount of cool 1566 stuff in a very small space, but it is a very different tone and experience. There aren't a lot of 1567 parks around here. I think the valuable. thing about Monroe is that it's calm and peaceful. 1568 Yes, toddlers are not always calm and peaceful. It's a little different. That great hill is really 1569 great for young kids. I like the play house, because for that age group in particular it 1570 stimulates a lot of creative play that's interactive as well as side-by-side. I won't go on. I like 1571 the current design. 1572 1573 Mr. Jensen: For the play house itself, we can reach out to that new development and have the 1574 opportunity to select some options for that play house as well, to expand the imaginative play 1575 of it. Maybe make it a little bit larger and select a little bit larger one. There is some more 1576 outreach that we can do there as far as the selection of equipment that can provide a little bit 1577 more variety to the play that they're looking for. 1578 1579 Chair Hetterly: Great. Any other comments? 1580 1581 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 39 Commissioner Ashlund: Another clarification question to Peter Jensen. How does the signage 1582 work for the ages? On the tot swing, is that up to age 2? How about for the bigger swings? Is 1583 there separate signage on each side of the structure? 1584 1585 Mr. Jensen: No, there's just one sign that's associated with it. It calls out the swing and the 1586 age appropriate use that should be using it. 1587 1588 Commissioner Ashlund: And it's 2-5 even for the big swings? 1589 1590 Mr. Jensen: No. It's 2-5 for just the bucket swing. The accessible swing, of course, can be 1591 used by tots as well as other kids. It doesn't really have an age restriction. The other side will 1592 be used for older kids, not the tot age. 1593 1594 Commissioner Ashlund: So it's signed separately? 1595 1596 Mr. Jensen: It's on one sign. 1597 1598 Commissioner Ashlund: Oh, I see. I see. 1599 1600 Mr. Jensen: It's one sign that discusses either one of them. 1601 1602 Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah, OK. Thank you. 1603 1604 Commissioner Reckdahl: One more question for Deirdre. Do we still have homeless 1605 problems in Monroe Park? A couple of years ago, there were homeless people hanging out 1606 there all the time and I haven't seen quite as much recently. 1607 1608 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, we do. We have various homeless people. We have people 1609 who live out of their cars in our neighborhood. We have a very compassionate neighborhood, 1610 and we know who the people are who are living out of the cars. We just tolerate it. I don't 1611 really hear a lot of complaints about it. People come and go. We've had people who use 1612 Miller to park their camping vans that they're living out of. It hasn’t gotten worse. I've lived 1613 there now for about 13 years. I think if it got worse, it would reach a tipping point. The fact 1614 that it hasn't gotten worse, people just don't seem that upset about it. We have some mentally 1615 ill people within our own neighborhood who use that park as a camping ground, and we know 1616 who they are. They're docile and they do hang out, but they seem not to be scary-looking. I 1617 think we have to be careful about what we do in the park, because we don't want to reach the 1618 tipping point. It's on the bike route, so the bike bridge is just half a block from the park. 1619 There's constant pedestrian and bike traffic up and down Miller Avenue right in front of this 1620 park. I think that helps a lot. 1621 1622 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 40 Commissioner Reckdahl: The reason I ask about the homeless, just because I know in the past 1623 there's been a lot of homeless activity there. These benches are they just flat or do they have 1624 the arm rest that prevent people from sleeping on the benches? 1625 1626 Mr. Jensen: It is just flat. 1627 1628 Commissioner Reckdahl: And the neighborhood is OK with that? 1629 1630 Commissioner Crommie: People really were, because right now we have this long, 15-foot, 1631 flat benches. People love these benches. People are not interested in tables. If you go and 1632 visit the park, it's hard to imagine exactly how to make the tables work because it's such a 1633 small park. If someone could come up with a design and say, "This is how it might work," 1634 maybe you'd get more interest. The way it was designed before, people just weren't interested. 1635 The sleeping hasn't been a big problem with these massively long benches. I would be a little 1636 bit loathe to bring in a different style. Maybe the next time this park is redone, if 1637 homelessness gets worse, then you'd have to do that. Because it's not bad now, that's an 1638 intervention that might not be needed. That's how I would say it. 1639 1640 Commissioner Reckdahl: Down the road, let's say a couple of years from now we find out that 1641 there's homeless people sleeping on every bench and the neighborhood doesn't like it. Is it 1642 easy to retrofit the benches that you're providing? 1643 1644 Mr. Anderson: Yes, those can be retrofitted. It's a fairly simple modification. 1645 1646 Commissioner Reckdahl: OK, very good. 1647 1648 Commissioner Crommie: I appreciated what Peter said about the density coming into our 1649 neighborhood. It's massive, the massive development. They didn't provide for that 1650 development enough amenities. There's only so far you can stretch Monroe Park. I think we 1651 just have to look at it as a whole and understand all the amenities that are serving that 1652 neighborhood. It's really nice to have a small park that can serve multiple ages. 1653 1654 Chair Hetterly: So is that the kind of feedback you're looking for and then you'll come back to 1655 us again? 1656 1657 Mr. Anderson: I think so. Just to double check with the Commission, our intention is to bring 1658 this back next month, hopefully, with a little outreach that Peter mentioned to see if we can 1659 make some modifications to that play structure, to incorporate some ideas from this newer 1660 community that's moved in. Our intention is to come back again at the end of next month with 1661 a Park Improvement Ordinance. Are there any other concerns that the Commission has, that 1662 really feels like we would need to follow up before you could put your support behind it? 1663 1664 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 41 Chair Hetterly: I would suggest that that water fountain, is that a new water fountain or an 1665 existing water fountain? 1666 1667 Mr. Jensen: It's new. 1668 1669 Chair Hetterly: It's new. If you're putting in a new water fountain, it'd be great if you'd stick a 1670 spigot down low. 1671 1672 Mr. Jensen: That is the plan. 1673 1674 Mr. Anderson: That has become our standard now, that we're utilizing in all our parks. 1675 1676 Chair Hetterly: Excellent, thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. 1677 1678 6. Discuss and plan for the annual Commission retreat, scheduled for March 7, 1679 2014. 1680 1681 Chair Hetterly: That's Friday from 11:00 to 3:30, I think. Where would you like to 1682 meet? 1683 1684 Rob de Geus: We'll meet at the Interpretive Center at Foothills Park. The first hour will 1685 be a walk, a hike, not a long one. From there we'll go to the maintenance shed for the 1686 open space rangers. Behind that is the 7.7 acres that is currently not dedicated parkland. 1687 The Commission wanted to take a tour of that site, so we'll do that. Then we'll make our 1688 way back to the Interpretive Center. The reason we're doing that is there's a class that 1689 had booked the Center until noon. We'll get in there at noon, begin with lunch together, 1690 and then start the retreat. 1691 1692 Chair Hetterly: Are we going to cause a parking crisis down there if there are people 1693 already engaged in something? 1694 1695 Mr. de Geus: I don't think so, no. 1696 1697 Chair Hetterly: OK. I guess I'm on for this item. I don't really have a lot to say about it. 1698 As I mentioned last month, what I'd like to do is go through a list of issues that we 1699 anticipate being involved in, want to be involved in, but I'd like to spend the bulk of our 1700 time talking about ad hocs, clarifying how we want to handle them, which issues we want 1701 an ad hoc for as opposed to a full Commission, and trying to figure out a strategy for 1702 dealing with the variety of kinds of ad hoc work we have, some that staff initiated, some 1703 that's Commissioner initiated, and some that's just individual Commissioner interest. I'd 1704 like to find a way to better connect the ad hocs to a staff representative so that that's a 1705 partnership that goes throughout the entire ad hoc process. I'd also like to talk about 1706 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 42 scheduling more regular ad hoc reports, maybe try to anticipate over the course of the 1707 year where we're going to have things fall out, and just generally how to make them work 1708 better, and also figure out who wants to represent what issues and how to move forward 1709 on that. That was my only thought about the retreat. Anybody else have comments about 1710 it? OK. 1711 1712 7. Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison updates. 1713 1714 Chair Hetterly: I know we have an update from the dog group. 1715 1716 Commissioner Markevitch: Abbie and I met with Daren Anderson a few weeks ago and 1717 discussed opportunities for dog exercise areas. Greer is the best possibility as well as 1718 maybe taking another look at Peers Park for shared usage. Because we already have a lot 1719 of infrastructure in place at Greer, we could possibly implement a pilot program there 1720 with signage that states that if the animals aren't picked up after, then it would be an end 1721 to the pilot program. We want to make sure that the dogs have a good time and that the 1722 ballplayers would have a good time. Also we discussed Mitchell, and that was already 1723 vetted by the City. It would cost about $500,000 to fix that up, make it slightly bigger, 1724 and just make ... 1725 1726 Commissioner Reckdahl: What would that $500,000 do? 1727 1728 Commissioner Knopper: It would be a complete renovation of the existing dog park. 1729 1730 Commissioner Reckdahl: What surface would that be? 1731 1732 Daren Anderson: Can I chime in on that one? 1733 1734 Commissioner Knopper: Go for it. 1735 1736 Mr. Anderson: Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks and Golf. The $500,000 figure was 1737 originally submitted without an original design. It was in the initial phases of a CIP 1738 request. We said, "I'm getting a lot of requests from the public to do something with the 1739 dog park here. It's our biggest dog park. It's old and not in very good shape." With the 1740 litany of different possibilities from amenities to synthetic turf, that site suffers from 1741 historically poor performing natural turf. There's only 0.25 acres of natural turf there. It 1742 takes a tremendous beating and is in very poor shape at the end of every year. 1743 Consequently, there's a two-month closure period every year to try to get it to grow back. 1744 About two and a half weeks after it opens up, it's quickly torn down to mud, which is 1745 frustrating for our users as well as our staff. Amongst the different things on the table, 1746 synthetic turf was one, going with the DG or mulch was another. We also talked about 1747 increasing the size of it by moving the fence and adding some other amenities that were 1748 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 43 popular at the one that went into Shoreline some years ago. It's got a large shade 1749 structure and a few other things like that. $500,000 was a placeholder until a more 1750 thoughtful design and outreach had been put in place. At the same time we implemented 1751 this process of the Master Plan. We said, "Rather than doing a one-off at Mitchell, let's 1752 make sure that's the right way to go. We'll have the Master Plan help explain where we 1753 should be prioritizing it." The $500,000 was never fully vetted. 1754 1755 Commissioner Markevitch: He actually finished my report. Thank you, Daren. 1756 1757 Commissioner Reckdahl: On a related note, Deirdre mentioned about the small park over 1758 in Mountain View just off San Antonio, where the old Sears Automotive was. I've been 1759 riding by there now; I changed my path. I've stopped in a couple of times and talked to 1760 people and say, "How do you like this?" They love it. It's very small. They said it gets 1761 packed at times, but so far it's been big enough that they're happy with it. There was a 1762 concern that this turf, they didn't know how well that would, especially during the hot 1763 summer, will it be smelly. I'm not sure whether they hose it off every morning or 1764 whenever it gets stinky. That's going to be a good test case to see how well the turf 1765 works in a dog park. Is turf being used in dog parks nationwide? Is that common? 1766 1767 Mr. Anderson: It is an increasingly used subsurface. We visited the 12 dog parks in San 1768 Jose, and they've got everything from synthetic turf to mulch to DG to bare dirt. It was 1769 just all over the map. All different elements of success too. There's so many variables 1770 that make for the success of a spot. Yes, to answer that question, artificial is used. Buxar 1771 dog park is right near my home, and I've been monitoring that for about the last six years. 1772 It's held up very nicely. The synthetic turf has held up really well, doesn't suffer from 1773 smell issues from the urine. It was very costly. For such a small dog park, I think they 1774 dropped, maybe eight years ago, somewhere in the neighborhood of $800,000 to $1 1775 million. So very, very expensive for such a small spot, but it was divided between large 1776 dog and small dog and had a very nice fence that's buried in the ground. Very thoughtful 1777 design. 1778 1779 Commissioner Knopper: Just so you know, the purpose of our ad hoc was to look at 1780 existing sites where we would have shared use, because we really don't have an 1781 opportunity right now or budget to build out anything. We really don't have a space. We 1782 just talked about two parks tonight where it wouldn't work. We know El Camino came 1783 up. That was really our goal; what parks do we have right now, where would it make 1784 sense. If we did implement a pilot program, we're really putting the onus on the 1785 community who wants off-leash dog opportunities, that the onus is to keep it clean and 1786 make sure that everybody is well behaved during the specific set hours of that off-leash 1787 opportunity, and really look at it overall and see if this is something that we could 1788 implement in different parts of the City ongoing. 1789 1790 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 44 Vice Chair Lauing: Two questions for the subcommittee. Did you take any field trips to 1791 any other towns or investigate what other towns are doing, particularly on the 1792 maintenance of a shared-use area? Secondly, of those you looked at in the City as 1793 options, which ones did you rule out and why? I think, for example, of the Baylands 1794 park. 1795 1796 Chair Hetterly: Let me just interrupt for a second. I'm not sure it's kosher to have a 1797 whole discussion about this, because we didn't agendize it as a discussion. It's just an 1798 update. Can we have this conversation next month at the retreat, when we talk about the 1799 ad hocs? 1800 1801 Vice Chair Lauing: I was just asking what they investigated. I don't think that's out of 1802 order. Is it? 1803 1804 Chair Hetterly: I don't know. 1805 1806 Vice Chair Lauing: If you didn't investigate, you didn't. If you did, you'd be reporting on 1807 it. 1808 1809 Commissioner Markevitch: I couldn't find the one in Mountain View that Deirdre was 1810 talking about. I tried to find it. I couldn't find it. So, no. 1811 1812 Commissioner Reckdahl: It's a little off San Antonio. You have to go into the complex. 1813 If you remember where the old Sears was. 1814 1815 Commissioner Markevitch: I'm not going to take this on. Yeah, forget it. 1816 1817 Commissioner Crommie: Ed was asking about shared use, so maybe try the one in 1818 Menlo Park. 1819 1820 Commissioner Knopper: Right. On Willow Road. I've been there. 1821 1822 Commissioner Markevitch: I've been there. 1823 1824 Commissioner Knopper: There's specific hours and it's a ball field during normal hours. 1825 I think early in the morning there's two hours and then two hours late in the day where 1826 you're allowed to have a dog off-leash. We talked about the Baylands. I'm a dog lover. I 1827 have a dog. He's my guy. The thing with regard to the Baylands is protecting what 1828 naturally occurs there, and dogs do go off-path and they can create some damage. We 1829 have had many conversations about burrowing owls and indigenous species that need to 1830 be protected down there. We just didn't think that that would be an appropriate spot. It's 1831 not to say that we can't look at it further and investigate, but during our initial 1832 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 45 conversation we just thought, because there are some many environmental issues down 1833 there, it didn't make sense. 1834 1835 Commissioner Reckdahl: Ed, were you talking the Baylands ballpark? 1836 1837 Vice Chair Lauing: Yeah, the athletic field. 1838 1839 Commissioner Knopper: I didn't talk about the ballpark. 1840 1841 Commissioner Markevitch: We didn't talk about the ballpark. I think if you want to 1842 discuss this, we should agendize it for a further meeting. 1843 1844 Commissioner Crommie: Could I just make a comment to the ad hoc? 1845 1846 Chair Hetterly: Not if it's substantive. I think we're getting off track here, because it's 1847 not an agendized item. I would love to have a discussion about it, but let's put it on the 1848 agenda for another month. Any other ad hoc or liaison updates? 1849 1850 V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1851 1852 Chair Hetterly: Go ahead. 1853 1854 Commissioner Markevitch: I went to the El Camino Park community meeting. It was a 1855 typical mix. There was about ten representatives from the City of Palo Alto. There was two 1856 members representing one lacrosse and one soccer and three residents. We definitely 1857 outnumbered them. They were very on-the-ball. They asked lots of good questions. 101 1858 Alma was represented by, I think, the one retired engineer that was living there. He came 1859 loaded for bear. He had lots of really good questions about the lighting and light spillage. He 1860 definitely knows stuff. I went away feeling really good about that meeting. It was very 1861 positive. The other thing I wanted to talk about was I went to the ethics training last week. 1862 The one thing that stuck out in my mind that is new, and it was at the very end of the meeting. 1863 I don't think a lot of people caught it. The press will, if they see that you're texting in a 1864 meeting, they can request to see your texts, because maybe you're texting your kid, "Hey, it's 1865 time to go to bed," or you could be texting another Commissioner saying "Vote this way." 1866 They don't know. They can request it under the Freedom of Information Act. Just be aware. 1867 That was it. 1868 1869 Chair Hetterly: Rob, you have something? 1870 1871 Rob de Geus: I just had a couple. I wanted to thank Ed Lauing for being there at the Council 1872 for the golf course site and design review in early February. It was a big milestone to get that 1873 approved and the EIR and the Park Improvement Ordinance. Now we have one final hurdle to 1874 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 46 overcome, which is to get the regulatory permits from the Water Board and Fish and Wildlife 1875 and Army Corps. Most of them are in line except for the Water Board. They have still some 1876 concerns, not about our project. In fact they love our project and what we're doing with the 1877 golf course. But with the levee project. We are making progress. We've gone over there and 1878 met with them in Oakland. Time will tell. The next few weeks will be particularly important. 1879 The City Manager's involved as well as Council Members to try and move this along, so both 1880 projects can begin in the next few months. We'll have to see and we'll keep you updated. 1881 1882 Commissioner Reckdahl: At what point is this going to start delaying the project? 1883 1884 Mr. de Geus: We hope to begin May 1st. Everything else is ready. We're going to go out and 1885 bid the project even without the permits. When the permits do come in, we'll be ready to go at 1886 that time. To your question, if the permits are not in by end of April, it starts to delay the 1887 project. We're hoping that doesn't happen. Last night the City Council talked about 1888 Cubberley. Chair Hetterly was here until 11:00 with us. It was very interesting. It was the 1889 City Council giving staff direction on negotiating the new lease with the School District on the 1890 Cubberley site. I think maybe you saw the staff report on that. The key component of that 1891 was to remove the covenant not to develop, which is a $1.8 million commitment to the School 1892 District over the last lease and some 20 years or something, to remove that and remove the 1893 funding and apply that funding towards Cubberley maintenance and the future of Cubberley. 1894 Exactly how that's going to be spent is to be determined. The Council approved that 1895 unanimously. There was one sticking point and that was the Ventura site. The staff report had 1896 several recommendations or guidelines for negotiating the new lease. One of which was to 1897 remove the buy-back clause for the Ventura site, which the School District currently has, 1898 which is preventing the City from investing in the property in any significant way. Several 1899 Council Members were uncomfortable with that, thinking that the School District needed to 1900 have the opportunity to buy that back. That was a split vote on that particular item. Did you 1901 want to add anything, Jennifer? OK. I wanted to mention, the Magical Bridge is moving 1902 along as well. I think there's a community meeting Saturday at 11:00 at Cubberley in H1. 1903 Their fundraising is going, from my understanding, very well and they're at a point where we 1904 can make this happen. The plan is to come back to the Parks and Rec Commission in April 1905 with a Park Improvement Ordinance to move that one along. We also had our summer camp 1906 registration. I mention it because it's always a big deal for the department. Summer camps 1907 and aquatic revenues are up 40 percent over last year, which is really exciting. It's in part 1908 because the School District is no longer offering a summer enrichment program. They're 1909 offering a much smaller, academic-focused, remedial-type summer enrichment program, 1910 because they found that they really cannot charge for those programs anymore. I think that's 1911 part of it. We knew that was coming, so we added some additional programming as a result. 1912 We have really good numbers early on here, which we're very happy about. The last thing I 1913 had was we had a question come in from Commissioner Reckdahl about the drought and some 1914 of the thinking that's happening right now. Daren's going to touch on that. 1915 1916 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 47 Daren Anderson: I just had a couple of updates preceding that one. The Eleanor Pardee 1917 project is moving forward. They're working on the playground installation right now. About 1918 four weeks to have the entire project completed and opening that park back up. Byxbee, this is 1919 the capital improvement project to look at Byxbee Hills. Thomas Reid and Associates is the 1920 contractor we've hired on to do the environmental and help us with the public process. That's 1921 just getting off; they're reviewing documents right now. Public meetings to come soon, but no 1922 dates yet. The Commission will be notified as soon as those are set. Commissioner Reckdahl 1923 had sent a couple of questions related to the drought. I'll read the questions and give a 1924 synopsis of our take on them. The first one was how would reduced water availability affect 1925 Palo Alto parks? It's a good question, something we've been considering for a long time, not 1926 just based on the drought but really in anticipation of rate increases. It might be a little self-1927 serving to be thinking of it that way, but for many years we've had the Utilities Department 1928 give us anticipated rate increases. It's just astronomical; the rates continually go up. One year 1929 it would be 15 percent, the next 7 percent, another 7 percent the year after that. For the 1930 amount of turf we've got or irrigated areas, those are significant impacts to the budget. For the 1931 longest time now, we've been looking wherever possible either to convert irrigated areas to 1932 hardscapes or mulched areas or switch the plant pallet to a native species that could be drought 1933 tolerant and survive with an establishment period of irrigation and then left on its own, 1934 switching to a higher percentage of recycled water over potable. A good example of that was 1935 at the golf course and the Baylands Athletic Center, which is on the same water line. 1936 Historically it had been closer to a 60/40 percent blend, 60 percent recycled water, 40 percent 1937 potable. This touches on one of the questions on the nature of recycled water. At the time 1938 when we were 60/40, if you had gone any higher on the ratio of recycled to potable, you would 1939 burn out the turf. The total dissolved solids (TDS) of that recycled water was really high, 1940 meaning there's lots of salts in that water, and the turf doesn't do well. Through a series of 1941 different programs that our water quality and the neighbors involved in our water quality have 1942 made to improve the line, basically it was seepage into the line through breaks in large part in 1943 Mountain View's area and they've recently fixed that, has brought that TDS level down to a 1944 number, let's say we had been at 920, now we're closer to 740. A significant drop down in the 1945 salts that are in this water allow us to adjust that ratio to the highest we can get away with 1946 without damaging any turf. Now we're closer to a 80/20 blend, which is really good. That is 1947 the goal, use as much recycled and as little potable as possible. The Water Quality Plant 1948 currently discharges something like 24 million gallons a day of recycled water. A lot of it now 1949 goes to Mountain View, because that's where they've extended the line. For the longest time, 1950 we had several million a day getting discharged into the Bay, right in the Baylands, wasted it if 1951 you will. They have to do something with the water. The more we could utilize, the better 1952 from that term as well as reduce our potable use. We believe with the switch at the golf course 1953 to a different turf type, paspalum that you've probably heard us talk about every time we 1954 discuss that project, we think we can go to 100 percent use of recycled water for large sections 1955 of the golf course that will have the paspalum. The greens will still be on the potable line, 1956 because it’s a different type of grass that wouldn't thrive on that kind. The Baylands Athletic 1957 Center, we believe, can go on the 100 percent. Those are some of the steps we've already 1958 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 48 taken. Your second question was is there anything we can do now to prep for the summer? 1959 My answer is we've already done it, and it was predicated on these increased rates. It was 1960 making sure we have weather-based irrigation systems, making all these landscaping choices 1961 that would set us up for either converting to recycled water or reducing when possible. 1962 Another example would be Foothills Park where we said, "If we have to come up with 1963 $25,000, we can cut off some of the edges of the turf under oak trees that we currently irrigate, 1964 that don't really want that." The oak tree doesn't thrive with grass underneath it. We'd just 1965 mulch that and remove a couple of heads and we're able to save $25,000 on water through 1966 those techniques. What I'm getting at is we've taken these steps all along to try to get us as 1967 lean as we could be on our water usage. I think we're pretty tight right now and looking good. 1968 The next step of the answer is, if you were restricted on your water use, what would be the 1969 steps you would take? I can't get too into the details there, other than to say it would probably 1970 be some sort of step-down of the least impactful irrigation cuts first. That might look like cuts 1971 to irrigation for medians or nonessential turf. That might be in front of a library perhaps, 1972 where you have turf that's not used for play, perhaps is not in the most aesthetically impactful 1973 area. Those kind of areas would be first, then you'd work your way down. I hope that answers 1974 that question. 1975 1976 Commissioner Reckdahl: My follow-up question would be, you said you brought the salinity 1977 down to 720. Is there any hope of getting it further down or is that ... 1978 1979 Mr. Anderson: Your third question was what's the long-term plans for irrigation using 1980 recycled water? It was a conversation with Utilities and Water Quality who are responsible for 1981 that. They do have goal, I think they're shooting for 700. We're close to that and there's 1982 always hopes that you can get lower and lower and lower. They've done ongoing experiments 1983 with irrigating a stand of redwood trees in the Water Quality Plant using recycled water versus 1984 potable water. I think it's eight trees on potable, eight on recycled and how they compare. It 1985 was very favorable. It's one of the species that's sensitive to that kind of thing. Water Quality 1986 staff at least is feeling that this water could be used to sustain even sensitive species like that. 1987 I know there are certain members of Canopy and other tree advocates who would disagree 1988 with that. I don't think the science is fully out and fully resolved. Which ties me into that third 1989 question of what's the plan with recycled water. It's currently on the EIR review. I passed 1990 around a document that shows the phased response. It shows Phase 1, where we've got this 1991 existing recycled water line that goes up Embarcadero from our treatment plan, down East 1992 Bayshore Road towards Mountain View. Phase 2 expands off that. I think it goes up East 1993 Meadow to Cowper and eventually to Page Mill and branches off. The nice part is they've 1994 highlighted various areas. I don't know what the cutoff will be; this is still in draft phase. This 1995 hasn't been approved; the EIR is not approved. I don't know whether our parks or sites are 1996 within a reasonable distance that they can run lines to them and irrigate those areas with 1997 recycled water. Some of the ones on the list that I passed around that would benefit us would 1998 be Cubberley Community Center, El Carmelo School, Fairmeadow School, Hoover Park, JLS, 1999 Mitchell Park, Ramos Park and perhaps some of the medians on Page Mill, El Camino and 2000 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 49 Terman. The timeframe for this project, again still in the EIR phase review. I don't know 2001 what will come of it. Utilities seemed to think it was a two to four-year timeframe before the 2002 recycled water line would reach the Stanford Research Center, which I think is Phase 2 on that 2003 map I passed around. That's the information I had to share on those water questions. 2004 2005 Chair Hetterly: Thank you very much. Do you have any other announcements? Other 2006 Commissioners have announcements? OK, I have a few. Anybody who didn't make it to the 2007 ethics training last week, please remember to do the online training. There's a link on the 2008 email that went around, in the near future. When you've completed that, you'll have to print 2009 out a certificate and mail it to Rona. I don't if you've done it online before. Also the Form 700 2010 is due April 1. That's the financial reporting forms. 2011 2012 Commissioner Reckdahl: When is that due? 2013 2014 Chair Hetterly: April 1st. Put that on your to-do list. Was there resolution on the joint 2015 Council session? There was a proposal that we have a joint Council session in May, which 2016 seemed very early to me. I don't know if there's ... 2017 2018 Mr. de Geus: I sent to the Clerk's office that we would like a later date. I haven't heard back 2019 yet. 2020 2021 Chair Hetterly: I know we just had one. So we're not locked into May yet? 2022 2023 Mr. de Geus: I don't think so. 2024 2025 Chair Hetterly: Finally, I had one other thing to report on. I went to the City Council's 2026 Infrastructure Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago, where they're talking about the big 2027 backlog from the IBRC report and whether to do a bond or tax. It sounds like they have 2028 recommended that we pay for the Public Safety Building out of City funds rather than going 2029 out for a bond. 2030 2031 Chair Hetterly: This is the Public Safety Building. That's such a high priority for the City. 2032 Among the items on the list of backlog that they're trying to fund were a number of Parks and 2033 Rec things, like the parks catch-up. I think there was $8.9 million in parks catch-up, $3.6 2034 million for Byxbee Park improvements as well as the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. It 2035 looks like the current thinking, and I don't think Council has considered this yet as a whole, is 2036 to push those things out and fund those through, rather than with the General Fund since that's 2037 primarily going to go to other items, those would be funded by possibly a transient occupancy 2038 tax, the hotel tax. That's the current thinking. Those were the items that polled as most 2039 supported for additional funding through some revenue raising process or fundraising process. 2040 That's my update there. I guess the next step is the Council will consider it as a whole. That's 2041 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 50 where things stand, pushed out to whatever fundraising mechanism they pursue. That is all I 2042 had. 2043 2044 Commissioner Reckdahl: The status on Scott Park, where is that? Did the Council approve 2045 Scott Park? 2046 2047 Mr. de Geus: Has it gone through Council already? I'm not sure. I think he's working on the 2048 final staff report and it'll go on consent. 2049 2050 Commissioner Reckdahl: I had not heard it go through, but I didn't know if I missed it or not. 2051 2052 VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 25, 2014 MEETING 2053 2054 Rob de Geus: What I took note of was a couple of Park Improvement Ordinances, or actually 2055 there could be three next month, Hopkins Park, Monroe Park, and I think El Camino Park 2056 might be coming back given the lighting changes. 2057 2058 Commissioner Markevitch: Meeting number 19. 2059 2060 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, number 19. And then maybe debriefing the retreat, just making sure that 2061 we're all on the same page with whatever decisions are made on the 7th. That's what I had, but 2062 there could be other things. 2063 2064 Chair Hetterly: I'm going to talk to Stacey about this, but hopefully we could do a website 2065 item for March as well. 2066 2067 Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. 2068 2069 Mr. de Geus: So the website. Walter Passmore wants to bring back the Urban Master Plan for 2070 another update. 2071 2072 Chair Hetterly: The Urban what? 2073 2074 Mr. de Geus: The Urban Forest Master Plan. 2075 2076 Chair Hetterly: That's coming back to us again? 2077 2078 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. It is a lot; although, you've seen Hopkins and Monroe so maybe they'll be 2079 fairly quick items. You've seen El Camino a few times. 2080 2081 Chair Hetterly: It might be completely different by now. 2082 2083 APPROVED February 25, 2014 Approved Minutes 51 VII. ADJOURNMENT 2084 2085 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Ashlund and second by Commissioner 2086 Markevitch at 9:58 p.m. 2087 APPROVED Approved Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING 7 May 27, 2014 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie 13 Knopper, Ed Lauing, Keith Reckdahl 14 Commissioners Absent: Pat Markevitch 15 Others Present: Council Liaison Greg Schmid 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts, Sally Camozzi, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen 17 I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Sally Camozzi 18 19 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20 21 Chair Hetterly: I'd like to suggest we move up item number 5, the ad hoc committee 22 report on 7.7-acre property in Foothills Park to be dedicated as parkland. Move that up to 23 number 2 since Daren Anderson is back and forth with the Finance Committee meeting. 24 We'd like to get him while we can so he can make that presentation. Are there any 25 objections to that change? No objections, so we'll move number 5 to number 2. Any 26 other changes? 27 28 Vice Chair Lauing: Did you want to change 3 up to take advantage of Daren's presence 29 as well? 30 31 Chair Hetterly: Sure. So move 3 to 3 and 2 to 4. 32 33 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 34 35 None. 36 37 IV. BUSINESS: 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 2 39 1. Approval of Draft April 22, 2014 Minutes. 40 41 Approval of the draft April 22, 2014 Minutes as amended was moved by Commissioner 42 Reckdahl and seconded by Vice Chair Lauing. Passed 6-0 43 44 2. Ad Hoc Committee Report on 7.7-Acre Property in Foothills Park To Be 45 Dedicated as Parkland. (Formerly Item Number 5) 46 47 Daren Anderson: Daren Anderson, Division Manager, Open Space Parks and Golf. 48 Council gave staff two directives concerning the 7.7-acre, undeveloped piece of land 49 sandwiched between Foothills Park and Mr. John Arrillaga's property. The first directive 50 was to get the 7.7 acres dedicated as parkland as soon as possible. The second was to 51 have staff develop some options for that and bring it to the Commission on how we might 52 utilize this piece of land. The first priority really is to get that 7.7 acres dedicated as 53 parkland. The first step of that is to have it surveyed. We had our City Surveyor come 54 out and mark the area. There wasn't a lot of utilities. It was just typically what they use 55 to stake out areas and find exactly where the property lines are. It took him a good deal 56 of time, and he still hasn't completed it. So we've contracted that out to a subcontractor, 57 another surveyor who will have that work completed. This will be a record of survey and 58 map that will be submitted to the County on June 10th. We anticipate that work being 59 completed. They haven't yet begun. A contract's just being finalized now, and we'll have 60 that person on board soon. That will firm up exactly where the boundaries are. I met 61 with Mr. Arrillaga's staff person, Mike Wisowaty to talk a little bit about this. He's 62 managed that land for about 25 years now. When I say managed it, I mean when John 63 Arrillaga had the lease, he would be the person grooming it, moving the materials there. 64 When the lease ended, he would also continue to take care of the drainage ditches and the 65 creek which has sediment deposits. If someone doesn't clean that up, eventually the 66 sediment reaches a point where the water flows over the creek and starts flooding both on 67 our property in Foothills Park and on the residents down below, which would be Mr. 68 Arrillaga and others. He's continued to do that. I talked to him a little bit about those 69 fence lines. We're not totally sure those are exactly on the property line. He said he 70 understood that, and he's on board and working with us. When the surveyor comes out, 71 probably June 2nd, he'll have access to the side areas just outside the fence lines to make 72 sure we have everything accurate. That's the priority and that's what we're focusing on 73 right now. However, I did meet with the ad hoc committee working on this, 74 Commissioner Markevitch and Commissioner Knopper, to discuss some initial, high-75 level ideas for what could possibly go there. Council had asked us to come back with 76 cost estimates. We're really not at that phase of development. The amount of effort and 77 time that would go into developing a conceptual plan to get to the cost estimates, if we 78 were to pay MIG, we'd be in the neighborhood of $10,000-$15,000 to have them put 79 together six fully developed cost estimates with drawings, designs. So you're going to 80 APPROVED Approved Minutes 3 spend a chunk of money. It seemed to me to be prudent to meet with the ad hoc 81 committee and flesh some of this out before discussing it with the Commission, so that 82 we're not investing too much money that we don't really want to. As well as it's a little 83 bit "the cart ahead of the horse" before we get to exactly where the boundaries are. So 84 that's where we are. When we met with the Commissioners, staff suggested again four or 85 five general concepts. The first being the least invasive, the least likely to generate high 86 costs, and probably the least invasive in terms of privacy for the surrounding area. 87 Acterra, who has the nursery site, they have a lease for another two years with an option 88 for five more. And the Arrillaga property adjacent. This concept was a habitat 89 conservation study area where we would restore it with native trees and shrubs and 90 probably small grassland and still maintaining that emergency evacuation route. Likely 91 involved in that would be, even this being the most basic, you'd still probably have to 92 scrape out the first couple inches of dirt. It's all heavily compacted. It's mixed with base 93 rock. Not a good situation for restoration, so we'd probably have to remove some of that 94 and add some amendments. The actual flat area where we would probably do most of the 95 re-vegetation is more like 2.3 acres, 2.5 acres. The rest is either sloped or in the creek. 96 Not all the 7.7 acres would be totally developed under the concept of restoration. Some 97 of it is already forested, has the trees on it, that have been planted. A lot of redwoods are 98 up there. That could look a lot of different ways. You could invite in special groups to 99 do some sort of environmental study. There are a lot of different ways. You could 100 minimize the amount of access you wanted in any number of ways. That's on the low 101 end for all things; costs, number of people accessing the site and everything else. Every 102 single scenario involves restoration in my mind. I think we agreed on that too. 103 Everyone's been to the site and knows what it looks like. It's an area that's been scraped 104 clean and it's been storing rock and it looks like it. Every scenario had some element of 105 restoration in it. The same would be for this second one, restore the area with native 106 vegetation and include a simple loop trail. This would be your basic one. Not an in-and-107 stop trail but a loop. It could still be in there I believe while incorporating the emergency 108 evacuation route. That would have to be there and is existing. Still work around the 109 creek, probably add a couple of simple benches. Something like that so you'd have 110 access. There are some pros and cons that I'll get to in a little bit, just to flesh out some 111 of the thinking that went into these ideas. The third idea was Commissioner Knopper's 112 and I'll let her elaborate on this one. We could restore the area and add some sort of 113 group meeting area. We could have public art there. It could be some sort of small, 114 natural pavilion where people could gather and meet; different from what we currently 115 have at the site where we have an interpretive center, where people meet and that's 116 common and we have picnic areas. This was a little different. We had talked about it 117 being without all the amenities, no picnic tables, but it would have a nice seated area with 118 shade. As we escalated up the ideas as to cost and more impact, we got to the ideas of 119 group picnic areas and campgrounds. The challenges that those things pose are a lack of 120 utilities. There currently isn't water or sewer or parking in that facility and all the things 121 that would necessarily come with that. We already have a group picnic area nearby with 122 APPROVED Approved Minutes 4 parking that just meets that, just barely. You would have to add parking if we were going 123 to add an element like that. Where would that go: How would that fit? I don't know. It 124 would be a challenge. And the same would go with the camping. When you add those 125 other elements, you would need bathrooms, parking, and a few other things. So those 126 were some of the ideas we kicked off. There are a few complications that I think we 127 discussed a little bit. The Acterra site is there. I did have a private discussion with 128 Acterra, Alex Von Feldt, one of the leads at the agency. She explained a couple of 129 thoughts to me. One is that they're excited about the concept of planting this area. I 130 won't be too elaborate because I know you've read a number of letters that have been 131 written on behalf of Acterra. As we discussed it, she said they'd like to maintain the 132 nursery where it is if possible, but they were open to moving it if need be, maybe take 133 advantage of some more sun. That's a rather shaded area. Depending on what design we 134 came up with, Acterra would very much like to keep the nursery somewhere in there 135 unless they could find a more advantageous place in there. They hoped not to be 136 removed. From a staff perspective, it has been a mutually beneficial relationship. One 137 we would certainly like to continue. It's beneficial to the City and beneficial to our 138 habitat to have that one continue. The creek is another challenge. Buckeye Creek comes 139 down right through that parcel, as we've all seen. Some of the things about the creek is 140 upstream we have an erosion problem. A lot of sediment is coming down off that creek 141 right into this area and it needs to be cleaned out. It needs to be serviced about annually. 142 The gentlemen I mentioned earlier, Mike Wisowaty who works for Mr. Arrillaga, says 143 about each year he brings his backhoe out there and cleans up the sediment. Somehow 144 we'd have to, unless we're addressing that upstream problem which is not likely to happen 145 in the short-term, we're going to have to continue to allow access for some heavy 146 equipment to get down to these areas and service them. Another complication and 147 something to take into account as we look at these different scenarios. With the creek 148 traveling through, there's a certain sensitivity to riparian habitat. There are some 149 exceptions, but typically you have a setback of a certain number of feet. We looked 150 through some of the documents that pertained to that and I can share it in more detail 151 later when we do a formal proposal. There are different setback requirements off that 152 creek that limit what you can put next to it. Parking, for example, is one that typically 153 would not be allowed within a certain number of feet, typically 100 feet, of a creek. We 154 can get more details on that later. I did mention the emergency access route. Another 155 challenge that we thought of is you're traveling right through the Foothills Maintenance 156 Shop area, which is traditionally not an area where we've allowed anyone to pass 157 through. We would have to make some security changes on how we have it. We have 158 staff vehicles stored there. We have equipment. We have a maintenance shop with tools. 159 So they'd be passing through there. Not insurmountable but certainly a challenge and 160 maybe less than ideal. Acterra also would face security issues, because right now there is 161 a gate there that doesn't allow people. Their facility is unsecured. That keeps the deer 162 out. If we now had access with a number of these different options that we talked about, 163 they would have to make some significant changes, probably fencing the entire perimeter 164 APPROVED Approved Minutes 5 of their 1.5 acres they lease through the City, to keep both deer and people out. I think 165 they maintain, and maybe Alex can correct me, something like $100,000 worth of plants 166 at the peak of planting season. So a significant amount of value in materials stored 167 onsite. Again when I met with Mike Wisowaty, he said the chief thing he hoped I would 168 convey to the Commission is that they are willing to be good neighbors and help with the 169 fence installation and to continue to service the creek and the drainage ditches, which is 170 very generous and helpful. Their big concern was security and privacy. They would like 171 that taken into account as much as possible. Again we have not conducted any cost 172 analysis for the possibilities and suggestions that we've put forth so far. That concludes 173 my presentation. 174 175 Commissioner Knopper: Thank you, Daren. You said everything very eloquently. 176 There are so many things that have to come first with regard to the actual surveying and 177 figuring that out and then just really understanding the specifics of the restrictions with 178 regard to the creek and what we can and cannot put close to it. That's really going to 179 limit what can be done there with regard to any kind of real infrastructure like sewage or 180 for camping, bathrooms, parking, etc. I guess I'd open it up to any questions at this point. 181 182 Chair Hetterly: We have a member of the public to speak, and then we'll have questions 183 and comments. Alexandra Von Feldt. 184 185 Alexandra von Felt: Would you like me to use the microphone? 186 187 Chair Hetterly: Yes, please, because it goes to the recorder. 188 189 Ms. Von Feldt: Thank you, Commissioners. As Daren previously introduced, I'm 190 Alexandra Von Feldt and I'm with Acterra Stewardship Program. Acterra has a long 191 history with the City of Palo Alto as some of you may know. We've been working in 192 Arastradero Preserve and along San Francisquito Creek for over 15 years now. What we 193 do is help improve the ecology of these parks and open spaces using community 194 volunteers to do the work. Last year we were also awarded the contract for Foothills 195 Park, so we've started working there as well. It's been a great partnership, and I mean 196 that in the true sense of the word. As we do get from the City help to do some of the 197 stewardship, we also go out and seek other sources of funds that benefit the City of Palo 198 Alto. For example, this past year we were successful in raising $200,000 for our work in 199 Arastradero, in Foothills Park, and along San Francisquito Creek. All that directly 200 benefits the City. To do all this, we need to grow plants that are native to these different 201 watersheds, so our native plant nursery is the place where we grow all these plants. Not 202 only do we supply the plants for our own projects, but we also do it for other regional 203 partners, like Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. They're in the Pajaro River 204 Restoration Project. Post sometimes buys plants from us as well. We're a really 205 important regional resource. I wanted to introduce myself to you all here today. I'm 206 APPROVED Approved Minutes 6 more than happy to answer some questions. Daren also gave you some background on 207 what he and I had discussed. We're really happy about the change in designation of the 208 park, because it's (inaudible) to really secure the future of it for that 7.7 acres. We hope, 209 as he said, to continue our nursery operation. We think it could integrate very well. We 210 already have volunteers that come and work at our nursery on a regular basis, but we 211 could expand that and have an open house maybe once a month where people from the 212 public could come in and visit the nursery either to learn about native plants or just about 213 restoration ecology in general. Of course, we have regular weekend workdays at 214 Foothills Park. I support Daren's idea for the lighter approach, just given the site. I think 215 most of you have seen it. It's going to take a while just to try to rehabilitate it and get it 216 back up to where we can grow a plant in it. There are also some really nice ideas for the 217 future. At one of our other sites in Redwood Grove and Los Altos, we actually did a 218 natural willow sculpture that also doubled as erosion control for a creek bank. We did it 219 with a local artist and involved the community in creating this natural structure. There 220 are things like that that we could pursue in the future. Thank you again. 221 222 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. All right, I'll open it to questions and comments. 223 Commissioners? 224 225 Commissioner Reckdahl: You mentioned the possibility of having a trail go through 226 there. Is there any way to interleave that or have that connect with existing trails or 227 would that be a loop by itself? 228 229 Mr. Anderson: It would be a standalone loop. 230 231 Commissioner Reckdahl: There's no way to connect behind the shed and connect up to 232 Los Trancos or the other trails on that side of the creek? 233 234 Mr. Anderson: Not without significant impacts. It's fair to say the main road that comes 235 through the picnic area and through the shop area is walked commonly. So that is, in a 236 way, a trail. Not in the conventional sense that we think of open space trails, but it's used 237 commonly. You would still have connectivity with all the trailheads that come off that 238 main road. 239 240 Commissioner Reckdahl: When you come down Los Trancos and you want to cross over 241 and go behind the interpretive center, you still have to walk across the grass. It would be 242 nice if you could just stay on a trail and loop around. That would make for a nicer 243 experience. I don't know if there's room there even if we wanted to connect it up, 244 whether we could. 245 246 Mr. Anderson: I don't think so. I think it would be too many private parcels you'd be 247 slicing into to get through to that. I can take a closer look at it. 248 APPROVED Approved Minutes 7 249 Commissioner Reckdahl: Does the shed go right up against the creek or is there some 250 space between the sheds? 251 252 Mr. Anderson: The maintenance shop? 253 254 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes, the maintenance shop. 255 256 Mr. Anderson: Yes, it's right next to it. 257 258 Commissioner Reckdahl: Right on the creek. We talked about a CIP last year for 259 Buckeye Creek. That was shelved and it's on next year's list for potential. 260 261 Greg Betts: Staff does intend to resubmit that one. 262 263 Commissioner Reckdahl: When we do take care of that erosion, are we going to do 264 something like serpentining the creek to try and slow down the velocity? 265 266 Mr. Anderson: That was what we submitted money for, not for action but study, to tell us 267 the best technique. We need a hydrological expert to come in and look at that stretch and 268 tell us the best way to deal with it. 269 270 Commissioner Reckdahl: They way we've done it in Wild Horse Valley with the rocks 271 and casing, that seems very secure now. There's not a lot of erosion there. 272 273 Mr. Anderson: It is. That's a robust structure. It's called gabion rock. They put the rock 274 in cages, and it's very stable. The problem is it causes down cut, so you keep going 275 deeper and deeper. If you look at sections of the creek, now it's very, very deep where 276 normally that would not be the case. It's scouring the bottom and sending all the 277 sediments (crosstalk). 278 279 Commissioner Reckdahl: Along that grassy area, it gets really deep there. 280 281 Mr. Anderson: Yes, that's right. 282 283 Commissioner Reckdahl: Now originally that creek was down the center of the grassy 284 area. 285 286 Mr. Anderson: Like most creeks, I bet it meandered, just like all the creeks that pass 287 through the Baylands and everything else. 288 289 APPROVED Approved Minutes 8 Commissioner Reckdahl: We've seen a lot of erosion on that. Would we ever sacrifice 290 some of that grassy area and move the creek further towards the center, towards its 291 historical path. 292 293 Mr. Anderson: I think that's within the realm of possibility and may be necessary, 294 depending on what the hydrological study ends up telling us. I know Acterra is working 295 on this. They got a grant to do some vegetation work down there. We had hoped this 296 CIP would coincide nicely with what they're doing.. They're going to do some native 297 planting in and around the area, which will help and no doubt will be part of a long-term 298 solution. I don't have the answer. 299 300 Commissioner Reckdahl: That wall opposite the interpretive center is almost vertical at 301 some spots. 302 303 Mr. Anderson: Yes, that's right. 304 305 Commissioner Reckdahl: It's not surprising we have a lot of erosion, just because it's so 306 steep. 307 308 Mr. Anderson: You're absolutely right. 309 310 Commissioner Reckdahl: The sheds are at the end of the current valley or the current 311 property, right? 312 313 Mr. Anderson: There's a gap. There's a row of redwood trees, a parking lot that services 314 the oak grove group picnic area, and then the shop. 315 316 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is there any long-term desire to move the shop and swap where 317 the shop and the 7.7 is? 318 319 Mr. Anderson: We had internally kicked that around as an idea. 320 321 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it just money? 322 323 Mr. Anderson: Yes. 324 325 Commissioner Reckdahl: If we had the money to do it, would we want to do that? Or do 326 we want to keep this 7.7 as a little nook and leave the maintenance shed where it is? 327 328 Mr. Anderson: We haven't even gotten to the point where we know we could fit it in 329 there yet. I think it's premature for me to answer that one. I'm not sure if operationally 330 APPROVED Approved Minutes 9 you could transport that whole thing. There's gas there that we just had upgraded. If you 331 were to pick that whole thing up, it would be very, very challenging. 332 333 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it gasoline? 334 335 Mr. Anderson: Diesel and gasoline. This is to service our vehicles. 336 337 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it underground? 338 339 Mr. Anderson: It's a vaulted, concrete-bound unit. It just took us ten years to get it 340 recertified and rebuilt. It was a very long process to get it solid. It's much needed, 341 because it services both us and Station 8 of the Fire Department. Whether we could pick 342 that up and how close and where that would fit, I don't know. 343 344 Commissioner Reckdahl: Do you have any feeling whether the neighbors would be 345 receptive to that? Would they rather have a maintenance shed or a picnic area? 346 347 Mr. Anderson: We did ask. I did speak with Mr. Arrillaga's representative and he was 348 open to the idea. In general, their chief concerns would still be privacy and security. 349 They're open to the idea. 350 351 Commissioner Reckdahl: In some ways a maintenance yard where the public can't go 352 would be a buffer to the neighbors. 353 354 Mr. Anderson: Then you'd have the rest of the park contiguous. Certainly there are 355 advantages to that. It's just all the challenges of picking up that entire operation and 356 whether it would fit and everything else that goes with it. 357 358 Commissioner Reckdahl: How about the Acterra greenhouse? If it wasn't there, would 359 we pick that as a spot or do we know of better spots where we'd put it if we were starting 360 from scratch? 361 362 Mr. Anderson: What Alex told me was there would be advantages to move that in other 363 places where they could get more sun. If they were starting from scratch, they would 364 probably choose an area where they could maximize the sun. There are a few challenges 365 there though. Their proximity to the shop allows for water to be run over. If we moved 366 them too far, we would no doubt have to put in some water lines, which is not 367 insurmountable by any means, just an added step. 368 369 Commissioner Reckdahl: The shop has electric and it has water, but it doesn't have 370 sewage. 371 372 APPROVED Approved Minutes 10 Mr. Anderson: Correct. 373 374 Commissioner Reckdahl: And the nearest sewage is at the interpretive center. 375 376 Mr. Anderson: No. There is a sewer line that runs up to the oak grove picnic area which 377 is nearby. 378 379 Commissioner Reckdahl: So it's not that far. It would be doable but not convenient. 380 381 Mr. Anderson: Right. 382 383 Vice Chair Lauing: First just a question of the ad hoc committee and Daren. What are 384 you feeling like the overall timetable is to work through this process to get to a point of 385 making a recommendation? I'm not going to suggest we hold you to this. Is it a year, six 386 months? What do you think we're going to have to go through to get this? Coupled with 387 that, what's the next step to start down that path? 388 389 Commissioner Knopper: Honestly we haven't discussed that. We're talking about it right 390 now, to have some sort of recommendation by the end of the calendar year, within the 391 next six months after we've had the opportunity to talk to all the different stakeholders. 392 We need some very specific information before we can move forward. The reason our 393 ideas are "pie in the sky" is because, with regard to the creek and what is physically 394 possible with regard to environmental constraints, what you can and cannot do there and 395 then being able to attach costs. Some of the ideas are extremely expensive and probably 396 out of the realm of realistic. That would be my personal desire, to be able to make a firm 397 recommendation before the close of the year. Do you think that's realistic? 398 399 Mr. Anderson: I believe so. Although I do think we need more public outreach. 400 401 Commissioner Knopper: Yes, for sure. 402 403 Mr. Anderson: It's been just a handful of staff and two Commissioners thinking. It 404 probably needs to be expanded a little bit more to look at the different options. As 405 Commissioner Knopper pointed out, we could do a lot of the heavy lifting and homework 406 before to determine the possibilities. A lot of these are taken off the plate because of the 407 creek or the emergency evacuation route. You'd know what you're playing with and you 408 can move pieces around and see your real opportunities. Right now those aren't defined. 409 410 Commissioner Knopper: It's important for us to have some one-on-one conversations 411 with all the different stakeholders. We're presenting the dog off-leash. Commissioner 412 Hetterly and I have already started meeting with stakeholders and that's really important 413 too; so we have that valuable input when we do go for public comment, that we've 414 APPROVED Approved Minutes 11 already had those one-on-ones and have all the pertinent information at that point. I 415 mean I'm certainly open to continued comment. Maybe I'll put together some sort of 416 timeline and measures against that. Then we can present that timeline to everybody in a 417 more succinct manner with specific goals ... 418 419 Vice Chair Lauing: And then maybe flesh out some of these ideas. I certainly agree with 420 your comment that now is not the time to spend money on fleshing out designs. That 421 price of $15,000 eventually is well worth the investment. It sounds like a bargain to get a 422 comparative analyses of what each of those would cost. But it has to get more fleshed 423 out. I think the idea of doing something there rather than nothing, meaning something 424 distinctive compared to what's going on in the rest of the park, is just a grand idea. The 425 concept of a pavilion for meeting space just makes that distinctive from everything else. 426 We frankly don't need just another meadow there or just another trail. Thinking 427 creatively about that is right on target. I'm not sure about picnic space. Do we have a lot 428 of demand for more picnic space? That one, particularly near that other picnic area, 429 seemed and I don't want to dwell on that specific one. I'm trying to compare the two, the 430 creativity of a meeting area and an outside pavilion versus a couple more picnic benches. 431 That's right on target in terms of direction. 432 433 Chair Hetterly: Rob, do you wish to say something? 434 435 Rob de Geus: Council Member Schmid can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 436 there's an urgency necessarily to figure out what we want to do with this space and 437 design. This is a pretty unique opportunity in syncing it with the Parks Master Plan. The 438 outreach that we're doing there makes a little more sense to me than trying to get a 439 recommendation done by the end of the calendar year. What is urgent is dedicating it as 440 parkland. We should do that as soon as possible after Council comes back from their 441 break. And then take our time with how best to use the space. 442 443 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 444 445 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you for the presentation. Can you give me a sense of 446 how many of the plants grown there are actually used in the City of Palo Alto versus 447 other places? I'm referring to the Acterra nursery. 448 449 Mr. Anderson: I can give you an estimate. I have the report, but not with me. It would 450 be beneficial to have Alex Von Feldt answer this one, if that would be all right with the 451 Commission. 452 453 Commissioner Crommie: Sure. 454 455 APPROVED Approved Minutes 12 Ms. Von Feldt: Off the top of my head, about 70 percent of the plants that we grow go 456 for our restoration projects. The bulk of the acreage is in Palo Alto. The other sites we 457 have are Los Altos, Byrne Preserve in Los Altos Hills which is just across the way, East 458 Palo Alto, and a little bit along San Francisquito in Menlo Park. Even if it's not in Palo 459 Alto, it's pretty much your direct neighbors. The 30 percent that aren't for restoration 460 projects are for farmers or for land managers or also for private citizens. When we do the 461 plant sales with the California Plant Society at Hidden Villa, we get a lot of homeowners 462 there, many of which are Palo Alto residents. If I were to guess at a percentage right now 463 that were going directly into Palo Alto sites, I'd probably say something on the order of 464 40 percent. 465 466 Commissioner Crommie: When you say 40 percent ... 467 468 Ms. Von Feldt: Of all the plants we grow. 469 470 Commissioner Crommie: ... of everything there. 471 472 Ms. Von Feldt: Yes. I'd have to look for the exact numbers, but that's about the right 473 scale. 474 475 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. At some point I think we'd all like to see more 476 information on that. I just want to point out, people probably realize this, when the land 477 was deeded to us, I think it was back in 1981, for conservation, we didn't have a nursery 478 there. My understanding is the Acterra nursery has been there about 10 years. Is that 479 right? 480 481 Mr. Anderson: A little less. 482 483 Commissioner Crommie: A little less. I think the original intent of this land was to have 484 more of an open space and not necessarily a developed area for a nursery. I'm really 485 interested in, as plans go forward, envisioning that area with and without the Acterra 486 nursery there. It's important for the visioning process to not assume that Acterra will be 487 there in the future. I know we have a good relationship with them, but I don't want to 488 limit the vision for that land. Personally I think it's shortsighted to do that with such an 489 amazing opportunity here. It could well be that we fold that operation into the space, but 490 I would hate to see it constraining visioning for that area. 491 492 Chair Hetterly: Any other comments or questions? 493 494 Commissioner Reckdahl: One follow up. Acterra still has a nursery down in the 495 Baylands? 496 497 APPROVED Approved Minutes 13 Mr. Anderson: No, that's not Acterra's. That's Save the Bay's. 498 499 Commissioner Reckdahl: Save the Bay, okay. The plants grown up in Foothills Park, 500 can they only be grown up in the hills? If we found some spot like the Baylands, would 501 you be able to grow the same plants there or would that not be possible? 502 503 Ms. Von Feldt: We could grow the plants wherever. Obviously a sunnier spot is easier 504 than a really shady spot. If it was down in the Baylands, that would be feasible as well. 505 There was some discussion about the Buckeye Creek Project, the CIP that I know is 506 deferred. We've also been pursuing other options for funding as well. Most recently I 507 did have a meeting with the US Fish and Wildlife Services. They're really interested in 508 devoting some funding to studying that site, because it is in alignment not only with 509 restoration since it's a steelhead stream, but also dealing with the sediment downstream. 510 That is something we are continuing to pursue. 511 512 Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 513 514 Peter Jensen: I would like to add that restoration of a property of like that is definitely 515 not the easiest thing. It fits well that the nursery does sit in that location, because the eyes 516 of those who are actually growing the plants or will be maintaining them are very close to 517 that location. For a long-term projection of the restoration itself, it behooves the site that 518 the Acterra site stay there just to help the restoration. The plants that they're growing will 519 probably be the only location where we could get those plant materials. I would consider 520 that in the long-run development of the site. Just because it's restored, doesn't mean 521 restored and then it's back to itself again. It will take decades probably to restore that 522 land. It's better to have those who are invested in that to be close and have their eyes on 523 it as much as possible. 524 525 Commissioner Reckdahl: We shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to get to the steady 526 state. Acterra is there; they're being useful. I don't see any reason to kick them off. Even 527 if down the road we don't want them there, I don't see any rush to get rid of them. 528 529 Council Member Schmid: Just a question from an earlier discussion. You mentioned 530 that within 100 feet of the Buckeye Creek you probably don't want any intense use. Yet 531 you say that the maintenance yard goes right up to the creek. 532 533 Mr. Anderson: The same is true with the Acterra nursery. It's right next to it. The 534 Municipal Code sections that I had pointed out to me, these are 18.40.140 Stream 535 Corridor Protection and 18.40.150, highlight a few limitations and there are exceptions, 536 like with permission from the Planning Department Head. It calls out a few things like 537 parking lots that shouldn't be adjacent to riparian areas. There were exceptions, and I 538 assume that's how the shop went in. Of course that went in some 30 years ago. The 539 APPROVED Approved Minutes 14 Acterra nursery is not in the same category as a parking lot, so I'm sure that's how it got 540 permission. I meant to call out that there were certain limitations. 541 542 Council Member Schmid: I guess one of the key stakeholders is the public, who has not 543 even been aware that they own the park. Maybe at some point having a weekend where 544 the public get in and look, you might get some good feedback. 545 546 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is there any legal issue of having the public go on the 7.7? It's 547 not parkland. There's no issues? 548 549 Commissioner Knopper: Once we dedicate it, it's parkland. It would make sense to have 550 a welcome to ... 551 552 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think it would be a very good idea. I'm just worried about the 553 details and the lawyers. 554 555 Council Member Schmid: Yes, security is important. 556 557 Chair Hetterly: That's a lot of information. Sounds like the next step is you'll be back to 558 talk to us about the survey conclusions and you'll identify what further constraints there 559 may be, and have a strategy perhaps for outreach. When do you think that might come 560 back to us? 561 562 Commissioner Knopper: Can we get back to you on that? 563 564 Chair Hetterly: Yep, you sure can. Are there any other comments or questions or should 565 we move on to the next? 566 567 Commissioner Crommie: I just had a point of clarification. I think you were getting at 568 what the next steps are for the ad hoc. I'm also interested in when we're going to do the 569 public outreach. Can you go into more detail about how you think that fits into the next 570 steps? 571 572 Mr. Anderson: My game plan would be convene with the Commissioners working on 573 this, lay out our timeline on when we could meet with the stakeholders. They really like 574 that concept, sit down with the stakeholders independently first, then pull into a group 575 where we send out invitations to all our open space-interested people. Publicly issue this 576 and hold community meetings. Something like that. Meet down at the site where we've 577 got staff hosting it, so people who have never been in there could, we did that at the 578 previous Commission meeting up at Foothills Park. There were people in attendance that 579 weren't on the Commission that we welcomed into the area. We could do the same as 580 long as we have staff present and I get to discuss it with the neighbors before, just to be 581 APPROVED Approved Minutes 15 fair. Even if that was preceding the ordinance making it dedicated parkland. The exact 582 timeline, I'm not quite sure yet. That would come after I convene with the ad hoc 583 committee and we figure that out. But yes, we'd meet with them, talk with the 584 stakeholders, hold a public community meeting onsite. That's what I'm envisioning. 585 586 Commissioner Crommie: What is the earliest you would imagine this could be approved 587 as parkland? Does the City Council have to vote on that? 588 589 Mr. Anderson: Yes. 590 591 Commissioner Crommie: So what is the earliest that would happen? 592 593 Mr. Anderson: Roughly it would be June 10th that we have the survey work completed. 594 That's if everything goes smoothly. It would go to the County for reading and analysis 595 for 20 days. We'd put together the paperwork. Director Betts and I would work on that 596 and we'd bring it to the next available Council meeting. 597 598 Mr. de Geus: August? 599 600 Mr. Anderson: Probably, to play it safe. Some of that's up in the air, but probably in 601 August. That, again, is our primary focus right now, so that'll be the first priority. Before 602 we start investigating too heavily in these other stakeholder meetings and things, my first 603 point of focus would be completing that dedication. 604 605 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. 606 607 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. 608 609 Emily Renzel: Thank you for letting us speak. We looked at the agenda and thought we 610 had time. Chair Hetterly and members of the Commission, I'm really pleased that the 611 City Council has initiated dedication of the 7.7 acres as part of Foothills Park in 612 accordance with the express wishes of the donor. I hope that you will recommend that 613 the Council proceed with this dedication immediately and that you will take a broad look 614 at how this 7.7 acres can best be integrated into Foothills Park. It seems to me that a 615 good starting point is to review the former leaser with John Arrillaga to see if it required 616 remediation for the damage caused by their use and occupancy for many years. It would 617 also be good to review the August 1, 2005 license agreement with Acterra to understand 618 how that 0.53-acre nursery relates to both the 7.7 acres and to Foothills Park. I believe 619 that the purpose of the agreement was to have the City and Acterra cooperate in the 620 preservation, protection and enhancement of the 7.7 acres. Acterra has been there nine 621 years now, so they should be able to report the results of their efforts on the 7.7 acres. 622 Going forward, the Parks Commission should through your planning for the 7.7 acres 623 APPROVED Approved Minutes 16 provide some guidance to staff and Acterra regarding necessary remediation and 624 enhancement of the parcel. It's really exciting to have this valuable addition to Foothills 625 Park. I would like to add a little aside. Do you guys not have minutes anymore? 626 627 Chair Hetterly: We do. We have verbatim minutes now. 628 629 Emily Renzel: Because on the website, it says agendas but it doesn't say agendas and ... 630 631 Chair Hetterly: It's in with the agendas. You have to go (crosstalk). 632 633 Emily Renzel: Well I clicked on the agendas and it didn't show. Anyway, I'll figure it 634 out. 635 636 Emily Renzel: Can I do the same? 637 638 Chair Hetterly: Yes. 639 640 Enid Pearson: Did you get my email that I sent you? 641 642 Enid Pearson: Okay. I'm never sure it goes through when you do stuff like that. I'm 643 asking you to please dedicate the 7.7 acres as soon as possible. It's been two months 644 since the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance. It's been 33 years since Lee 645 made the offer, and it's been 18 years since it could have been dedicated. We might say 646 the Palo Alto staff has been rather remiss. I would say, don't forget that this is public 647 land and that it belongs to the people, not any one group or person. If you give this 7.7 648 acres back to the people, you should hold hearings. It could be kind of fun. None of you 649 probably remember, but Palo Alto within the last 15 years was reprimanded by the grand 650 jury because Palo Alto was not seriously complying with the Charter Amendment, 651 Chapter 8, the park dedication ordinance. The Palo Alto City Manager responded very 652 positively and he said, "Oh, it won't happen again." Let's help Palo Alto do better here. 653 This is my whole file, only it's not really. There's a drawer. It's talking about the 7.7 654 acres and it includes the ordinance which was written 33 years ago when Palo Alto 655 accepted the 7.7 acres from the Lee Trust. I think Emily has said other things that I 656 would have said too. I agree with her there. I remember when we all toured the 7.7 657 acres. It wasn't very clear that any renovation of that land had occurred at all. It was 658 pretty compact and hard. I think in the nine years we should have a little more progress 659 than we saw there. Dedicate away. Thank you. 660 661 APPROVED Approved Minutes 17 3. Public Outreach Plan for Keeping the Public Informed about Parks and 662 Recreation Commission Discussion and Action Items. 663 664 Daren Anderson: Good evening, Daren Anderson again. The concept of putting out a 665 policy for how we would conduct public outreach stemmed from our retreat. When we 666 last met we discussed this idea. Are we doing it consistently and are we reaching the 667 stakeholders and necessary parties that should be involved when we hold public 668 meetings? A couple of people showed up at a Commission meeting and said, "Hey, wait 669 a minute. I never heard about this. Why wasn't I notified?" That spurred this idea, if we 670 should formalize this, make it universal, and make sure we're all applying it for every 671 project the same. That way we could each respond whenever that comes up by saying, 672 "This is what staff did. We sent out these mailers. We did these emails. If you want to 673 get on this list, this is how you do it." Rather than being informal, we started this. I put 674 together a draft that was circulated to the Commission. I believe you have a copy. With 675 just some general ideas, a really rough draft. Then met with Commissioner Lauing and 676 Chief Communication Officer Claudia Keith to suss this out and see if we could fine tune 677 it. We made some edits and the edits were incorporated in the draft that you saw. Again, 678 the real idea is to have a formula that we can use time and time again and use it 679 universally. When Commissioner Lauing and I checked in with Claudia to see if she had 680 any additions that she wanted to make, she briefed us that she had a social media team 681 coming on board soon and that they might have some new information that would affect 682 this. When I reached out to her again, she said that now they're working on a larger 683 citywide strategy that will include how we reach out to residents at the local level. She 684 suggested that we could have some general outreach strategies and we could add some 685 details later. I didn't fully get the scope of what she's putting together, but I envision it 686 will be citywide. This document was really intended to be CSD-wide. I still think it's 687 probably a good idea. I have no idea how long they're going to take to put something out. 688 I don't see why we couldn't have a CSD policy that might be able to fit in and mesh with 689 whatever broader citywide scope we're going to have. I still think there's value in 690 gathering your feedback on this draft, but knowing there might be a larger City effort to 691 do something very similar that may affect how this is implemented and finalized. 692 693 Chair Hetterly: Go ahead, Commissioner Lauing. 694 695 Vice Chair Lauing: I'm just going to add a couple of points from the meeting. Daren 696 stepped up as usual and did great work on putting a draft together. We did meet and do 697 some edits. One thing I want to point out is in here we talk about large and/or significant 698 community interest projects as opposed to anything else and didn't bother to go into a lot 699 of wordsmithing to define that. If eventually we need to do that, we'll do that. 700 Conceptually, there's big ones and there's small ones. The small ones aren't that big a 701 deal. Just pointing that out at this point. Very importantly and without any edit from me 702 as a Commissioner, on the second page it's noted in the middle "an important aspect of 703 APPROVED Approved Minutes 18 the staff's role at community meetings is to understand and record public comment so that 704 staff can transmit community input to decision makers." That's a critical statement of 705 what the City is signing up to do in these kinds of meetings. Tonight is literally just to 706 get any immediate feedback on this draft. 707 708 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner comments? Commissioner Knopper. 709 710 Commissioner Knopper: Thank you for doing this. It's really great to put on paper a 711 policy, so there's a consistent, concise methodology behind every means of 712 communication with regard to projects that we would be working on. I like the idea that 713 the City is thinking about it on a broader approach, so that we certainly would integrate 714 into their system, so it is very consistent, so you don't have people feeling like they aren't 715 communicated to in a certain way, especially neighborhood by neighborhood. The only 716 comment that I would say, modes of outreach, maybe add a bullet point, "when 717 appropriate in person intercepts." When we had the MIG meeting, I really loved the idea 718 of it when it's appropriate and it makes sense. We certainly do enough wonderful 719 community events that having people out there with clipboards and people that might be 720 difficult to reach otherwise. At the chili cook off, they're all there. I wanted to say thank 721 you for putting all of this good thinking behind it. 722 723 Chair Hetterly: Rob. 724 725 Rob de Geus: Thank you Daren for working on this. I think it's great too. One thing that 726 I get stuck on is that CSD isn't always in control of the project or the public outreach. 727 Daren, we haven't talked about this yet. As I was reading this over the weekend, I felt 728 that Public Works and Planning and Community Services ought to adopt the same policy. 729 At times we've been caught by surprise and maybe Public Works has too if we're doing 730 an outreach, particularly related to parks and recreation. Because both those departments 731 work on these items, they ought to be included in the policy. 732 733 Chair Hetterly: That makes a ton of sense. Commissioner Ashlund. 734 735 Commissioner Ashlund: I have a number of questions/comments. I'm not sure how you 736 want to do it. If I should just go through them and we can talk about them now or talk 737 about them later. 738 739 Chair Hetterly: We have about 15 minutes left for this topic. Why don't you do all your 740 stuff and we'll just (crosstalk) make sure everybody gets a chance (crosstalk). 741 742 Commissioner Ashlund: Okay, great. I'll just put it out there. Starting with public 743 outreach as the name of the policy, it seemed like the term of community outreach and 744 public outreach were somewhat used interchangeably. I wasn't sure if one was more 745 APPROVED Approved Minutes 19 correct than the other or if we should be consistent there. That was my first question that 746 I wasn't sure about. In the first paragraph of the background section on the second 747 sentence, it says "to encourage residents to follow development activity in their 748 neighborhoods and actively participate." I really feel that residents don't just want to 749 follow activity in their neighborhoods, but also the City as a whole is of interest to the 750 residents of Palo Alto. 751 752 Mr. Anderson: Can you help me? I missed that, on which paragraph you're on. 753 754 Commissioner Ashlund: The very first paragraph of the background section, the second 755 line of it is basically about following development activity in neighborhoods. 756 757 Mr. Anderson: "And broader community"? 758 759 Commissioner Ashlund: Or "and City as a whole" would ... 760 761 Vice Chair Lauing: You understand where that's coming from, which is we're not going 762 to send out notices to everybody about every project that's in the neighborhood. 763 764 Commissioner Ashlund: Sure. So the City is committed to providing information and 765 opportunities to encourage residents to follow development activity in their 766 neighborhoods. For example, if something is impacting a park where you play soccer but 767 it's not where you live or impacting Downtown or impacting where you frequently 768 grocery shop, even our public schools, three of them are lottery schools, so people drive 769 to them. There's a lot of things that aren't necessarily where you live in your 770 neighborhood that residents would be very interested in following. That just seemed to 771 be lacking to me. I'm just throwing it out there, that we want to encourage residents to 772 follow development as a whole as opposed to just neighborhood developments. Take it 773 as you will. This is the second question I have. In the second paragraph, dissemination 774 of information related to development activity and to encourage early and frequent 775 communication between City and staff. The question I had was are we encouraging 776 communication alone as opposed to communication and response. I wasn't sure if that 777 was something where when the public puts out communication, would we indicate a 778 response to the communication or do we just gather it and there's no follow-up on that. 779 780 Mr. Anderson: My intent was the communication occurs on the two-way platform at a 781 community meeting. That's where the opportunity presents itself, more so than even a 782 Commission meeting where there's not a lot of open dialog. Whereas this opens that 783 window as well as puts them into contact with the point person. If I'm leading the 784 restoration at Scott Park and we have a public meeting, now they have a person, the 785 name, a phone number, and an email to go directly to the source. That's where I was 786 coming at with that line. If you think it should be edited, I'm (crosstalk). 787 APPROVED Approved Minutes 20 788 Commissioner Ashlund: I feel strongly about that. That makes sense. 789 790 Mr. de Geus: I like the word "dialog." That'd be good to use. 791 792 Commissioner Crommie: You can add in "and dialog." 793 794 Mr. Anderson: After "frequent communication?" Where are we? Encourage early and 795 ... 796 797 Mr. de Geus: Somewhere in there. Wherever you think it fits. 798 799 Commissioner Crommie: Yes, "communication and dialog." 800 801 Chair Hetterly: Let's try to do a little less wordsmithing. If we can, just get the concepts 802 out. I'm worried about the time. 803 804 Commissioner Ashlund: Okay. Third paragraph second sentence, it says, "meet the 805 objectives of improving communication." I'm not sure if it belongs here, but it seemed a 806 little vague to me when we talk about improving communication without any indication 807 of measurement. If objectives aren’t quantified, I'm not sure how we can meet them. 808 The ending of that sentence, this phrase is used more than once. It says, "provide the 809 community with as much advance notification as possible." No, this actually says, 810 "advanced notification of proposed projects," which is okay. Later it says, "advanced 811 notification of community meetings." If a resident is told that six months from now there 812 will be a meeting, but they don't hear a reminder a week or two before, it's not necessarily 813 as much. It might be something along the lines of "as much advance notification and 814 timely reminders" or something along those lines. If that makes sense. Under goals and 815 objectives, it begins again with public outreach and this is where I got into is there a 816 difference between public outreach and community outreach. Those phrases go back and 817 forth. It says, "with the intent of involving interested parties." My suggestion would be 818 to add "informing and involving." Sometimes you don't know if you want to be involved 819 if you aren't informed about what the issue is. On the tail-end of that paragraph, it says, 820 "a timely review of projects through a predictable process." I wasn't sure if we would 821 want to say "predictable and transparent," or something like that. That was a suggestion. 822 That one I already said. The last sentence of the purpose and intent paragraph under 823 community meetings. It says, "provide stakeholders opportunity to be informed about 824 decisions that may affect them." I would suggest inserting the words "informed about 825 and contribute to decisions that may affect them." The next paragraph and maybe this is, 826 Ed, what you were referring to when it begins with "large and/or significant"... 827 828 Vice Chair Lauing: Correct. 829 APPROVED Approved Minutes 21 830 Commissioner Ashlund: ... that it wasn't defined. So we're leaving that until later or 831 we're assuming that "large" is clear? 832 833 Vice Chair Lauing: That's a valid debate is what I was saying. 834 835 Mr. Anderson: It's nice to have some flexibility there. If staff is reasonably confident 836 through our interactions with the public that a particular program would not benefit or 837 require a public meeting, it's nice to have the flexibility not to just say, "Hey, it doesn't 838 matter. You're holding one. That's what the policy says." So building in a little 839 flexibility and staff discretion is advantageous. 840 841 Commissioner Ashlund: Okay. There's something that read a little strange in that 842 sentence to me, where it said "large and/or significant community interest projects or 843 proposals." It didn't seem that the projects themselves were community interest projects 844 as opposed to people from the community may be interested, but the projects themselves 845 were not necessarily community interest projects. Projects are just projects. That phrase 846 seemed to be awkward. 847 848 Chair Hetterly: Excuse me just a second, Stacey. These seem to be a lot of word choice 849 and meaning edits. I think it might be helpful if you could email those to Daren. It's not 850 something we need to discuss here at the table, but if you have broader questions or 851 comments about the gist of the document. I know it's going to be revised again and will 852 come back before us again after the break. 853 854 Commissioner Ashlund: I think I've already hit at the things that are the gist. I'll be glad 855 to email the rest. 856 857 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Commissioner Reckdahl. 858 859 Commissioner Reckdahl: The 600-foot radius seems very small to me. Parks may be a 860 mile apart which means there's a lot of people that are going to be a half-mile away from 861 the nearest park. I don't want to kill trees with postcards, but I would want to make that 862 radius bigger and/or have a citywide email list. Whenever there's anything to do with 863 parks, I would love to get a notice in my inbox. As Stacey mentioned, people go around 864 whether they're playing soccer or dropping their kids off at school. They quite often use 865 parks all over town. It'd be nice just to have a park mailing list and email is cheap. 866 867 Mr. Anderson: You're absolutely right. The 600 is an absolute minimum. Typically we 868 double that. Typically it's 1,200. I did a little research to what other municipalities were 869 doing and that was their minimum. I just borrowed it. We could certainly increase that. 870 APPROVED Approved Minutes 22 What we actually do is probably closer to the minimum of 1,200, so we could easily 871 change that if you'd like. 872 873 Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm not within 1,200 feet of any park, so I don't get notified of 874 any park activity at all. 875 876 Mr. Anderson: Also in this I believe is that suggestion. At least Commissioner Lauing 877 and I discussed it extensively that the email list for people who want to be notified is 878 really the first priority. That would be the optimum mode of communication for us. 879 880 Vice Chair Lauing: That's in there at the top of page (crosstalk). 881 882 Commissioner Knopper: That might work with what you're saying, Keith. The 883 intercepts are soliciting people to opt into email. We're not talking about a specific issue, 884 but we're going out to the users of the parks, the constituents, and saying, "Hey, we want 885 to talk to you and we'll only send you pertinent information. We won't spam you with 886 needless stuff." Sorry for interrupting. 887 888 Mr. Anderson: This very meeting could very well serve as something that we have every 889 time. If you came to a Commission meeting and you wanted to sign up for that parks 890 email distribution list, you could opt in here. That might be a good option too. We'll 891 continue to look for those opportunities as staff. 892 893 Commissioner Reckdahl: That's a good idea. The neighborhood associations have email 894 lists already, so I would reach out to any neighborhood association nearby and let them 895 broadcast it. Maybe people don't want to be on every park, but they want the 896 neighborhood parks. That'd be a way of just getting the neighborhood informed. Thank 897 you. 898 899 Mr. Anderson: Commissioner Lauing, we discussed that with Claudia. Do you recall her 900 comments on that? 901 902 Vice Chair Lauing: (inaudible) 903 904 Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh, yes, very good. Thank you. 905 906 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 907 908 Commissioner Crommie: I'm really glad you're doing this. As I was reading this, I had 909 trouble knowing what we do now versus what you're proposing. Is there something that 910 you can highlight in here what is new in here? 911 912 APPROVED Approved Minutes 23 Mr. Anderson: Yes, thank you. Good question. We don't have an email distribution list. 913 That would be brand new. We do it per project. We have a public meeting, people sign 914 up as they come to the meeting, and now I email that group for that project. That's the 915 end of it. That's been a source of contention for a lot of people, saying, "Hey, I came to 916 such-and-such meeting and I never heard back regarding everything else that's going on 917 in the City." We said, "Okay, this is what we need then. We need a parks-wide email 918 distribution list." That'd be new. We already do website updates. We send out the mail 919 postcards. We do onsite meetings and notices. We put signs up in the park. Most of 920 these are already happening. Social media will be a newer element. Typically we have 921 not added anything to Facebook. Notice in the paper, I believe that's only been very, very 922 large projects. I haven't participated in one where we needed to do that. That will 923 certainly be a new one. 924 925 Commissioner Crommie: That sounds really good. Email, the top one under modes of 926 outreach is really critical and I'm glad you're going in that direction. What will the sign-927 up procedure be like? How are we going to advertise this so people know they can sign 928 up? It seems very important how you present this so that people know what they're 929 signing up for. 930 931 Mr. Anderson: Right. What I envisioned was a document that talks about a summary of 932 what this means, you're signing up and what this means. You're going to get email 933 notifications for every park renovation. You're going to get emails for new park policies. 934 There will be four examples. The no smoking in parks would be of interest. The no 935 feeding of wildlife. All those things that aren't necessarily a park-specific one, you'd still 936 get on the list. I'd have a bunch of examples and then an opportunity to write in your 937 name and email and other contact information. 938 939 Commissioner Crommie: Are you going to float the idea through the neighborhood 940 association list and advertise this new modality for communication? 941 942 Mr. Anderson: Yes. 943 944 Commissioner Crommie: That sounds really good. I also have heard on occasion certain 945 of our stakeholders don't feel like they're followed up with. A stakeholder might not get 946 notice of an important topic. Does this policy have to do with anything specific to 947 stakeholders? It's a bit of a mysterious process to me how you decide who the 948 stakeholders are. Can there be a place on our website where people can sign up as a 949 stakeholder? I don't really know how that should work. 950 951 Mr. Anderson: It's been one of those things that's a relationship. I've interacted with 952 people over a number of years. They've called me many times. They've offered insight 953 and become a partner, if you will. It's a long-term commitment to a park or something. 954 APPROVED Approved Minutes 24 Those are typically the people I've reached out to, because I know they've got a sustained 955 interest in a particular project or area. Those have been the ones. We have had opt-in 956 ones in the past. It just hasn't been universal. For example, there's a Friends of the 957 Baylands Nature Preserve, and there's 25 people or so on that. I think you're probably 958 one of them. I've had people stop in and ask to be added, so we add them to the list. It's 959 a mix. People can opt in certainly by talking to me. If I know someone comes to all the 960 meetings and is really interested, I reach out to them. It goes both ways. 961 962 Commissioner Crommie: It sounds like an art. It sounds like you spend a lot of time on 963 it, which I appreciate. As you're working through this, if there's any way to codify that a 964 little bit, it might be interesting to present it to us up to your decision on that. It might be 965 interesting. I had one more question; it just slipped my mind. I might come back to it at 966 the very end. 967 968 Chair Hetterly: I have a couple of questions about the email list also. It's really 969 important that we actively invite people to opt in, don't just wait and hope that it happens. 970 That includes all the groups that have been mentioned before. I wonder if there's any 971 way, and I don't know technologically or labor intensiveness, to have a check box so 972 when you opt in, I'm interested in projects and announcements about parks or just about 973 Midtown neighborhood or just about recreation. That might create a tree, so we're not 974 blasting everybody with all of the information, but some people who want to just have 975 one can just get the one. I don't know how that works. 976 977 Mr. Anderson: That's an excellent point. I think you're right, that probably would be the 978 Cadillac of email outreach versions. Unfortunately, I don't have the Cadillac. There 979 were fancier options and maybe Claudia Keith, who I mentioned earlier was working on 980 a bigger, citywide endeavor for outreach, might have that Cadillac. This looks more like 981 me emailing that group every time to parcel it out per neighborhood. I get a lot of that. 982 "I'm only interested in Scott. I don't want to hear about the other stuff." I thought, "Oh, 983 that makes it so difficult. I've got to maintain all these subgroups." It was challenging, 984 but not impossible. It's going to be a very heavy staff load if we implement it, at least 985 right now, under that format. It's certainly something we could. Ms. Keith had 986 mentioned a few programs that do this kind of public outreach for you. I think it has a 987 higher level of discerning what you want to be involved in and selecting boxes and 988 things. That's an option for the future, but right now probably not. 989 990 Chair Hetterly: My other question is probably also a Cadillac question. Is there any way 991 to notify the subscribers of action by other groups, Planning and Transportation, Council, 992 etc., on issues related to stuff that we've already blasted them emails about? That's 993 something to think about. Finally, it would be great to also be able to email out the 994 Commission packet each month when it goes on the website. I don't know if that's 995 something all these groups would be interested in. They'd know what we're talking about 996 APPROVED Approved Minutes 25 and they'd have the packet to understand what the issue is. If they're interested, we might 997 get more people to come and participate in our meetings, which is a useful forum. If they 998 know about it and come. That was it for me. Commissioner Crommie. 999 1000 Commissioner Crommie: I was wondering, Daren, if you'd be willing to give us an 1001 example where you thought the outreach worked really well. 1002 1003 Mr. Anderson: Commissioner Lauing and I discussed some of those that have been 1004 beneficial. Perhaps the Lytton Noise Ordinance. That one's a good highlight of how the 1005 stakeholder system worked. I had a group of stakeholders representing the musicians and 1006 a group of stakeholders representing the surrounding business owners. That was 1007 excellent in that regard. It did not end up being one of those broadcast leaflets, because it 1008 was the downtown area and not a lot of residents in and around there. That was a good 1009 example of the stakeholder process working well. We identified those through a 1010 combination of going out there and talking to the musicians, so being onsite with that 1011 clipboard and saying, "Hey, I see you jamming out here. Are you interested? Would you 1012 be willing to work with us?" Working through the bid is how I found the other group of 1013 stakeholders, people who owned businesses who were interested. Other ones that have 1014 worked well where we did traditional outreach. Perhaps the last time we held an El 1015 Camino meeting when we had the outreach in terms of finding out how the lighting 1016 would impact people. We did a lot of sending out of everything. We emailed. We went 1017 down to the residents and talked to the residents at the condominiums that were going to 1018 be impacted by the light shining through. We didn't have a big turnout to the actual 1019 meeting itself, but I didn't have anyone come back and say, "Hey, wait a minute. I never 1020 heard about this," or "I heard after the fact." We had done our homework and we did 1021 enough outreach that people had an opportunity. We had field folks and they knew. 1022 They had all been emailed. They'd all been talked to. I think that was one where it 1023 worked well even though the end result wasn't a massive community meeting. 1024 1025 Peter Jensen: Rinconada works well because it's based on a stakeholder structure. We 1026 know the people have a vested interest in it. They are then tied to the project and they 1027 promote that project for their group, so their group turns out. It becomes a way to have 1028 outside groups promoting the meetings. 1029 1030 (inaudible) 1031 1032 Mr. Jensen: Right, exactly. That definitely helps out in that respect. From the Public 1033 Works standpoint, we also feel that the 600-feet radius is a very tiny area. For the 1034 projects that we've worked on, including Pardee Park, Monroe Park, we have community 1035 meetings tomorrow for King Plaza and for Bowden Park. We usually send between 1036 1,200 and 1,500 postcards out. We usually send an email to the specific PAN 1037 neighborhood to allow that information to go out. It's also advertised twice before the 1038 APPROVED Approved Minutes 26 meeting in the newspaper. That gives a broad blanket out to the public to attend the 1039 meetings. Most of the time the meetings aren't well attended. For tomorrow's Bowden 1040 Park meeting, I believe we sent out about 1,400 postcards to the areas around there. I 1041 would guesstimate that maybe 20 people will come. It could be as few as 5 or 3. It is 1042 tough to get outreach going and to attract people to the events. 1043 1044 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think it would be worthwhile at the event to ask people how 1045 they heard about this. That might be good anecdotal evidence to see what's being 1046 effective. 1047 1048 Mr. Anderson: I just had one comment on the Rinconada meetings. That's an excellent 1049 example of incredibly robust outreach. There was a lot of community outreach and a lot 1050 of community meetings held for this Master Plan. Still people came up after the fact and 1051 said, "Hey, I never heard about," "I never got a chance." Even under the most robust one, 1052 that's still a problem. No matter how perfect this policy becomes, it's something to be 1053 cognizant of. 1054 1055 Vice Chair Lauing: That's very fair and needs to be taken into consideration here. 1056 1057 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. 1058 1059 Chair Hetterly: What are our next steps here then? 1060 1061 Mr. Anderson: I can sit down with Commissioner Lauing, if you're available, and we can 1062 hash through this and add these edits and take any emails that come forward with this. 1063 Come back to you with a revised draft. I'll probably review it with Planning. Public 1064 Works has already seen this copy and weighed in. I'll give them a second review and see 1065 if we can get them to add their thoughts and maybe even adopt it as policy for them as 1066 well. 1067 1068 Vice Chair Lauing: And connect with Claudia. 1069 1070 Chair Hetterly: And then you'll come back to us? 1071 1072 Vice Chair Lauing: Yep. 1073 1074 Chair Hetterly: Do you think in June, July? 1075 1076 Mr. Anderson: June or July. 1077 1078 Chair Hetterly: Great, thank you. 1079 1080 APPROVED Approved Minutes 27 4. Recommend to Council a Park Improvement Ordinance for Monroe Park. 1081 (Formerly Item Number 2) 1082 1083 Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 1084 City of Palo Alto. I don't really have a lot to expand on as far as a presentation. The plan 1085 is the same from when we looked at it before. This is to approve the Park Improvement 1086 Ordinance. My update from our last meeting when we did look at the plan is I have been 1087 working with residents from a new development who would liked to have more amenities 1088 placed in the playground. We've been working on an upgrade to a playhouse. Last week 1089 we selected the playhouse, so I sent them a few options. They've selected a playhouse. It 1090 has more interactive paneling to play with. The playground is considered to be a tot-lot 1091 playground for ages 2-5. That dictates the playhouse structure itself. There was still 1092 some wanting of a slide and a climbing apparatus. Due to fall zones and the size of the 1093 area, that is not possible. I think we came up with a good compromise and got a nice 1094 playhouse structure that adds more imaginative play to that space. Other than that, the 1095 park design is what you saw before. We are requesting the Commission adopt the Park 1096 Improvement Ordinance. 1097 1098 Chair Hetterly: Thanks. Do we have any questions or comments? This is basically what 1099 we saw before. I think we largely supported it. Any comments? 1100 1101 Commissioner Crommie: I live in this neighborhood and people were pleased by this 1102 plan. People came up to me to ask if the canopy is going to be replaced. We had ten 1103 very mature beech trees that have been cut down in this park. People are very interested 1104 in having that canopy be replaced. I've talked to Peter about the equivalence in the plan, 1105 and they seem to be good. It's going to take a lot of years, we all know. The only 1106 comment I had was on the choice of asphalt versus concrete walkway. I couldn't 1107 remember how that had been framed, if one is better than the other. There's this idea to 1108 make it blend more, because it is such a small area, to not have an eyesore jumping out, 1109 to have that pastoral experience in the park as much as possible. 1110 1111 Mr. Jensen: Right. The actual choice between the use of asphalt or concrete will mostly 1112 be dictated by the bids that we get back. Asphalt has normally been used in parks 1113 because it is more cost effective than concrete. However, it is not as long-lived as 1114 concrete. It has a tendency to deteriorate especially since it's so small and doesn't have an 1115 edge to it. The pricing that we have been getting for recent parks, Eleanor Pardee Park is 1116 an example. That was actually in the plan as an asphalt pathway to replace the existing 1117 asphalt. In Monroe Park, which is smaller than Eleanor Pardee Park, the cost for doing 1118 the asphalt compared to the concrete came out to be pretty much the same. That's why 1119 we went towards using concrete, because the material lasts longer and requires less 1120 maintenance over time. When the construction package is put together, it's going to have 1121 that option as well. It will be optioned as asphalt which they'll bid on. There will be a 1122 APPROVED Approved Minutes 28 bid alternate for them to supply numbers for a concrete pathway. However the prices 1123 dictate it, we'll decide on exactly what that material is going to be. 1124 1125 Commissioner Reckdahl: There's a lot of tree roots under the sidewalk. Is asphalt 1126 thinner than concrete or is it roughly the same surface preparation? How far do you have 1127 to dig down? 1128 1129 Mr. Jensen: The same preparation goes along with both materials as far as a sub-base 1130 goes. It has to have a sub-base of material between 6 inches and 4 inches thick of 1131 compacted base rock. Then the concrete or asphalt is laid on top of that. Concrete again 1132 has structural steel inside of it, which controls root growth and the pushing of it. If the 1133 roots do get big enough, the concrete will break and move around, but not as much as 1134 asphalt. Asphalt is a much softer material. The pathway is in close proximity to redwood 1135 trees, which have a shallow root system, but not large-scale roots that break concrete. I'm 1136 confident in either material. If the price does come out favorable towards concrete, we 1137 would go in that direction. 1138 1139 Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 1140 1141 Chair Hetterly: Do I have a motion? Commissioner Crommie. 1142 1143 Commissioner Crommie: Just one more comment. The tree that is farthest to the south 1144 end of the pathway, it isn't growing straight. We are just a little bit concerned in the 1145 neighborhood that some of the shade from the redwoods was blocking it. We wanted to 1146 report that. 1147 1148 Mr. Jensen: I can discuss that with the Urban Forester, and we can make sure that it's 1149 staked properly so it will grow straight. Beech trees are known to grow fairly straight, so 1150 it should be growing straight up. 1151 1152 Commissioner Crommie: Thanks. 1153 1154 Chair Hetterly: This is an action item to recommend to Council a Park Improvement 1155 Ordinance for Monroe Park. Do I have a motion? 1156 1157 Vice Chair Lauing: (inaudible) 1158 1159 Commissioner Crommie: I'll move that we approve this park plan for Monroe Park. 1160 1161 Commissioner Knopper: I'll second the motion. 1162 1163 APPROVED Approved Minutes 29 MOTION: Commissioner Crommie moved and Commissioner Knopper seconded that 1164 the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council a Park 1165 Improvement Ordinance for Monroe Park. 1166 1167 Chair Hetterly: All in favor. That's unanimous. 1168 1169 MOTION PASSED: 6-0 1170 1171 Chair Hetterly: Thank you, Peter. 1172 1173 5. Update on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master 1174 Plan. (Formerly Item Number 4) 1175 1176 Chair Hetterly: The one page in your packet is just an updated version of the one we 1177 talked about at our last meeting, incorporating everybody's comments. 1178 1179 Peter Jensen: Good evening again. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the City of 1180 Palo Alto, here to give you an update on the Parks Master Plan and what is taking place 1181 with that. Right now we're in the segment or phase of the Plan where the consultant has 1182 done a lot of the on-ground park tours, received from us all our information, the 1183 Comprehensive Plan, all City documents that affect or dictate how we use open space and 1184 our programs. They're now going through that information and breaking it apart to 1185 understand that better and then move to the phase where we can start putting together 1186 prioritizations. Basically the consultant is working on that information. When we get 1187 that information, they'll be coming back to the Commission in July to give a presentation 1188 on their findings and talk more about community meetings. The next step is community 1189 outreach. I have passed out a tentative schedule. We're working through it with the 1190 consultant to confirm all dates. It gives you a rough idea of what we're looking at as far 1191 as meetings go. It also has stakeholder meetings and Park and Recreation Commission 1192 meetings and City Council meetings. It gives a good run down of all meetings. Staff 1193 meetings aren't included in that, but it is another phase of this that is part of the list. This 1194 gives you a good rundown of what we're going to do. Those community meetings are 1195 coming up this summer, starting in August. The most pressing one with the stakeholder 1196 group will be at the end of June. Those of you on the ad hoc/stakeholder groups list will 1197 be getting a invitation very shortly. The invitation is going out to the stakeholder groups 1198 pretty soon to kick that off. The other thing that we're working on, that I handed out, is 1199 the rough template for the webpage. The webpage will coincide with the community 1200 outreach process. We'd like to get this webpage up in the next three to four weeks. 1201 We're using an outside consultant to do that. We feel that this project is large-scale and is 1202 lasting long enough that a more dynamic and aesthetically appealing webpage is 1203 necessary. I passed around an example of what that's going to look like. I also have the 1204 sample, which we can look at right now, of the Mapita aspect of the webpage, the 1205 APPROVED Approved Minutes 30 interactive part of the webpage that allows community members to access the Mapita site 1206 and give information about parks they like, things they don't like, and identify it on a 1207 plan. As you can see on the screen, this is the opening page. It's asking, "Which parks do 1208 you visit in Palo Alto?" Pressing on that allows you to maneuver this green dot around. 1209 Let' just say that Hoover Park was selected. It then asks you a few questions about that. 1210 How would you rate the overall quality of the park? You can easily move the slider 1211 around and set that. How do you usually get there? It offers these options. This helps to 1212 identify the parks that people are using, their proximity, how they're getting there, and 1213 gets them into the phase where they're interactive with this. As it goes on here ... 1214 1215 Rob de Geus: Select your favorite park (inaudible). 1216 1217 Mr. Jensen: You can also select your favorite park which may not be the one you visit 1218 the most or the one that's closest to you. It goes through those same questions as well. It 1219 get you into other questions as you continue down the line and becomes a small survey. 1220 It asks multiple questions. How do you usually get there? Are there specific problems at 1221 this park? Do you have ideas of improvement of this park? The next page is asking you 1222 for places that you like. That doesn't have to be specific to a park. It could be a place in 1223 Palo Alto that you like. There's an opportunity to insert information about parks or 1224 problems and opportunities associated with our park system. There's a question about 1225 having any barriers. If there are constraints to you moving to a park or getting to a park, 1226 there's information about that as well, so we can resolve that as part of the Master Plan 1227 process. It then gets into survey questions, where it asks demographic questions while 1228 you're filling out this aspect of it, all pertinent information to extract how the community 1229 is using the park. It provides the opportunity to add feedback not associated to a specific 1230 question. Mapita just came online because they've been working on the maps to get it all 1231 correct. I will send the link to Rob this week, and he'll send it to you. You guys can go 1232 through it. If you have any further questions or think of things that can be added to it. 1233 This specifically is not the survey. There will be a survey independent of this. This is 1234 more to get site-specific information and to be more interactive on the webpage. When 1235 people go there, they will have something to do. It is much more dynamic that way. This 1236 could also be a good tool that we could use later on, even past the Master Plan stage. 1237 Having this as part of the Parks and Rec Commission's webpage would allow people to 1238 provide further comment. It seems to be very easy and something we could use in the 1239 future. Those are the basic things being worked on right now. As far as the schedule 1240 goes, the consultant will come and present all the things they're working on in July. I 1241 know that there will be some conversation tonight about if you are going to take a 1242 summer hiatus. We are flexible in that conversation. If you decide to take July off, then 1243 we can do it in August or vice versa. I also wanted to put that out there. I will take any 1244 questions that you guys may have right now. 1245 1246 APPROVED Approved Minutes 31 Chair Hetterly: Thanks. Do we have any questions or comments? Commissioner 1247 Ashlund. 1248 1249 Commissioner Ashlund: Peter, is there any indication, I didn't see anything on there, can 1250 they add anything like an asterisk to indicate which questions are required or not? 1251 Sometimes people want to skip a gender or demographic question like that or even have a 1252 third option that said "decline to state" or something like that? 1253 1254 Mr. Jensen: None of the answers are required to be filled out for you to proceed to the 1255 next phase. If you do decide not to answer or if you only wanted to answer your favorite 1256 park and that was as far as you wanted to go, then it would be your prerogative to do that. 1257 1258 Commissioner Ashlund: Great, thanks. 1259 1260 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Reckdahl.. 1261 1262 Commissioner Reckdahl: Are the standard questions going to include communication 1263 preferences? Do you want to sign up for the email here? How do you want to get in 1264 contact if a park is being ... 1265 1266 Mr. Jensen: To go along with outreach that Mr. Anderson was talking about earlier, this 1267 is a prime opportunity to start building the email list that we would like to use. You will 1268 be able to sign up on the webpage itself. We'll be taking all the email addresses from 1269 those that participate in community meetings or the intercept groups. That will be a 1270 function of this process as we go along, building a mailing list composed of those truly 1271 concerned about parks. 1272 1273 Commissioner Reckdahl: From a communications standpoint, is there any desire to have 1274 a Twitter feed or a Facebook page and other "not old fogey" ways of communicating. 1275 1276 Mr. Jensen: I think Daren touched on it in the previous agenda item. Claudia Keith, our 1277 new public outreach person, has now a group looking at the social outreach aspect. We 1278 are going to have a conversation with her next week about other avenues to use, Twitter, 1279 Facebook and those things, and how they can be linked to this and all incorporated 1280 together. I imagine that will be an aspect that will link back to this page as well. 1281 1282 Mr. de Geus: We do have a recreation Facebook page that's pretty popular. We have a 1283 parks Facebook page. We have a Twitter feed at open space rangers that gets a lot of 1284 activity. Aquatics has a Twitter feed as well. We'll use all of those to get people to 1285 access this survey. 1286 1287 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 1288 APPROVED Approved Minutes 32 1289 Commissioner Crommie: Just to keep all of our surveying clear, what are we naming this 1290 survey that you went over today? 1291 1292 Mr. Jensen: This is Mapita. 1293 1294 Commissioner Crommie: It's not on our list. Is it on our list? 1295 1296 Mr. Jensen: No, it's not. Not on that specific list of dates. No, it is not. 1297 1298 Commissioner Crommie: It's called Mapita because that's the software it's using? 1299 1300 Mr. Jensen: Exactly. I think it's based more on a map navigational system, so that's the 1301 name they decided to give it. 1302 1303 Commissioner Crommie: It's really important on any survey to ask people what they 1304 like. I will email you separately once you send it to me. I just thought I would say it 1305 publicly. It's really important that people don't only get to talk about issues, problems, 1306 but we really need a database of what people like. Thank you for sending that to us. It'll 1307 be fun. We should expect that in the next month? 1308 1309 Mr. Jensen: No, in the next few days. 1310 1311 Commissioner Crommie: Next few days, okay. Thank you. 1312 1313 Chair Hetterly: Any questions? Yes, Council Member Schmid. 1314 1315 Council Member Schmid: If I could just put a plea in for your schedule. You say 1316 someone's asking for a meeting with the Council in the fall, and you're not sure you want 1317 to do that, what you'll have, and so on. The Council is involved in the update of the 1318 Comp Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and their deadline is the same as yours. Now it seems 1319 to me if a Master Plan has some relevance to the Comp Plan, the Comp Plan's been 1320 grappling with issues like size of the City, land use, density, congestion, funding sources. 1321 Parks and open space has to be part of that thinking process. I think if you could have 1322 some intersection between the Comprehensive Plan and your Master Plan, it would be so 1323 valuable for both sides. It doesn't have to be "oh, here's what it is." But maybe it's "here 1324 are the three big issues we're grappling with." We could do the same thing from the 1325 Comp Plan, here are the issues we're grappling with and "gee, the density says we need 1326 more parkland or more facilities" or something. Being aware of that in September is 1327 better than discovering that in January. I think it's worthwhile having whatever you call 1328 it, a preliminary meeting, an exchange of ideas, issue statements or something, I think 1329 would be very valuable for both sides. 1330 APPROVED Approved Minutes 33 1331 Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the Council date for the Comp Plan? 1332 1333 Council Member Schmid: We're supposed to vote final approval by December of 2015. 1334 It's right after you want us to adopt the Master Plan in September or October. If there's 1335 any chance for interaction, it has to be before that or you're still grappling with the issues. 1336 1337 Commissioner Crommie: In that case, are we talking about two meetings before Council. 1338 I'm a little bit confused here. 1339 1340 Mr. de Geus: It's December of 2015. Is that right, Council Member Schmid? 1341 1342 Chair Hetterly: For the Comp Plan. 1343 1344 Mr. de Geus: Comp Plan, Yes. 1345 1346 Council Member Schmid: The final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Yes. It 1347 probably has to be ready by September to (crosstalk). 1348 1349 Mr. de Geus: The timing is really good, I would think, for the Parks Master Plan to feed 1350 into the update of the Comprehensive Plan. 1351 1352 Council Member Schmid: As a matter of fact, no. I think the draft Comp Plan has to be 1353 ready by March or April of 2015 (crosstalk) EIR process. 1354 1355 Commissioner Crommie: Okay, March or April. 1356 1357 Mr. de Geus: So it's really this calendar year that we ought to be feeding into it. 1358 1359 Council Member Schmid: Yes, this year, this fall. 1360 1361 Mr. de Geus: That's when most of the outreach ... 1362 1363 Council Member Schmid: (inaudible) 1364 1365 Commissioner Crommie: Right here, your first bullet, Peter, November 24. Are you 1366 referring back to a previous Council meeting. 1367 1368 Mr. Jensen: No, that would be 2014. That would be this calendar year. 1369 1370 Commissioner Crommie: November 2014. 1371 1372 APPROVED Approved Minutes 34 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 1373 1374 Council Member Schmid: (crosstalk) Council requested it. That was probably 2013. 1375 1376 Commissioner Crommie: Yes. If you can just put a year on that first bullet point. In 1377 2013 they requested another meeting before January 2015. Let's have years on here, 1378 because it's too confusing otherwise. 1379 1380 Council Member Schmid: That's very close to when we will vote the preliminary 1381 Comprehensive Plan. 1382 1383 Commissioner Crommie: In January. 1384 1385 Council Member Schmid: Probably February or March. If there's going to be any input, 1386 it has to take place in the fall. (crosstalk) 1387 1388 Commissioner Crommie: So you're requesting that they come to you in the fall of 2014? 1389 1390 Commissioner Reckdahl: No, March. 1391 1392 Commissioner Crommie: No, no. We just need years attached. We have no years on 1393 this. Can you just reiterate what year you're hoping they would come to you? Is it the 1394 fall of this year, 2014? 1395 1396 Council Member Schmid: Yes (inaudible) 1397 1398 Commissioner Crommie: In the fall. 1399 1400 Council Member Schmid: (inaudible) the content from the consultant in July, so maybe 1401 August or early September would be good. That would still have an impact on how we 1402 think about our issues of density and development caps. 1403 1404 Commissioner Crommie: Is there anything we can do as a Commission to support that 1405 calendar so that we can involve City Council earlier when it matters most? 1406 1407 Mr. Jensen: No, we can't just move the date up. The RFP that went out stated the dates, 1408 and the consultant put together a calendar for those dates. When we went to the Study 1409 Session with Council in February, they asked to have a meeting sooner than the January 1410 meeting. That was supposed to be the first meeting on the agenda. We are 1411 recommending now that we have one, I just threw out the date November 24. I've now 1412 discussed this with Mr. Turner, who's overseeing the Comp Plan. We can move that 1413 forward though and have it in September or earlier to give ample time to get feedback. 1414 APPROVED Approved Minutes 35 1415 Council Member Schmid: Yes, both sides to learn. 1416 1417 Commissioner Reckdahl: The draft that's due in March, is that a 80 percent draft, a 99 1418 percent draft? 1419 1420 Chair Hetterly: Of the Comp Plan? 1421 1422 Commissioner Reckdahl: Of the Comp Plan. 1423 1424 Council Member Schmid: That's an approved draft which then goes through the EIR 1425 process. Is it legal? Is it acceptable? 1426 1427 Commissioner Reckdahl: If there are any major changes to it, then it has to go back 1428 through the EIR again? 1429 1430 Council Member Schmid: No, I don't think so. There's a summary process that takes 1431 place, that accepts changes. Yes, it's not the final. That's why you a have final vote in 1432 December. 1433 1434 Commissioner Reckdahl: That final will go through EIR again? 1435 1436 Chair Hetterly: No. 1437 1438 Council Member Schmid: No. There's one EIR process. It deals with the issues that 1439 came up during the EIR process. 1440 1441 Mr. Jensen: The EIR allows people to comment on that. Those comments then must be 1442 addressed in the final draft. The final draft must discuss the comments that were made 1443 and how those comments are being addressed in the final report. 1444 1445 Commissioner Reckdahl: We want it to be as mature as possible just so the EIR and 1446 comments can be, we don't want to wait until the last minute and surprise people. Thank 1447 you. 1448 1449 Council Member Schmid: Especially if there are big issues that you are dealing with that 1450 should be dealt with inside the context of the Comp Plan. Those should be surfaced as 1451 early as possible. 1452 1453 Chair Hetterly: I just have one tiny thing to add pertaining to the stakeholder meetings. 1454 I'm not on that ad hoc committee. It might be useful for those committee members to 1455 APPROVED Approved Minutes 36 have a list of who the stakeholders are before they meet. Any other comments on this 1456 topic? Thank you, Peter. 1457 1458 Commissioner Crommie: I forgot one comment, because I was focused on one page. 1459 Peter, on the handout Park Priorities for the PROST Master Plan, can you have a bullet 1460 point under supply/demand issues? Can you add in community gardens and food 1461 sharing? We have an ad hoc working on that. I wanted to make sure it's represented on 1462 your list as well. Thank you. 1463 1464 6. Ad Hoc Committee Report on Shared-Use Parks for Dog Recreation. 1465 1466 Chair Hetterly: You have in your packet our ad hoc committee's work plan for how we 1467 want to tackle this issue. It lays out the objectives, tasks and timeline. We're doing 1468 research in May and June, trying to understand better what other models are looking like, 1469 what the interests are of the various stakeholders, and summarizing what we know about 1470 demands and models, and meeting with the Master Plan staff to discuss how to move 1471 forward investigating potential sites in cooperation with their outreach process. In July 1472 and August we're going to frame our findings and our pilot monitoring criteria, pros, cons 1473 and costs of potential locations. We'll come back to the Commission for discussion and 1474 do most of our public outreach there with stakeholders, neighborhood groups, field users. 1475 I think we're going to do one-on-one stakeholder meetings as well as a public forum. 1476 Then sort out the details of whatever partnership we can come up with, update our 1477 findings. In September we hope to be able to bring it back to the Commission for a 1478 recommendation to Council. In the meantime, one of the items in our objectives that 1479 we're not really sure how to get started. We'd love to have suggestions from you all if 1480 you have any thoughts on this fourth bullet, consider metrics and timeline to monitor, 1481 evaluate the success of a pilot. 1482 1483 Commissioner Crommie: Fourth bullet where? 1484 1485 Chair Hetterly: On the first page, under objectives. As we were discussing in our ad hoc 1486 group, it occurred to us that with a pilot program you have to be able to figure out 1487 whether it's been successful or not. In order to do so, we have to figure out what matters. 1488 We wanted to have suggestions from you all, if you have any. Otherwise we will 1489 continue noodling that around and come back to you. 1490 1491 Commissioner Knopper: You'll see the second page has interview questions that we 1492 came up with for Daren to speak with representatives from other municipalities that have 1493 shared-use dog off-leash programs. We came up with what we thought was a pretty 1494 comprehensive list of questions. One of them is if it was a pilot, what are the key 1495 measures and how long is that pilot. We are gathering that information as part of our due 1496 diligence with other municipalities. Any other ideas, again, are welcome. 1497 APPROVED Approved Minutes 37 1498 Chair Hetterly: Before we open it to questions and comments, we do have a public 1499 speaker. Herb Borock. 1500 1501 Herb Borock: Thank you, Chair Hetterly. Two comments at this point. The first, where 1502 we do have dog parks where off-leash dog runs are allowed are all in south Palo Alto. As 1503 you had discussions previously on the Commission over the years about dog parks, you 1504 should be considering that maybe the pilot program or the first permanent one would be 1505 in north Palo Alto. The second comment is we already have an off-leash program. 1506 People figure out when the animal control officers aren't around and they run their dogs 1507 off-leash in parks and other places where they're not permitted. I believe you need to also 1508 connect with either Animal Services or maybe the dog group can be part of it; although 1509 they can't do the enforcement. If we are going to be continuing to have people on their 1510 own decide to create off-leash dog areas, then what's the sense of creating an official one, 1511 especially since the official one would probably not be limited to the people and dogs 1512 currently running off-leash in Palo Alto parks. Just as some people from Palo Alto 1513 probably go to Menlo Park's area, people will come from neighboring communities. That 1514 combination of the enforcement connected with this I think is important. Otherwise I 1515 don't see the sense of you creating this program if the other activity is going to continue 1516 to go on. Thank you. 1517 1518 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Commission? 1519 Commissioner Crommie. 1520 1521 Commissioner Crommie: You built in a discussion with us again in July and August 1522 after you've done more information gathering. Are you looking at separation of big and 1523 small dogs? Where does that fit in as far as, if you do it, the design issues? 1524 1525 Chair Hetterly: That's where that would be. 1526 1527 Commissioner Crommie: You'll gather information on how people are doing it right 1528 now? 1529 1530 Chair Hetterly: Mm-hmm. 1531 1532 Commissioner Crommie: I don't know if I saw that in your questionnaire. You might 1533 want to make sure it's in there. It might be in there somewhere. I am sensitive to our 1534 speaker's comment about this enforcement and what it all means. He's absolutely right 1535 that many people use fields everywhere around the City for off-leash dog use. I'm sure 1536 each of us have this going on in our neighborhoods, sometimes with more problems than 1537 others. The way I look at this is if this is a successful program, as it's rolled out in more 1538 than one place, it would take care of some those issues. What's going to be hard is if you 1539 APPROVED Approved Minutes 38 roll this out in north Palo Alto, which I agree with if that's possible, there will be a 1540 disconnect because people won't notice it when they live far away from it. The 1541 enforcement is a tricky business and it does require some consideration on how to best 1542 approach that and whether you think there's anything you can do to be effective. 1543 1544 Chair Hetterly: I think that's definitely something that we should give a lot of thought to. 1545 I personally am somewhat skeptical that one temporary, limited hours, shared-use park is 1546 going to be adequate to eliminate unauthorized use of other spaces. 1547 1548 Commissioner Crommie: We have to be sensitive if it is successful. It's the only thing 1549 that would ameliorate that problem, but it will depend on the success of the program. 1550 1551 Vice Chair Lauing: In answer to your question about metrics, to state the obvious, first of 1552 all as the pilot is winding down, whatever you consider that timeline to be, you want to 1553 get both sides of the story. You want to do some of this outreach, intercept with both the 1554 folks that have been running their dogs and also the neighbors. If it's at all possible, 1555 move to a related point, to do two pilots in two different areas with two different 1556 neighborhoods, then there's just much better data than a standalone study in just one 1557 place. You just have much more data to make broader policy decisions. No matter how 1558 the data came out in one place, it may not be replicable. If it came out completely 1559 different in two places, that would actually give you a lot of information. Some of the 1560 challenges, those would be pretty good to do an evaluation on as well. You might say 1561 this pilot didn't quite work, by whatever definition that is, but with these little changes we 1562 ought to do phase 2 of that pilot, make those tweaks and then we think we can make it 1563 work. It doesn't seem to me like this is an all or nothing. Put it together, evaluate it. 1564 Well, it didn't quite work. We're done. It's an ongoing problem going back decades and 1565 it will be going forward decades, so let's take the time with it. While I have the floor, I 1566 just want to ask one thing. You're saying May and June for research and May is over. 1567 Are you being a little aggressive on that time table or do you think you can really get 1568 through the research in the next four weeks? 1569 1570 Chair Hetterly: I think we will get through most of it in the next four weeks. (crosstalk) 1571 1572 Commissioner Knopper: We've already met with a stakeholder group. We're plowing. I 1573 did say, for the record, that we might be pushing for a week. This might edge a month 1574 forward depending. 1575 1576 Vice Chair Lauing: Like some of these other issues we're talking about tonight, this is a 1577 long-term problem, so it doesn't have a hard and fast deadline. Let's get it right, because 1578 we don't want it to fail. We're going into this with expectations that it's going to be a 1579 success, that it's going to be a good add to the community. 1580 1581 APPROVED Approved Minutes 39 Commissioner Knopper: Agreed. 1582 1583 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Ashlund. 1584 1585 Commissioner Ashlund: I didn't see it on the questionnaire for the shared-use dog parks, 1586 a question related to have you recorded any increase or decrease in illegal off-leash use of 1587 park space. 1588 1589 Chair Hetterly: We don't have that on there. 1590 1591 Commissioner Ashlund: Seems like we might want to ask them about that. 1592 1593 Commissioner Knopper: What you're saying is when you have the dog pilot program, 1594 does illegal use continue? 1595 1596 Commissioner Ashlund: What is the impact that you've noticed if any? Has there been 1597 an increase or decrease in any off-leash use. Just to see if they're finding this to be 1598 effective in the problem that we're addressing in part. 1599 1600 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Reckdahl. 1601 1602 Commissioner Reckdahl: You talk about metrics. In a perfect world, I'd want to know 1603 does this decrease the amount of illegal off-leash traffic, but I don't think that's practical. 1604 That'd be just too difficult. It'd be very time consuming. I think it's going to be in the 1605 noise, which means you'd have to have a lot of hours of observation. I just don't think it's 1606 worth it. I think you're stuck with survey results. Ask people what they think. When 1607 you're saying both sides, I thought you were going to say ask the people who were using 1608 it but at the same time go over to the people who are off-leash and say, "Why aren't you 1609 at the dog park? Do you know about it? Is there something about this dog park that you 1610 don't like?" Maybe you get some constructive criticism that way. 1611 1612 Chair Hetterly: That's a great idea. 1613 1614 Commissioner Reckdahl: Or you may find out that your outreach isn't good enough. 1615 One of the two. 1616 1617 Commissioner Knopper: When you say dog park, are you talking about a specific dog 1618 park or an off-leash area? 1619 1620 Commissioner Reckdahl: Let's say you have shared-use that you've started up. Now 1621 you go to Hoover Park where everyone runs off-leash, or Greer, and say, "Why aren't you 1622 using the shared dog park?" Talk to the people who are illegally running their dogs and 1623 APPROVED Approved Minutes 40 ask them why they aren't using the new shared-use or whatever type of dog park we have 1624 for trial. 1625 1626 Rob de Geus: I bet I know the answer to that already. 1627 1628 Commissioner Ashlund: Location, location, location. 1629 1630 Mr. de Geus: People want to walk their dog to run their dog off-leash. 1631 1632 Commissioner Reckdahl: I bet if you went to the next park, wherever this trial ends up 1633 being, if you went one mile over and say, "Why aren't you using it?" 1634 1635 Commissioner Crommie: That's a key. Go as close as you possibly can. You can survey 1636 anyone in neighborhoods; they know where the off-leash sites are. Whatever 1637 neighborhood you go into, survey that neighborhood and you'll know where the hot spots 1638 are. Then you can find the off-leash hot spot closest to wherever you set this up. I think 1639 that would give you the best data on that question. 1640 1641 Commissioner Reckdahl: The dog owners are somewhat underserved. Obviously we all 1642 agree with that. I don't think we necessarily should be enforcing. We used to live next to 1643 Hoover Park, and I've spent many hours watching baseball games at Hoover Park. I've 1644 never once seen anyone enforce the off-leash. In that one area, that grassy area, there's 1645 off-leash dogs there all the time. I've never seen any enforcement at all. If we had a 1646 successful dog park, then that would be the time to step it up. You may get more people 1647 at the dog park if you start enforcing. At this point, I don't think that would necessarily 1648 be fair. 1649 1650 Chair Hetterly: Thanks. Any other comments? Yes. 1651 1652 Commissioner Crommie: Were you on the Commission when we had our community 1653 forum on dog parks? 1654 1655 Chair Hetterly: No, but I did go to that forum. 1656 1657 Commissioner Crommie: You went to it. It was a wonderful turnout, but it was out of 1658 balance. I see you have a bullet point that says hold public forum with directed outreach 1659 to get balanced participation. Can you explain some of your thoughts on how you're 1660 going to do that? 1661 1662 Chair Hetterly: I think that'll be once we've come up with some potential recommended 1663 locations. Then we would want to invite not only the dog group people but also the 1664 neighbors to those sites as well as the current users of the fields or whatever the space is. 1665 APPROVED Approved Minutes 41 1666 Commissioner Crommie: Are you going to get any public input as you decide on these 1667 test sites? Is that part of the equation? 1668 1669 Commissioner Knopper: I think so, but part of the process is meeting with MIG. They're 1670 doing the broad analysis of Palo Alto parks. Taking the quantitative data that they have, 1671 we're going to rely on them to make some significant recommendations with regard to 1672 that. Obviously taking the stakeholders, we've heard the north cluster conversation 1673 before. You have to take all of it in, but it's going to be a very small list. Once you look 1674 at the specific information, the time of day, the MIG recommendations, the condition of 1675 the field, the enforcement issues, all of the operational issues, it's going to be a pretty 1676 short list of what is actually possible. Also the safety of the dogs because they're off-1677 leash. You can't stick them right next to El Camino Real and not expect some tragedy. 1678 There's just a lot of different things when looking at locations that we have to analyze. 1679 1680 Commissioner Crommie: I'm a little confused about the timeline then. You're meeting 1681 with MIG, it's your last bullet point for May and June. Are they going to have data on 1682 surveying or they're just going to have their insights as consultants? 1683 1684 Commissioner Knopper: We're meeting with them to investigate potential sites. This is 1685 our conversation that you're looking at. This is our process for information gathering. 1686 It's not saying in May and June we're going to have specific information. 1687 1688 Chair Hetterly: This is not to talk to them about specific sites. This is to talk with them 1689 about how best to move forward in identifying potential sites based on what they've laid 1690 out already in terms of how they're looking at various sites. 1691 1692 Commissioner Crommie: I guess they have an overlay. They haven't collected any 1693 community data. I guess what confuses me is their big mandate is to take input from our 1694 community to decide these things. Yet by that time, we're talking next month, to my 1695 knowledge they will have no input whatsoever from our community. 1696 1697 Chair Hetterly: Right. But they'll have an idea how they're seeking their input. This is a 1698 process meeting. It's not a substance meeting about potential sites. This is how can we 1699 best work with you as we're thinking about potential uses of some places and you're 1700 thinking about potential uses of some places. 1701 1702 Commissioner Crommie: By the time you get to this bullet point under July and August, 1703 hold public forum with directed outreach, you're already saying by the time you do that, 1704 you're going to know your candidate sites? 1705 1706 Chair Hetterly: We're hoping so. It's all dependent on what comes before. 1707 APPROVED Approved Minutes 42 1708 Commissioner Crommie: It sounds like part of your process to decide on your candidate 1709 locations, you're not really relying on surveying the community, from what I understand. 1710 I don't see where surveying the community comes in at all prior to when you're doing 1711 your outreach meeting on a potential site. 1712 1713 Chair Hetterly: I think that's probably right. Our expectation is that the challenges and 1714 constraints that we'll have to work around in order to pick a site are going to lead us to a 1715 few obvious choices. We may decide based on the research that we finish up in the next 1716 month that there's more to that and we really do need to do our public outreach first. We 1717 didn't want to do public outreach with the whole universe of possibilities. We wanted to 1718 have some ideas that weren't set in stone for the public to react to in order to revise our 1719 thinking. 1720 1721 Vice Chair Lauing: When you do a stakeholder outreach before neighborhood groups 1722 and so on in that timeframe, so it's not like (inaudible) ignore it. 1723 1724 Chair Hetterly: Right. We want to have information for them about the pros and cons 1725 and costs. 1726 1727 Mr. de Geus: I don't know if this makes sense or not. It strikes me that the public has 1728 told us where they're interested in this. They've found a way. Their demand has sort of 1729 found it's spot. One of those places, maybe it's Hoover where it's already happening or 1730 maybe an area where it's happening responsibly, could be a good candidate site. We 1731 already know that's where they want to be. That's where they've set up their program. 1732 1733 Commissioner Ashlund: Just in the directed outreach and balanced participation, I want 1734 to be sure to add to address not just the dog owners group but also perhaps some groups 1735 that are scared of dogs or have had injuries related to or are concerned about the elderly 1736 or something like that. We've banned them on the school sites for safety reasons, and 1737 those same safety reasons exist on non-school sites as well. I want to make sure that 1738 really is balanced. 1739 1740 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Are we ready to move on? Okay. 1741 1742 7. Ad Hoc Committee Report on Community Gardens. 1743 1744 Commissioner Ashlund: I can summarize it. Deirdre and I started with our goals about 1745 identifying existing community garden space and looking at underserved areas and 1746 mapping out potential resources. The three public community gardens that exist are all 1747 shown on the map on the second page. The three stars you can see are all north of 1748 Embarcadero. Those are the Main Garden, which is behind Main Library; Eleanor 1749 APPROVED Approved Minutes 43 Pardee Garden in Eleanor Pardee Park; and Johnson Park Garden. The wait list for Main 1750 and Pardee is combined and it's never empty. The current status of Johnson Park is eight 1751 on the wait list. I believe that one is not ever empty either. Cat says hardly a day goes by 1752 where somebody doesn't call or email expressing interest in a garden plot. The three 1753 private or nonprofit or neighborhood gardens that we identified are the Ventura 1754 Community Garden, which is directly behind Keys School. It's managed by the Palo 1755 Alto Community Child Care. This is something we wanted to verify with staff, because 1756 when we spoke to them about it, they said they believed it was City land and City water 1757 that they were using. However, to both Deirdre and I, this was a very close garden to us 1758 that we didn't know existed until we started looking for it. We heard rumors. The 1759 Midtown Community Garden behind Baskin-Robbins in Midtown, Acterra financially 1760 manages it, but it's run as a nonprofit and leased to a private individual. The third one is 1761 Almost Eden at East Meadow and Middlefield, which was started by Urban Ministries 1762 Church and they were partnering with homeless and underprivileged people to job train 1763 and also donate food back to the food banks. Midtown gives priority to that 1764 neighborhood. Ventura gives priority to that neighborhood. I believe Almost Eden isn't 1765 geographically prioritized). We did put those on the map as well. They're the three 1766 triangles. 1767 1768 Commissioner Crommie: If I can just interject. We're not certain that Midtown gives 1769 priority for the Midtown neighborhood. While there's a uniform policy on the public-run 1770 gardens by the City, that's really easy to read up on. Each of these individual ones, we 1771 don't have all the data. We have some data which Commissioner Ashlund just 1772 highlighted in terms of the Ventura community. This one is very different from our 1773 public gardens run by the City in that it does give a neighborhood preference. To my 1774 knowledge none of the City-run gardens gives a neighborhood preference. As long as 1775 you live in the City, you're on equal footing. That's a difference that we found with 1776 Ventura. I'm not sure any kind of preference is going on, actually I think it's the opposite, 1777 in Midtown. The one individual I met there lived in Menlo Park. We didn't collect data 1778 on that. I don't have the data on Midtown. Stacey, do you have any insight into how 1779 Almost Eden runs their list? 1780 1781 Commissioner Ashlund: No, we don't have more information on that now. As far as 1782 geographic distribution, there's none that are on the west side of El Camino. The map 1783 shows us that. We have a list of things that we'd like more feedback from the 1784 Commission on. I doubt we're going to get through this all right now. I'm not sure how 1785 you want to proceed on this. The categories are ways that we want to gather more 1786 information, ways that we'd like to promote or expand the program that specifically 1787 relates to food sharing and resource sharing among backyard gardeners as well as 1788 community gardeners. A lot of time they share resources and food or would if they knew 1789 a way to do that. We have some areas of policy that we thought we'd like to look into. 1790 APPROVED Approved Minutes 44 Chair Hetterly, we were just saying as far as the feedback that we'd like to seek from the 1791 Commission on this, that starts on page 4, how would you like us to do that? 1792 1793 Chair Hetterly: However you like. 1794 1795 Commissioner Ashlund: The question is if anybody on the Commission right now has 1796 questions, comments, suggestions or feedback related to this, can we go through that? 1797 1798 Commissioner Crommie: Do people feel the need for us to go through section by section 1799 or do you all want to give us your comments? 1800 1801 Vice Chair Lauing: I'd suggest just comments. 1802 1803 Commissioner Crommie: Okay, great. 1804 1805 Vice Chair Lauing: I just have one. I was surprised to see this promote the production of 1806 food and food-sharing programs. I was wondering if this was relative to economics or 1807 just community sharing. What was the motivator for that? I wasn't expecting to see that. 1808 1809 Rob de Geus: (crosstalk) to sustainability. 1810 1811 Commissioner Crommie: Right. I've done some outreach. I did outreach in Barron Park 1812 and I went to their Green Team meeting, because a couple of master gardeners are part of 1813 the Barron Park Green Team. I expected these master gardeners to be a lot more 1814 interested in the community gardens themselves. They said where the trends are going 1815 now is food sharing. There's a strong interest in community gardening, but there's 1816 equally a strong interest in food sharing. That came out of our research. 1817 1818 Vice Chair Lauing: I'm just trying to understand it. Honey is on here. Does that mean 1819 that if somebody made it, you would look for ways for that to be shared within the 1820 community different than just selling honey out of honey stands? 1821 1822 Commissioner Ashlund: These are examples. If I'm growing oranges and you're 1823 growing corn and I have ... 1824 1825 Vice Chair Lauing: I see, okay. 1826 1827 Commissioner Ashlund: I know an 80-year-old who can't pick the oranges off his tree 1828 and he needs help with that and he'd like to donate them. That kind of thing. Is there a 1829 way that we can collaborate where the one who has too much of something that they're 1830 growing can share with somebody who needs that and has other things to offer in 1831 APPROVED Approved Minutes 45 exchange. Whether you're using public community garden or your own backyard, the 1832 same issues relate as far as sharing resources and the output of what you grow. 1833 1834 Vice Chair Lauing: That was another thing I'd written down. Is that because of 1835 overproduction? You want to be able to use food that's available. 1836 1837 Commissioner Crommie: It's a bartering really. Sometimes you might be better at 1838 growing one thing than the other. People overproduce on purpose in that respect. 1839 1840 Vice Chair Lauing: I noticed later in section 4, you say that you're going to check out 1841 demand for this as well as part of the research. 1842 1843 Commissioner Crommie: We're really interested in any of your feedback, but we gave 1844 you the sample letter which is on page 6. We were gearing up to send this out but we 1845 really wanted to make sure that our Commission agreed with something like this. We're 1846 uncertain how such a letter would be distributed. Although we're trying to target our 1847 research to individuals who are knowledgeable and interested in this, some neighborhood 1848 organizations are more organized than others, and some neighborhood organization 1849 chairs really have their finger on the pulse of that particular neighborhood. Other 1850 neighborhoods are not as organized. So I can imagine some of those neighborhoods 1851 might just disseminate this letter to the entire neighborhood. It could really go either 1852 way. Since I've sat on the Commission, this is the first time I'm proposing to do a survey 1853 as a Commissioner. It ties into what we're doing with our Master Plan. We want it to be 1854 integrated with that. We don't want to replace that, but we want to use this to inform 1855 what we're doing with the Master Plan surveying. We see it as a synergistic, reciprocal 1856 information-sharing between us learning how to do this and us letting them know this is 1857 an interest. I'm sorry I didn't explain that very well. I wanted to draw your attention to 1858 this because it is something we haven't done before as far as I know. 1859 1860 Chair Hetterly: I have a couple of comments. Did anybody else want to comment? 1861 Okay. On page 4 number 3, include the following in the Master Plan community 1862 outreach surveys. Are you both on the survey ad hoc committee for the Master Plan? 1863 Deirdre is. 1864 1865 Commissioner Ashlund: I think we both are. 1866 1867 Commissioner Crommie: We both are. 1868 1869 Chair Hetterly: You both may be. 1870 1871 Commissioner Crommie: Yes, we both are. 1872 1873 APPROVED Approved Minutes 46 Chair Hetterly: I would raise this with Peter when you have your first ad hoc meeting 1874 just to better understand again the process of how to feed into that outreach plan. For 1875 item number 4, I think it's a great idea to list nonprofit partnership gardens on the City 1876 website under community gardening. I would just recommend that you check with 1877 somebody on staff to make sure there aren't any rules or constraints that make that ill-1878 advised. On number 6, you say provide yard trimming grinding service to homeowners 1879 to support local organic food production. Are you suggesting offering that as a purchased 1880 City service? 1881 1882 Commissioner Crommie: Yes. People have spoken up on this at various public 1883 meetings. I don't know at that level yet how it would be organized. It is something that 1884 I'm noticing being spoken about in the City. We need to understand that better. We don't 1885 have a recommendation on how it would be done. 1886 1887 Chair Hetterly: I'm not even sure if that's the kind of thing that would be taken on by the 1888 Public Works Department or the Parks Department. That's a question to put on your list 1889 as you think about that issue more. I'm sure Rob could provide some guidance there. As 1890 for the policy questions, they're really creative ideas. I have to say I'm really happy to see 1891 the work you guys put into this. This is an issue that's been hanging in the background 1892 for this Commission for a lot of years. We've never gotten any traction on it. You did a 1893 really great job brainstorming about the issues and laying it out in a clear and useful way. 1894 For the policy questions, I would really like to hear back about more information before 1895 diving into whether we want to consider including them in the Comprehensive Plan or all 1896 these items that you've designated under the policy. I'd like to better understand what the 1897 demand is. Does that make sense? 1898 1899 Commissioner Crommie: Yes. I'm not sure as a Commission how we interact with the 1900 Comprehensive Plan. If we're even giving input on that or if we would just do it at the 1901 level of citizens. I really don't know. 1902 1903 Council Member Schmid: One of the chapters is open space. 1904 1905 Commissioner Crommie: The natural environment element. We have given input on 1906 that. 1907 1908 Council Member Schmid: But did you give everything that you wanted to? 1909 1910 Commissioner Crommie: Maybe not. It was a while ago. 1911 1912 Mr. de Geus: They're doing a little bit of a re-set. They're going to be going back to the 1913 natural environment element and the community services and facilities element. It'll be 1914 coming back through the Commission for further input. 1915 APPROVED Approved Minutes 47 1916 Chair Hetterly: It will be? 1917 1918 Mr. de Geus: Yes. 1919 1920 Chair Hetterly: Okay. It was unclear to us how the new process was going to compare to 1921 the old process. 1922 1923 Mr. de Geus: It'll be a little different. Maybe you and I can talk offline regarding how 1924 we can insert this in the appropriate timeline. 1925 1926 Chair Hetterly: We can discuss it at our next meeting. 1927 1928 Mr. de Geus: Yes. 1929 1930 Commissioner Crommie: That would be really good if we have that kind of integration. 1931 Is that what you meant, that you wanted more discussion? As a Commission we would 1932 make a recommendation? 1933 1934 Commissioner Reckdahl: On page 4, you're talking about the churches and other places. 1935 That's a really good idea. My question would be what's the City's role. Is it that we're 1936 just encouraging them to do that? That we would offer to do the sign-up and the 1937 organization for that. When there's vacant plots, we would be the one that would fill in 1938 them. Would be helping them with construction costs? What would the City's role with 1939 the churches or other organizations be? 1940 1941 Commissioner Crommie: That's a really good question. Right now we have this 1942 amorphous role with our nonprofit partners. Commissioner Ashlund and I didn't really 1943 get to the bottom. Each one seems to be on a unique track that's organically developed. 1944 As we start to understand that more, we could propose more models for that. Is that what 1945 you're getting at? 1946 1947 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. I'd be curious what they're thinking. Maybe they've 1948 thought of them and said they don't want to do it because of x. If that x is the 1949 organization, I think we already have that in place. If that x is construction costs, then 1950 maybe we don't have that in place. 1951 1952 Commissioner Crommie: Right. We can start by looking at where we do have it in place 1953 and then go from there. 1954 1955 APPROVED Approved Minutes 48 Commissioner Reckdahl: One major thing is organization. The City does have a very 1956 good organization for these existing gardens. Changing it from three gardens to four 1957 gardens is very little incremental cost. 1958 1959 Chair Hetterly: Council Member Schmid. 1960 1961 Council Member Schmid: Just a thought listening to the last two items. If there's a little 1962 obscure part of any park, would it make sense to have a joint proposal, a dog run and 1963 community garden? Get two very different groups and yet very passionate groups 1964 together to say that would be a good use of this obscure thing. One, you would build the 1965 political support for it. Two, you would find out how many people in the neighborhood 1966 would buy into one of these two things and support each other in order to achieve their 1967 goal. 1968 1969 Commissioner Crommie: That's a fabulous idea because it's different groups that can 1970 sway each other. The problem that we have is the dog parks are on different sides of the 1971 City. We have public community gardens on the north side, where we need more dog 1972 parks. We have dog parks on the south side. Right now, if you look at our map, we have 1973 so many public gardens on the north side. That's a little bit of the problem. It might not 1974 happen in phase 1 because of that. We could still consider it, just as a pilot study. Let's 1975 say we ... 1976 1977 Council Member Schmid: One joint use on each side. Pardee Park on one side and 1978 maybe JLS on the other. Where you take what is a dog run in one park and add a little 1979 community garden space . Then you take what's a community garden and add a little dog 1980 run. You get support from both groups for both operations. 1981 1982 Commissioner Crommie: Great idea. Food for thought. 1983 1984 Commissioner Reckdahl: This is outside our jurisdiction. That utility has a grassy area 1985 on Colorado there, right next to West Bayshore. All it does is sit there and soak up water. 1986 That would be good for a dog run. That would be good for a garden. 1987 1988 Mr. de Geus: How big is it? 1989 1990 Chair Hetterly: More than half an acre. 1991 1992 Commissioner Ashlund: Which location? 1993 1994 Commissioner Crommie: It's on Colorado Avenue near West Bayshore. It's exactly 1995 where we walked ... 1996 1997 APPROVED Approved Minutes 49 Commissioner Crommie: We talked about that with Daren. 1998 1999 Commissioner Crommie: It's been on radar before. It's been brought up before. 2000 2001 Commissioner Reckdahl: Are there any other spots like that? That's the one that comes 2002 to mind when I think of non-park but City-owned land. 2003 2004 Commissioner Knopper: That's the utility people. They would have to give the approval. 2005 2006 Council Member Schmid: They use it as access to the utility line which is blocked so far. 2007 2008 Commissioner Knopper: That's not to say it couldn't happen. 2009 2010 Chair Hetterly: You're talking about the piece that fronts Colorado Avenue, that's just 2011 grass. 2012 2013 Commissioner Reckdahl: Right on Colorado. Just grassy area and bushes right now. 2014 2015 Commissioner Knopper: We're looking into what the restrictions are on that space as 2016 well. 2017 2018 Commissioner Reckdahl: Are there any other similar spots around? I don't know. 2019 There's the utility over by Middlefield and also by Rinconada. I don't think those have 2020 the same big grassy area the Colorado one does. 2021 2022 Commissioner Crommie: I notice what looks like a lot of those kinds of spots in Barron 2023 Park around Gunn and around Foothill Expressway. It's just a lot of open space. I don't 2024 understand who's jurisdiction it is. 2025 2026 Chair Hetterly: Are you working with Daren? 2027 2028 Commissioner Crommie: We haven't met with him yet. That's our next step. We met 2029 with Daren to do a walk-through on Sterling Canal. We weren't ready to report on that 2030 yet. It's a bit confusing. 2031 2032 Chair Hetterly: Especially since he wasn't here today, I suggest you follow up with him 2033 and get him in the loop on that. 2034 2035 Commissioner Crommie: Right. We'll share this document with him and then move 2036 forward. 2037 2038 Chair Hetterly: You had a specific question about this letter to the neighborhoods. 2039 APPROVED Approved Minutes 50 2040 Commissioner Crommie: Yes. 2041 2042 Chair Hetterly: I think it's a great letter. My only caution is to not step on the Master 2043 Plan survey process. I would check with Daren or Peter for some guidance about that. 2044 2045 Mr. de Geus: We want to be careful not to lead the public to think that we can do 2046 something necessarily. There may not be resources to do it. An interesting question 2047 related to that is if there's a real appetite for this. I'm not sure that there is. Is there 2048 enough interest that folks are willing to give up some portion of a local park to allow for 2049 a community garden to exist there? 2050 2051 Commissioner Crommie: That's the model that we've used with the ones so far. It's 2052 worked. That's why I really want to go back and understand more about Johnson, how 2053 that came into being. Some of this is historical, because we might learn that did grow out 2054 of an interest right in that location. 2055 2056 Chair Hetterly: I would suggest on this sample letter that maybe the safer way to go is to 2057 not get into the level of detail of that first bullet. Since you're making your introduction 2058 to the neighborhood association, you can just ask that second bullet, who are the best 2059 contacts to learn more about our neighborhood's interests. Then you can have one-on-2060 one conversations rather than a very public solicitation event. 2061 2062 Commissioner Crommie: That's the kind of input I was looking for. Both of those 2063 bullets are doing two different things. Your recommendation is to lean toward the second 2064 bullet and not try to gather the detailed information until you get that person. So do it in 2065 a tiered fashion. 2066 2067 Chair Hetterly: Again, you want to be sure to run it by Daren. Does that wrap it up for 2068 community gardens? 2069 2070 8. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 2071 i. Website 2072 2073 Chair Hetterly: You saw our plan last month. We did meet a few weeks ago with 2074 Catherine. It's come to our attention that the data on the site currently is all over the 2075 place. There were all sorts of bugs in the transfer from the old City system to the new 2076 City system. We've spent this month going back through the data that exists now to make 2077 sure we have the right dates for the right material and the right Commission for the right 2078 site and all that kind of detail. We have until the end of the month to finish that. I think 2079 we're on track. That pushes us out a little bit, so June we'll plan to work on the design 2080 APPROVED Approved Minutes 51 and setting up links. July or August we hope to get to the Commission for approval and 2081 hopefully we'll still be able to be at (inaudible). 2082 2083 Commissioner Crommie: I just had one comment. I was concerned when two members 2084 of the public said it was hard to find our minutes. We only learn these things when we go 2085 on the site ourselves. Would you be willing to do that as part of this website, to make 2086 sure you go back and see if that's accessible. 2087 2088 Chair Hetterly: That's exactly what we're doing. 2089 2090 Commissioner Crommie: Great. I've found it frustrating myself when I've tried to use it. 2091 Didn't we do an update a year and a half ago. Is this another one? 2092 2093 Rob de Geus: This is an update specifically to the Parks and Recreation website. The 2094 City has done two different updates for the City website. 2095 2096 V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 2097 2098 Rob de Geus: Did everyone get their passport? I talked about this at the last 2099 Commission meeting. I want to give a shout-out to Erin Perez. She's Greg's assistant and 2100 she does special projects and supports Greg and does a lot of marketing stuff, oversees 2101 our Enjoy! catalog. She took the lead in doing this. We had this idea of celebrating parks 2102 and recreation in July. It's the national parks and recreation month. We created this 2103 passport which has 20 different activities that we're encouraging people to participate in. 2104 As they go and participate in them, they can get a stamp. If they complete 10 of these 2105 things in the month of July, they go into a drawing for some special prizes. There's 2106 several special prizes, one of which is a fast track pass at the chili cook off next year 2107 where you don't have to stand in line. You go straight to the front of the line, which is a 2108 really awesome one. There's camping, visit the Art Center. There's a variety of snapping 2109 selfie shots in front of your favorite piece of art. The whole idea is to get outside, get 2110 involved in parks and recreation. It's a nice little marketing tool. I have some extras 2111 here. These will be available at the Lucie Stern Community Center and at the Junior 2112 Museum and the other centers, where families and kids can pick them up. I have a 2113 couple of extras if you'd like to start sharing them around. 2114 2115 Vice Chair Lauing: I want to comment on your announcement. I brought the Enjoy! 2116 catalog. I thought it was absolutely terrific. Absolutely terrific. I go in there and I say, 2117 "What's this passport stuff? This is awesome." Just to get people completely involved in 2118 it. Kudos. 2119 2120 Mr. de Geus: It should be a lot of fun. We're ramping up for summer right now and our 2121 enrollment is almost 20 percent over last year at this time. It's really terrific. 2122 APPROVED Approved Minutes 52 2123 Vice Chair Lauing: It was up last year too. 2124 2125 Mr. de Geus: Yes, it was up last year. A lot of people are going to be participating in our 2126 summer programs, which is great. The only other thing I wanted to mention, which is not 2127 what you want to hear, is the golf course project. We don't have our permit from the 2128 Water Board yet. We've provided them with everything they need. We're awaiting their 2129 response at this point. We are ready to go. We've done the RFP. We've selected the 2130 contractor. We've negotiated a contract and an amount. It's ready to go to Council in 2131 June as soon as we get a little more clarity on the permit from the Water Board. 2132 2133 Commissioner Reckdahl: This permit, is it required to do anything or only to do certain 2134 things? Could we start some aspect of the construction without the permit? 2135 2136 Mr. de Geus: Can't start without it. 2137 2138 Commissioner Reckdahl: Can't do anything. 2139 2140 Mr. de Geus: We've been very responsive to the Water Board. Our City Manager's been 2141 terrific in working with the Chief Executive there. We're cautiously hopeful that 2142 something's going to break loose pretty soon. 2143 2144 Commissioner Reckdahl: Are they being responsive to us when we give inputs? Do they 2145 sit on the desk for two weeks or do they respond back? 2146 2147 Mr. de Geus: No, not entirely. There does not appear to be a sense of urgency on their 2148 part despite our sense of urgency and calling and indicating that it's really the public that's 2149 hurting or losing money at the golf course, so we need to begin. They don't seem terribly 2150 concerned about that. 2151 2152 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is the Water Board a state agency or where does it flow down? 2153 2154 Mr. de Geus: I don't know how many, but I want to say there's 13 regional water boards 2155 and then there's the state. They all report to a state board. 2156 2157 Commissioner Reckdahl: The only way to get them pressure is through the state 2158 government? 2159 2160 Mr. de Geus: Right. We've issued some correspondence to the state board that takes 2161 legal issue with some of the decision making at the regional level. We have also let the 2162 state board know that we are working with the regional board and are hopeful that 2163 something's going to come through, to hold this in abeyance rather than to pursue a legal 2164 APPROVED Approved Minutes 53 course of action, which we really don't want to do. There's a lot of common interests 2165 between the Water Board and what we're doing at the golf course. 2166 2167 Commissioner Reckdahl: Have our representatives been helping at all? 2168 2169 Mr. de Geus: We've been in contact with local representatives. The City Council's been 2170 very involved. But we're not there yet. We're getting close. 2171 2172 Commissioner Crommie: You're held up for a set of reasons that are operating in parallel 2173 to you. Is there any movement on that other front? 2174 2175 Mr. de Geus: There is. The Water Board has officially given us a letter that said they 2176 have separated the golf course project from the levee project. They're saying they're not 2177 looking at those together at this point any more. Their issue isn't with the golf course 2178 design and project. It's with the levee project; they'd like to see some changes there. For 2179 quite some time, they were holding them together. While they are companion projects, 2180 the golf course project can very well be a standalone project. It accomplishes a lot of the 2181 mission goals that the Water Board has. They've agreed to that and they recognize that. 2182 We've provided them with all the information they need, on three or four different 2183 occasions now with letters back and forth. The ball is back in their court now and they 2184 need to respond. They've had the latest correspondence two weeks now from us. We're 2185 hoping to hear this week or next. 2186 2187 Commissioner Crommie: Are you making any changes to design through this discussion 2188 or not? 2189 2190 Mr. de Geus: No. 2191 2192 Commissioner Crommie: If you do, it'd be interesting to hear about that. You would let 2193 us know, I presume. 2194 2195 Mr. de Geus: Commissioner Crommie, that's a good question. Their interest is not in 2196 design changes at the golf course. It's at the levee project. As it takes that turn and then 2197 heads toward the airport, the other side of that levee is the Fabre Tract. Do you know that 2198 area? That part of the levee system isn't changing very much in the levee design. The 2199 golf course design has actually some room there that would allow that levee system to 2200 change a little bit. It could widen the channel a little bit if they felt like it was necessary 2201 and good for flood control and good for the environment. I think the Water Board would 2202 like to see that happen. I think the Joint Powers Authority doesn't think it's necessary and 2203 will not help. They're not aligned there. From the golf course project, we're saying if 2204 that is something that needs to happen in the future, it can happen with the current design 2205 of the golf course which has been helpful. 2206 APPROVED Approved Minutes 54 2207 Commissioner Crommie: That seems like a good way forward and then negotiations. I 2208 was interested in that. 2209 2210 Commissioner Reckdahl: Are we continuing to stockpile dirt or has that stopped? 2211 2212 Mr. de Geus: It's going very well. We're stockpiling every day. We're looking good 2213 there in terms of getting all the soil we need, which is a lot. It comes with revenue to 2214 support the project, $1.3 million. We're looking like we'll be able to achieve that. 2215 2216 Commissioner Reckdahl: Raise it up. The more dirt the better. 2217 2218 Vice Chair Lauing: As Council Member Schmid noted, I have been around golf courses 2219 recently, one of which has been the muni. I don't know why I was surprised, but I was. 2220 People who come in to ask about the course are just absolutely all over the board. No 2221 one knows what's happening. We barely know what's happening. One guy came in and 2222 said, "When is this thing going to get started?" I expected that. Another guy came in a 2223 different day and said, "Is the course done now?" Literally, and everything in between. 2224 I've heard four different comments on four different occasions with people walking in the 2225 door. There's nothing you can do about that now. When we get a final date and what 2226 we're going to do, we should have a little brochure there. Maybe not as elaborate as this. 2227 So staff can hand it out and say, "Here's the real scoop. Pass it around. Go viral with 2228 this." 2229 2230 Mr. de Geus: It's been a challenge not having the date and that moving. And not just for 2231 City staff but also Brad Lazaros, who's out there, and Valley Crest, our contractors out 2232 there. They're trying to hold their staff on board, because they thought we'd be closed by 2233 now. I hear your point. 2234 2235 Chair Hetterly: I have a comment about the passport. I'm happy to see take a selfie at the 2236 Duck Pond made the list. 2237 2238 Mr. de Geus: It doesn't show anyone feeding ducks, does it? 2239 2240 Chair Hetterly: No. There is a duck, but no feeding of it. I was just going to suggest 2241 since the feeding wildlife and feral animals ordinance is on the Consent Calendar for June 2242 9th, there ought to be plenty of time between June 9th and the first of July to make sure 2243 you get some signage out there about the new ordinance. You wouldn't want to be 2244 inviting people out and have them feeding ducks immediately after we ban it. 2245 2246 Mr. de Geus: Instead of getting a stamp, they'll get a ticket. That wouldn't be good. 2247 2248 APPROVED Approved Minutes 55 Commissioner Ashlund: Silly question about the selfies. Were people encouraged to 2249 bring them rather than submit them online? They can't post them somewhere? They're 2250 selfies, they're on your phone. 2251 2252 Mr. de Geus: We're asking people to come in and bring their passport and they're going 2253 to get stamps on this thing. 2254 2255 Commissioner Ashlund: Okay, so the whole thing is in person. 2256 2257 Mr. de Geus: Yes. We did talk about trying to collect the selfies and is there some piece 2258 of art work or something we could do online with all these different pictures of people 2259 visiting parks and art. 2260 2261 Commissioner Knopper: We talked about the passport project for the Mitchell Park 2262 opening. 2263 2264 Vice Chair Lauing: That's for next summer. 2265 2266 Commissioner Knopper: We were talking about posting a selfie wall there (inaudible) go 2267 to the library. 2268 2269 Mr. de Geus: You could test it. See how it works. 2270 2271 Vice Chair Lauing: I wanted to point out that three Commissioners went to the 2272 dedication of the redwoods in the park. It was a very lovely ceremony, and the Mayor 2273 made a few remarks. It was great to see the park that full of people and also to see that 2274 many policemen in one place and it wasn't an emergency. It was lovely. They were just 2275 supporting fellow officers who some of them had never met, because of the camaraderie 2276 and the brotherhood of that organization. The Chief made some comments. It was really 2277 lovely. 2278 2279 Chair Hetterly: Any other comments or announcements? Okay. 2280 2281 VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JUNE 24, 2014 MEETING 2282 2283 Chair Hetterly: We'll have some ad hoc updates. If there are any ad hoc committees who 2284 want an agenda item for fuller discussion, please let me know. We'll work that in. Rob, 2285 did you have anything else for the agenda for June? 2286 2287 Rob de Geus: I don't have anything specific that I have listed here. I'd have to go back 2288 and look and talk to Greg and Daren and Peter to see if they have something coming 2289 forward. 2290 APPROVED Approved Minutes 56 2291 Chair Hetterly: This raises the question of should we take a month off this summer. We 2292 have our joint Council session in August, and we have the Master Plan consultants 2293 coming in July. It would be nice to have a meeting in July to prep for the Council 2294 meeting as well as to hear the MIG report. I would recommend that if we do take a 2295 month off, that it be either June or August. I don't know what else is pending in the 2296 pipeline. 2297 2298 Commissioner Crommie: Can we have a show of hands to make sure that people are 2299 going to be here for that joint meeting? That's an important meeting. 2300 2301 Chair Hetterly: August 11th. I see no objection. 2302 2303 Mr. de Geus: It looks like August might be the better month, because you're already 2304 meeting in August with the joint session. 2305 2306 Chair Hetterly: What do you all think? 2307 2308 Commissioner Knopper: (inaudible) 2309 2310 Chair Hetterly: If we had an August meeting? 2311 2312 Commissioner Knopper: Yes. The following week. 2313 2314 Mr. de Geus: It would be the 26th of August, which everyone's back at school by that 2315 point. I don't know if that makes sense for the Commission to have that month off. 2316 Would it be better to have June? 2317 2318 Commissioner Knopper: I did hear Peter say, for the record, that meeting in July with the 2319 consultants could be moved. 2320 2321 Chair Hetterly: Yes, that's right. 2322 2323 Commissioner Knopper: He could move it to August. I know you want that prep. 2324 2325 Chair Hetterly: We definitely have to prep for the joint Council session. We could try to 2326 do that in June instead of July if that's everybody's preference. That would be next 2327 month. 2328 2329 Mr. de Geus: June 22nd. 2330 2331 Commissioner Knopper: 24th. 2332 APPROVED Approved Minutes 57 2333 Mr. de Geus: I'm in July. You're right, June 24th. 2334 2335 Commissioner Knopper: You know how I feel. 2336 2337 Chair Hetterly: (crosstalk) work for you. 2338 2339 Commissioner Knopper: That's not true. I can make them all work. Preference wise I 2340 would like July off, but I can make it work. 2341 2342 Commissioner Crommie: We need to be mindful of the Master Plan process, so that we 2343 are meeting when necessary to get input to Council by September. That will come up 2344 really fast. 2345 2346 Chair Hetterly: Peter did say they were flexible for when the consultant came, but it 2347 sounded to me as though there's more information later. I thought it might be more 2348 productive to meet with them in either July or August than in June. 2349 2350 Mr. de Geus: They won't be ready in June. They confirmed that today. 2351 2352 Chair Hetterly: You did? 2353 2354 Mr. de Geus: Yes. With enough information that would make it worthwhile. 2355 2356 Commissioner Crommie: Based on that, it seems like we should take June off if we're 2357 going to take one off. I know July is enticing, but I don't want to miss the boat with some 2358 of the Master Plan work that we need to do. 2359 2360 Vice Chair Lauing: Why don't we come back to the issue of do we want to take one off? 2361 2362 Chair Hetterly: I was just going to say we don't have to. 2363 2364 Vice Chair Lauing: Right. If we have a short meeting in June because we have three ad 2365 hoc committee reports but that moves it along, that's not so bad. 2366 2367 Commissioner Ashlund: I wish I actually knew my summer travel plans, but we might 2368 not have any. 2369 2370 Commissioner Crommie: I know I'm available for all of them. We are traveling; it's in 2371 the beginning of the months rather than the end. Do you know your calendar, when 2372 you're in town? 2373 2374 APPROVED Approved Minutes 58 Commissioner Knopper: Yes. I can come in June; I just have a house full of company. 2375 July, I could make work; although, I might (inaudible). August, I'm around; the 26th I'm 2376 around (inaudible) school. 2377 2378 Vice Chair Lauing: I don't think it's optimal to be planning for an August 11th meeting 2379 on June 24th. Keeping our regular meeting in July which is still a couple of weeks. 2380 2381 Mr. de Geus: Meeting MIG and the consultants and seeing some of the work already and 2382 having some dialog with them in advance of the Study Session with Council strikes me as 2383 something that would be good. 2384 2385 Vice Chair Lauing: Definitely. I would just say the default is we don' take a break this 2386 year. If it's a short meeting ... 2387 2388 Commissioner Ashlund: We have a meeting. 2389 2390 Vice Chair Lauing: That's the way I set it up the last five years. 2391 2392 Commissioner Crommie: We never do take one. 2393 2394 Commissioner Knopper: (crosstalk) have a short meeting. Will everybody raise their 2395 hand? I have to leave. 2396 2397 Chair Hetterly: Does that work for everybody? 2398 2399 Vice Chair Lauing: If we're missing somebody, we're missing somebody. 2400 2401 Chair Hetterly: All right. That's the plan. 2402 2403 Commissioner Ashlund: If one of us knows we have to miss a meeting, can we submit 2404 comments in advance in some form? Is that doable? 2405 2406 Chair Hetterly: Of course. 2407 2408 Vice Chair Lauing: Are we done for the agenda for next month? I don't think it's too 2409 early to talk about possible topics for the joint session. 2410 2411 Mr. de Geus: That's true, Yes. 2412 2413 Vice Chair Lauing: That should be on there. 2414 2415 Chair Hetterly: For next month? 2416 APPROVED Approved Minutes 59 2417 Vice Chair Lauing: Yes. 2418 2419 Chair Hetterly: I agree. 2420 2421 Vice Chair Lauing: I didn't hear that mentioned. 2422 2423 Chair Hetterly: I didn't mention it. 2424 2425 Commissioner Crommie: I didn't hear much on the agenda for next month yet. Are we 2426 still getting there? 2427 2428 Vice Chair Lauing: You've got a big report to give. You've got plenty to do. 2429 2430 Chair Hetterly: Yes. 2431 2432 VII. ADJOURNMENT 2433 2434 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Commissioner 2435 Ashlund at 9:58 p.m. Passed 6-0 2436 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5895) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Title: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) recommend that Council adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) for the improvements identified in the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts (Attachment B). Background In 1978, Council approved the Baylands Master Plan and adopted the Environmental Impact Report, which included a principal element of converting the now closed Palo Alto Landfill to a pastoral park after closure. In 1989, the Council approved the Byxbee Landfill Park Master Plan and Phase I Park development. The park has been developed and opened to the public in phases. Phase I contains 29 acres located in the northeastern part of the Landfill, and it is currently developed as a passive park with trails, restrooms, and art features. Phase IIA and IIB covers 46 acres immediately to the south of Phase I and have been capped and opened to the public. Twenty-seven acres of the 51 acres in Phase IIC were opened to the public on April 18, 2015, in celebration of Earth Day. Staff is completing the cap construction for the final 24 acres of Phase IIC to comply with regulatory requirements and to safely open up all of Byxbee Park Hills to the public by the end of 2015. The initial landscape design for Byxbee Park was completed by Hargreaves and Associates in 1991 to accompany the Amended Baylands Master Plan Summary Report (1991). The Hargreaves design was implemented in Phase I and included trail design, habitat mounds (hillocks), public art (wind wave, chevrons, and pole field), and other park amenities (signage, parking and restrooms). In 2008 the landfill’s engineered closure plans were reviewed by Hargreaves and Associates for conformance with the 1991 Master Plan which was then City of Palo Alto Page 2 subsequently slightly revised, incorporating minor grading revisions into the final Baylands Master Plan. Council approved the final landfill closure plans on June 10, 2013 (Council Staff Report #3768), which included the use of an evapo-transpirative (ET) cap, a preliminary configuration for dual- use trails (i.e. paths for landfill maintenance vehicles and park visitors), habitat island concepts, and other park amenities. The Landfill is a closed Class III refuse disposal site with a permitted footprint of 137 acres. The landfill began receiving waste in the early 1930s and operated as a Class III solid waste landfill. Landfill closure and final land use were addressed in the Baylands Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report. The Landfill has been capped in phases as refuse disposal capacity was reached. Discussion The City entered into a contract with TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. (now MIG/TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc.), in March 2014 to prepare an interim park plan for Byxbee Park Hills. The purpose of the Interim Byxbee Park Hills Plan is to provide guidance on: improving and managing the habitat, managing for burrowing owls, a trail system that allows safe public access that doesn’t impact the wildlife, and ensure that the closed landfill can meet all of its regulatory requirements. The Plan documents the existing park areas currently open to the public, proposes an adaptive management maintenance regime, and identifies opportunities for interpretive signage. The vegetative islands identified in the Plan also employ adaptive management techniques to identify the water and maintenance needs to provide the most robust and sustainable habitat. In addition to the habitat islands, the Plan designates three areas that can be designed to enhance burrowing owl habitat. While the City believes that this habitat type will be beneficial to the Park and the neighboring Baylands by providing valuable habitat for the Western Burrowing Owl and other wildlife, CalRecycle has expressed concerns about the potential for the burrows to damage the landfill cap, and that the presence of sensitive species, such as the Western Burrowing Owl, could prevent time-sensitive critical maintenance or repair work at the landfill. The City will only be able to construct these burrowing owl areas if permission is granted by all of the regulatory agencies including CalRecycle. The City will continue to seek permission from CalRecycle to construct the burrowing owl habitat areas. The Plan also designates new trail configurations designed to improve the park-users’ experience, integrate the soon-to-be opened Phase IIC area, allow for landfill maintenance (leachate and gas well monitoring), and protect habitat areas. Most of the trails have been designed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (except a few small sections of trail where the slope cannot be adjusted due to drainage requirements) while providing connectivity throughout the Park through trail loops as well as to the larger trail system in the Baylands. The Plan identifies locations for park benches, interpretive signs, and wayfinding signs. City of Palo Alto Page 3 On July 10, 2014, staff met with a group of Baylands stakeholders representing general park users, bicyclists, hikers, and environmentalists. Based on the feedback received, the initial trail design was modified to reduce impacts to wildlife by eliminating some trail segments. The stakeholders also expressed an interest in better signage connecting the regional trail system to the proposed trails at Byxbee Park Hills. As a result of this feedback, additional wayfinding signs were added to the design. Stakeholders also noted that the Plan should include bench sites located at scenic lookouts, which was subsequently incorporated into the design. Though some stakeholders advocated for a larger parking lot, no changes have been recommended to modify the existing parking lot as a part of this design. A larger parking lot would require a more substantial and lengthy environmental and planning review, as well as exceed the allocated budget for this interim project. Parking, final maintenance plans, and other structures like covered lookout areas, will be considered in a future master planning efforts for Byxbee Park Hills or incorporated into the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which staff proposed as a future capital improvement project for 2017. Staff presented a draft of the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Concepts to the Commission on September 23, 2014, and to a Commission subcommittee on October 7, 2014. The Architecture Review Board (ARB) reviewed and approved the Interim Concepts on November 20, 2014. Staff has modified and clarified many aspects of the Interim Concepts. Section 3.2.1 of the Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Plan and Narrative (Attachment A) details the modifications based on the comments from the meetings. Key modifications include: Adjusting the Mowing/ Weed Management regime Redefining Vegetation Planting and Management with vegetated islands, low-mowed grassland, mid-mowed grassland, and untended grassland Delineating Management of Burrowing Owls and Squirrels areas Reducing the number of trails to protect larger habitat areas by 1,400 linear feet Minimizing habitat impact from maintenance vehicles Modifying the size of the rock swales on the map Improved recommendations for park signage to keep people on trails and away from habitat areas On March 9, 2015, the Commission Ad Hoc Committee recommended reducing the size of the gathering node “compass rose” at the highest point of Byxbee Park Hills because it seemed too large for the area. Staff reduced the size of the group gathering node from 50 feet in diameter to 35-feet in diameter (Attachment C). Staff concurred that a 35’ diameter area is an adequate size to accommodate the public gathering needs and volunteer groups who may use the area. The gathering node has bench seating for 12 people with vistas of the entire South San Francisco Bay. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The Ad Hoc Committee also noted that certain sections of trails near the group gathering node would be improved if they were narrower. The trail system on Byxbee Park Hills was designed to serve as trails for bicyclists, hikers, and the occasional service vehicles that maintain the methane gas lines, the leachate lines, and other maintenance requirements. The trails are ten feet wide to accommodate the vehicles. Narrowing the trails would result in heavy vehicles leaving deep ruts during wet times of the year. Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee agreed that the trails could be narrowed by allowing vegetation to grow in on the edge of the trail, which can narrow the look of the trail by one to two feet on each side. On May 26, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously voted to recommend that Council adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance for the improvements identified in the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts, with the following changes: 1. Add a bullet point on Page 22 to state that the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts addresses the Baylands Master Plan Goals by providing habitat for wildlife. 2. Revise and clarify the language for the bullet point on Page 22 that states: “The trail system in the park provides pathways to keep pedestrians and bicyclists from entering environmentally sensitive area. The interim plan also incorporates trail marker and park regulations signs to keep pedestrians and bicyclists on the trails and out of environmentally sensitive areas.” The revised bullet point now states, “The trail system in the park provides pathways that guide park users and encourage them to stay on trails by providing a more navigable surface. The trails system is designed to keep pedestrians and bicyclists from entering environmentally sensitive areas. The interim plan also incorporates trail marker and park regulations signs to keep pedestrians and bicyclists on trails and out of environmentally sensitive areas.” 3. Add language to explain the dimensions of ground squirrel burrows, and site supporting scientific literature on Page 2 of the Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl. The added language states: “Burrows tend to be lateral, rather than deep. They have an average maximum depth of 3 feet (range to 5.5 feet), and have an average length of 35 feet (Berentson et al. 2001). Level burrows are easier to dig, and are less prone to collect storm water, even with several openings.” 4. Remove the unnecessary map on Appendix Page A-6. The Commission’s recommended changes have been added to the plan. Resource Impact The interim plan and the implementation of the plan will be funded from the existing Byxbee Park CIP (PE 13020). The new trail system is designed to be functional and pleasing for the hiker while also designed to minimize ongoing maintenance cost. However, with the addition of 97 acres and 2.3 miles of trails additional future maintenance costs for Byxbee Park is anticipated. Any potential additional maintenance costs will be evaluated and potential funding recommendations brought forward as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 budget process. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Timeline 27 acres of Phase IIC opened to the public April 2015 Seek Council Approval of Byxbee Park Hills Interim Concepts August 2015 Open final 24 acres of Phase IIC to the public January 2016 Complete Construction on Interim Concept Features Summer 2016 Policy Implications This project is consistent with the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan 2008 and the 2013 landfill closure plan. Environmental Review This plan is a component of the Palo Alto Landfill closure activities covered by a Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse number 2013082019) issued on September 11, 2013. Attachments: Attachment A - 00710621 ORDN Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts (PDF) Attachment B - Interim Byxbee Park Hills Concepts Narrative May 2015 FINAL (2) (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan of Improvement for Byxbee Park Hills The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor. (b) Byxbee Park Hills is dedicated to park purposes. (c) The City intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements within Byxbee Park Hills, as shown at Exhibit “A”. The improvements include, without limitation, the following: (1) Construction of new trails; (2) Construction of native habitat islands; (3) Construction of pedestrian bridge; (4) Construction of group gathering node; (5) Installation of new park benches; (6) Installation of new interpretive and way-finding signs; and (7) Construction of burrowing owl habitat areas (pending regulatory approval) (d) The improvements do not require removing any trees. (e) The improvements described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit "A" are consistent with park and conservation purposes. (f) The Council desires to approve the project’s improvements described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit "A”. SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the plan for construction of improvements within the Byxbee Park Hills and hereby adopts the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts, attached hereto at Exhibit "A" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements within Byxbee Park Hills. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the plan for construction improvements identified in the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts is categorically exempt from environmental 1 150511 jb 00710621 NOT YET APPROVED review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Community Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 2 150511 jb 00710621 BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015 L-1 SITE AMENITIES AND SIGNAGE LAYOUT 1 3 5 6 8 9 MAYFIELD SLOUGH RWQCP 7 4 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 56 6 7 7 7 7 9 3 ACCESSIBLE TRAIL MAINTENANCE PATH EXISTING BAYSHORE TRAIL GROUP GATHERING NODE PROPOSED BRIDGE BENCH(ES) LOCATION PROPOSED VEGETATIVE ISLAND(S) POSSIBLE FUTURE VEGETATIVE ISLANDS (PENDING PILOT EVALUATION) POTENTIAL BURROWING OWL HABITAT LOCATION ROCK-LINED DRAINAGE SWALES MEASURE E AREA (+/- 10 ACRES) EXISTING BRIDGE TO REMAIN15 6 7 8 9 4 3 2 KEYNOTE LEGEND SCALE: 1”= 300’ 0 150’ 300’ 600’ 1 A C C C C D B B B B B D D D A SIGN TYPE, REFER TO SHEET L-3 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015 L-2 VIGNETTE SKETCHES AND PHOTOS OF AMENITIES 10’ WIDE PATHWAY WITH MAINTENANCE CLEARANCE ON BOTH SIDES SMALLER VEGETATIVE ISLAND, 3’ MAX. ABOVE GRADE, TO PRESERVE BAY VIEWS LARGE VEGETATIVE ISLAND, 3’-8’ ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE NOTE: REFER TO “REVEGETATION PROPOSAL” BY JEAN LUM HOY (9/2013) FOR ADDITIONAL VEGETATION ISLAND UNDERLAYMENT REQUIREMENTS VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH EXISTING COBBLE DRAINAGE BED VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP. A A VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP. VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH COBBLE DRAINAGE SWALE PROPOSED TRAIL BRIDGE STACKED SEGMENTAL BLOCK WALLS WITH DRAINAGE CULVERTS AND ROCK RIP-RAP PROPOSED BENCHWOODEN SLATS ON CURVED STEEL FRAME, WITH OPTIONAL DEDICATION PLAQUE PLAN ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING WITH VIEWING AREA PLAN ‘B’: GROUP GATHERING NODE SECTION ‘A’: THROUGH VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING AND VIEWING PLATFORM PERSPECTIVE ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP. COMPASS ROSE FORMED WITH STEEL HEADER AND D.G. (CONTRASTING COLOR) WOODEN BENCHES SITUATED AROUND OUTER EDGE BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015 A PARK ENTRY SIGNAGE B PARK INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE C TRAIL MARKER SIGN D PARK REGULATION SIGN TO BE USED AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL TO INTERPRET UNIQUE NATURAL, CULTURAL, HISTORIC FEATURES, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR PARK VISITORS. INDICATES WHERE USER IS LOCATED AT ON AN ILLUSTRATIVE SITE MAP. SHOWS ALL TRAILS AND THEIR DISTANCES, AND SITE AMENITIES. INDICATES IMPORTANT PARK-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS. VEGETATIVE ISLANDS PLANT LIST SPECIES COMMON NAME Artemesia californica CaIifornia SagebrushArctostaphylos ‘Pacific Mist’ Pacific Mist ManzanitaArctostaphylos ‘Pumila’ Dune ManzanitaAtriplex lentiformis brewerii Coastal QuailbushBaccharis pilul. ‘Pigeon Point’ Coyote BushCeanothus maritimus Bluff LilacCeanothus thrysifIorus Blue Blossom LilacEriogonum fasciculatum CaIifornia BuckwheatEriogonum nudum Naked BuckwheatEriophylIum staechadifoium Yellow YarrowLimonium perezii Sea LavenderLeymus cond. ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild RyeLupinus chamaissonis Coastal Silver LupineMimulus aurantiacus StIcky Monkey Flower Muhlenbergia rigens Deer GrassPinus contorta v. contorta Shore PineSalvia mellifera Black Sage A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q L-3 PARK SIGNAGE DETAILS AND PROPOSED VEGETATION ISLAND PLANT MATERIAL Palo Alto Baylands Preserve Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Landscape Plan and Narrative May 2015 City of Palo Alto Public Services Department, Open Space Division City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Palo Alto Baylands Preserve Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative May 2015 Prepared by City of Palo Alto Public Services Department, Open Space Division City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Oasis Associates Landscape Architects MIG|TRA Environmental Sciences Palo Alto Baylands Preserve Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Table of Contents MIG | TRA May 2015 1.0 Summary and Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Physical and Biological Setting ............................................................................................. 3 3.0 How the Park Concepts were Developed ............................................................................. 5 3.1 Site History ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Public Participation in the Interim Park Concepts Plan ...................................................... 5 3.2.1 Specific Comments and Responses ........................................................................... 6 3.3 Existing Park Facilities and Activities ...............................................................................11 3.3.1 Park Amenities ..........................................................................................................11 3.3.2 Hours of Operation and Typical Park Use .................................................................11 3.4 Current Landfill Monitoring and Maintenance ...................................................................11 3.5 Existing Park Operation and Maintenance .......................................................................12 4. Proposed Interim Park Concepts ...........................................................................................14 4.1 Park Amenities ................................................................................................................14 4.2 Burrowing Owl Management Plan ...................................................................................15 4.3 Park Operation and Maintenance Activities and Best Management Practices .................19 4.4 Interim Park Plan Evaluation Schedule and Future Planning ...........................................21 5.0 Compliance with Baylands Master Plan Goals ....................................................................21 Appendix A: Figures ..................................................................................................................23 Appendix B: Regulatory Information ..........................................................................................35 Appendix C: Burrowing Owl Management Plan .........................................................................39 Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 1 MIG | TRA May 2015 Palo Alto Baylands Preserve Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative 1.0 Summary and Introduction The Palo Alto Landfill is owned, monitored and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. It is located in the 1,940-acre Baylands Nature Preserve, which is part of the Baylands Planning Area (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The landfill operated from the 1930’s to 2011 and is now in the closure/post-closure phase. The landfill was built in phases. Phases I, IIA and IIB were completed and closed and are currently open for park use. Phase IIC is anticipated to be completed and closed in 2015, then the interim park concepts plan will be implemented over the entire landfill except for the Measure E area1. By law, the City is required to monitor the landfill for a minimum of 30 years to assure it does not pose a safety hazard resulting from refuse settlement, the release of landfill gas, or the creation/release of leachate, which is liquid that has come into contact with the buried refuse. The integrity of the landfill is monitored by the Palo Alto Public Works Department, using a system of groundwater, leachate and gas monitoring wells. The post-closure activities, including those that are related to the end use as a park, are approved and overseen by state agencies, including CalRecycle and its Local Enforcement Agency (Santa Clara County), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The long-planned end use of the landfill is parkland. It is part of the Byxbee Park Master Plan, and portions of it have already been closed and developed for park use. In accordance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan the landfill will eventually be converted to park use (with the possible exception of the Measure E area), and is called the Byxbee Park Hills. Byxbee Park activities and maintenance, including the Byxbee Park Hills, are under the supervision of the Open Space Division of the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department. The park is used predominantly by pedestrians, but also dog-walkers, and bicyclists2. The park design concepts described in this narrative and shown in the attached drawings (Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A) will be tested before a final park plan is developed. The concepts address trail locations, vegetation types and management methods, irrigation, benches and signs, and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugeae) nesting and forage habitat. The existing art features will be left in place. Ongoing maintenance of the closed landfill by Public Works and of the park landscape and amenities by Community Services will be necessary after the site is converted to park use. Public Works may need to periodically close portions of the park for landfill maintenance or repair. 1 Measure E was passed by the electorate to study the use of a portion of the closed landfill for a waste-to-energy facility. That study is in process, and the Measure allows 10 years for the study to be completed. The earliest the area will be available for park use is 2021, depending on the outcome of the study. The Measure E area is shown on the plans as a square on the landfill near the wastewater treatment plant. 2 A recent survey of 117 Byxbee Park Hills patrons indicate that 57 percent were pedestrians, 24 percent were cyclists, and 19 percent were dog walkers (R. Bicknell, pers. Comm.) Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 2 MIG | TRA May 2015 The concepts reflect a balance among many factors: providing high-quality wildlife habitat, protection of special-status wildlife species, public safety and compliance with the state and federal regulations that govern the landfill, and public desires for park amenities. The concepts for each amenity are summarized as follows: Trails: trails have been designed with three primary considerations: 1) combining trails and landfill maintenance access roads; 2) providing loops; and 3) providing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access. Based on past management experience at this park, installing dead end or destination trails has resulted in the creation of undesirable “renegade” or “volunteer” trails. Renegade trails adversely impact aesthetics and wildlife habitat, and increase park maintenance costs. Thus, dead end/destination trails have been avoided in favor of loop trails with nodes for viewing wildlife and the surrounding area. Benches: The design includes simple wooden slat benches on a curved steel frame. Benches are placed to take advantage of surrounding views and provide opportunities to stop and view wildlife. Seating is also proposed at the vegetative island groupings (up to 5 locations) and the group gathering node (up to 2 locations). There are currently 15 benches along the bayshore trail and 2 benches on higher slopes. The concepts plan proposes 4 benches in the Phase I area, 4 in the Phase IIA area, 2 in the Phase IIB area, and 4 in the Phase IIC area in addition to the seating associated with the islands and nodes. All bench locations provide a view of the surrounding environment. Signs: the interim park concepts plan includes three types of signs. In addition to the entrance sign, the plan includes wayfinding and interpretive signs to help park users understand where they are and what is special about the preserve. The signs have been designed and placed to minimize visual intrusion and maintenance costs, and to adhere to the Baylands Site Design Guidelines. Vegetation: revegetation of a landfill is limited to plants that do not have deep roots. Plants with deep roots can compromise the final cover of the landfill and create routes for water to enter the buried waste or for gas from the buried waste to escape. The regulatory agencies are sensitive to these issues and tend to restrict the use of shrubs or trees that have deeper roots than annual grasses and wildflowers. Erosion control is also necessary. Because of these concerns, the park vegetation is dominated by grassland species, which provide erosion control and do not penetrate the one-foot clay cap. If approved by the agencies, vegetation also could include shallow-rooted shrub species that have been documented as compatible with landfill covers. This may be more feasible on the evapotranspirative cover in the Phase IIC area, which is four feet deep. The interim park concepts plan also includes vegetation islands in order to provide more variety in vegetation types and heights for both wildlife value and aesthetics (see next paragraph). In addition, the proposed maintenance plan incorporates mowing practices that will result in different vegetation heights across the open areas of the park. This will promote a diverse vegetative structure of low and medium height that will benefit wildlife with a variety of cover and forage opportunities. The landfill lacked vegetation while it was active, and the Interim Park Plan proposes plantings that are compatible with landfill regulatory requirements and wildlife needs. Due to the public’s desire for more variation in vegetation in the park for aesthetic interest, shade, and habitat value, the park concepts include islands of shrub-sized vegetation in the previously closed areas. These islands will be built above the landfill cover, and are lined to prevent root penetration into the landfill cover. As a result of being lined, these islands cannot Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 3 MIG | TRA May 2015 support the root system required for shade trees. Furthermore, shade trees are not natural to the baylands environment and are not encouraged for ecological reasons. Raptors (e.g., hawks) use trees to hunt. Introducing shade trees could adversely impact species native to the baylands, including special status species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgeway (California clapper) rail, black rail, and western burrowing owl. The interim park concepts plan includes eight locations for vegetative islands. A pilot project of one to three islands will be installed first to assure they are successful, and to prepare any design changes before funds are spent on all eight islands. Burrowing Owl: The interim park concepts plan includes areas set aside for potential burrowing owl nesting habitat, a scarce resource for this special-status species. The nesting habitat is delineated from human use by a low berm and would be located in areas of the landfill where the cover will be deep enough to allow burrow activity without compromising the integrity of the landfill cover. The nesting habitat will include artificial burrows and will be seeded with grasses to create the type of habitat conducive to burrowing owl nesting. The installation of this habitat, however, will require approval from the landfill regulatory agencies. Agency staff may not approve this concept because it involves burrows. The remainder of the landfill and the surrounding area will provide forage for burrowing owl. In order to enhance forage opportunities for the owl across the landfill, some of the areas of the landfill will mowed to a different height, or left unmowed, and rock piles and mulch mounds will be installed to create habitat for insects. The tentative locations of these are shown in Figure 2. The Burrowing Owl Management Plan is attached as Appendix C. 2.0 Physical and Biological Setting Landfilling started in the salt marsh adjacent to San Francisco Bay in the 1930’s before the ecological value of the salt marsh wetland and the potentially hazardous nature of landfills were recognized. The landfill now consists of a hilly area rising to a maximum of 60 feet in elevation above sea level in an area that was historically flat. Its height is reflected in its name as the Byxbee Park Hills. The area surrounding the Byxbee Park Hills contains fresh and saltwater wetlands, the wastewater treatment plant, the Palo Alto airport, office buildings, the golf course, the duck pond, the Environmental Volunteers center and the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. The Palo Alto Baylands provides habitat for a wide variety of common birds, including both aquatic and upland species such as ducks, herons, sparrows, and blackbirds. Common mammal species include mice (Mus sp.; Peromyscus sp.), vole (Microtus sp.), ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), among others. All of these species are expected to occur in the Byxbee Park Hills. Special status species are discussed below. The Baylands Preserve historically and currently provides habitat for special-status species associated with salt marsh habitat (Table 1); species known to occur in the vicinity of the Byxbee Park Hills, include the salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgeway (California clapper) rail, snowy egret, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and western burrowing owl. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 4 MIG | TRA May 2015 Table 1. Special-status species Common Name Scientific Name Plants Point Reyes bird’s-beak Cordylanthus maritimus Akali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener Hoover’s button celery Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri California seablite Suaeda californica Congdon’s tarplant Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii Animals Longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleicthyus California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. coturniculus Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinuss nivosus Snowy egret Egretta thula Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus California least tern Sternula antillarum Northern harrier Circus cyanus American peregrine falcon Falco peregrine anatus White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Burrowing owl Anthene cunicularia hypugeae Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula Saltmarsh common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa Saltmarsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Changes in the baylands habitat occurred over time as the salt marsh was gradually filled and upland vegetation became established. As a result the Baylands now also provides habitat for the western burrowing owl, a species of special concern, and roosting habitat for herons, protected by California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. When the Palo Alto Baylands was a saltmarsh3 it did not provide burrow habitat for the western burrowing owl, however, because of the gradual loss of its grassland habitat in areas located between the bay wetlands and the forested foothills, and the gradual increase in filled areas in the baylands that now contain grassland and ground squirrels this species has found refuge in these areas, including at landfills, airports, and golf courses. Because this owl species is likely to be extirpated in the south bay region due to the significant reduction in its habitat, passive park uses around the south bay have been identified in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan as particularly important for protecting this species. The vegetation in the baylands includes species tolerant of salt-water, salt in the soil, and salt in the wind that blows from the bay. As a result, the native vegetation is typically low-growing except for a few shrub species. The creeks that led to the bay provided freshwater habitat for trees, but native California trees do not tolerate salt water, and were not historically present in the baylands. Tree species currently found in the area are predominantly eucalyptus species. Wildlife uses open space for food and cover, and wildlife habits are adapted to the physical features in the environment. The animals that use the baylands are adapted to an environment 3 About 100 years ago the saltmarshes around San Francisco Bay were much more extensive. In this area the marsh extended to US 101. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 5 MIG | TRA May 2015 that does not include trees. A significant change in vegetative structure would affect the dynamics, and potentially harm protected species. For example, trees introduced into the baylands may provide an opportunity for predators (e.g., raptors such as hawks, owls) to establish hunting territories they could not have established before. That opportunity could significantly affect the special-status species that both provide a food source (i.e., salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgeway [California clapper] rail, Western burrowing owl) and that are impacted by the competition for a food source (i.e., Western burrowing owl). 3.0 How the Park Concepts were Developed The Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts were developed with input from the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department regarding the landfill, the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department regarding park use and maintenance, and the public. The project team looked at the site history, the regulatory requirements, current features and uses, and the biological resources, particularly burrowing owl. All of the information collected from these sources was used to develop the concepts that are presented in Figure 2. 3.1 Site History The landfill began receiving waste in the early 1930s and operated as a Class III non-hazardous waste landfill. In 1978 the Palo Alto City Council approved the Baylands Master Plan and adopted the Environmental Impact Report, which included a principal element of converting the landfill to a pastoral park after closure. In 1989, the Council approved the Byxbee Landfill Park Master Plan and Phase I Park development. The park has been developed and opened to the public in several phases. Phase I contains 29 acres located in the northeastern part of the Landfill, and it is currently developed as a passive park with trails, restrooms, and art features. Phase IIA and IIB covers 46 acres immediately to the south of Phase I and have been capped and opened to the public. Phase IIC (51 acres) will be ready for park development in 2015. A Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan for each phased closure of Phases IIA, IIB and IIC were approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now called CalRecycle), and the Local Enforcement Agency (the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health). A final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan was approved in January 2014. The landfill reached refuse capacity in late July 2011 and is now in the process of closure, which is expected to be completed in 2015. 3.2 Public Participation in the Interim Park Concepts Plan On July 10, 2014, City staff met with a group of Baylands stakeholders at the site, including community members in support of parks and representatives from Canopy, Acterra, and the Audubon Society. The draft concepts for Byxbee Park Hills were presented for discussion. The primary concerns raised by stakeholders during the meeting related to impacts to wildlife, regional connections, trail surfaces, and signage. The plan was subsequently modified to reduce the number of trails to the minimum necessary for landfill maintenance and safety. On September 23, 2014, City staff presented the revised plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission at a regular hearing. Comments received at that time included concerns about the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 6 MIG | TRA May 2015 trail surface being easy to navigate (smaller rock), avoiding the use of roundup and mowing, providing connectivity between the habitat islands for wildlife, using smaller vehicles in the park if possible, having less art at the park, adding shade but not necessarily adding trees, providing a variety of vegetation heights, providing a trail connection to Faber Place, including stairs for runners to use as a fitness tool, and adding dead-end trails for wildlife viewing. These comments are addressed below. 3.2.1 Specific Comments and Responses The following issues were raised by the Parks and Recreation Commission, various stakeholders, and by members of the public who attended the Parks and Recreation Commission hearing. Mowing/Roundup/Weed Management. Additional details were requested regarding where mowing will occur, and how it will impact wildlife and their habitat. Mowing has two functions: weed control and habitat enhancement for burrowing owls. Because optimal nesting habitat for burrowing owls consists of grasses less than about six inches in height around the nest burrow, the “burrow habitat” shown on Figure 8 of the Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl Byxbee Park Hills (Appendix C) will be mowed at a frequency to maintain grass height at six inches or less, except when there are active nests. Optimal foraging habitat for burrowing owls consists of a mosaic of different vegetation heights along with features such as rock, brush and mulch piles that provide habitat for a variety of prey species including invertebrates (earwigs and Jerusalem crickets) and small mammals (field mice, voles). Mowing in areas of the landfill that are not set aside for burrow habitat will occur at a frequency sufficient to suppress invasive weeds, and will provide “forage habitat” (see Figures 8 and 9 of the Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl Byxbee Park Hills). Generally speaking, the areas that are mowed to a height of 6 inches or less provide less vegetative cover for small mammals, so these species will be expected to forage and breed at a higher frequency in the forage habitat than in the burrow habitat. Similarly, invertebrate and small mammal species are expected to be more numerous in forage habitat areas where mulch, brush and rock piles have been added and where less frequent mowing will allow dense vegetative cover to develop. Portions of the graded landfill cover with 25 percent or greater slope will be left largely natural, unless vegetation management is absolutely necessary due to fire safety or other regulations. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach used to minimize risk to people and the environment during pest control activities. It focuses on long-term solutions that prevent new pest species from being introduced, careful tailoring or pest management to determine the most effective strategy, and combining management techniques to maximize effectiveness. Staff will explore all other reasonable efforts to control pests and weeds before using pesticides, in accordance with City’s IPM policy. Techniques attempted thus far have included hand pulling weeds, solarization, flaming, and applying natural herbicides such as apple cider vinegar. While these techniques have met with some success, in limited situations herbicide is the only way to address the weed issue. For example, herbicide has been the only effective technique for removing weeds from trails in the Byxbee Park Hills. Vegetation Planting and Management. Various parties were concerned about what plant species could be included in the habitat island areas as well as throughout the rest of the park. Specific concerns raised include protection of the landfill cap and leachate management, shade, Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 7 MIG | TRA May 2015 aesthetics, public access to vegetation islands, connectivity between vegetation islands, and connectivity between the park and other natural habitat areas. Phases I, IIA, and IIB have a compacted clay cap that is one foot deep in some areas with a topsoil dressing of an inch or two for planting erosion control grasses. Landfill regulations addressing the integrity of the cap restrict the type of vegetation that can be planted on closed landfills to plants that are shallow rooted and provide erosion control, typically grasses and forbs. The Interim Park Concepts includes vegetation islands that have an additional three to five feet of cover so that plants with roots up to five feet deep can be grown. This will benefit both wildlife by providing more diverse habitat and also park users by adding aesthetic elements to the park. Plant species identified in the Interim Park Concepts were chosen on the basis of root depth. Because most shade trees have deep roots, smaller trees and shrubs such as shore pine, buckeye and manzanita, which provide less shade, were selected. Plants with roots deeper than one foot cannot be allowed to grow outside of the vegetation islands with the exception of Phase IIC, which will have a three-foot evapo-transpirative cap that allows for plants with deeper roots, such as shrubs. Thus, while shallow rooted perennials that invade landfill areas outside of the vegetated islands and the Phase IIC area may be left in place, shrubs and trees with deeper root systems will be removed to maintain the integrity of the landfill cover. Grasses and forbs can and will be planted anywhere throughout the landfill because their root systems are shallow. The Interim Park Concepts Plan includes a palette of plant species and management methods that will create habitat diversity for wildlife. It includes vegetated islands, low-mowed grassland, mid-mowed grassland, and untended grassland. All of the common wildlife species that are expected to occur at Byxbee Park Hills will take advantage of these habitats. Park users will benefit by having aesthetically pleasing plantings in the park; it is not expected that park users will enter the vegetated islands, due to poor access and dense vegetation. The vegetated islands are connected by grassland areas. The common wildlife in the Palo Alto Baylands area actively move between habitat types, and the vegetated islands are close enough to each other to be accessible to wildlife. They will be part of a mosaic of natural habitat in the Baylands Preserve locally, and around the edges of the south bay in a regional sense. None of the amenities proposed in the Interim Park Concepts present a barrier to wildlife movement. Management of Burrowing Owls and Squirrels. Stakeholders raised various concerns about how to best manage both burrowing owls and ground squirrels. Specific topics include how squirrel management will impact the ecosystem, artificial burrow and burrow habitat maintenance, how close trails should be to burrow habitat to minimize impacts on burrowing owl behavior, and if burrow habitat could be fenced. Ground squirrels occur in the lands immediately surrounding the landfill, so if squirrels are managed inside the park, their predators (primarily hawks, but also foxes) can find ground squirrel prey in the Baylands Preserve around Byxbee Park Hills. Rodent predators typically have a hunting range of several miles, and have not depended on the landfill for prey, with the exception of seagulls, because the landfill to date has provide limited habitat for small mammal prey species. The predators will likely still forage inside the park in the absence of squirrels because they also feed on other small mammals and reptiles that will forage and breed in the park once the vegetation is established. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 8 MIG | TRA May 2015 Ground squirrels primarily consume plant material while they are feeding, and in doing so, account for a significant amount of natural weed suppression. The weed suppression will not occur in areas where squirrels are removed, but a mowing plan is in place for weed control. In the absence of ground squirrels, it will also be necessary to construct artificial nest burrows for burrowing owls. Park staff would have to regularly clean accumulated debris from the artificial burrows in order to mimic the task that is performed by squirrels. In the absence of any maintenance, burrows will fall into disrepair, the entrances will be blocked, and the burrow will not be used by burrowing owls. Human clearing of owl burrows is not as desirable as ground squirrel clearing because there may be subtleties associated with ground squirrel co-habitation that cannot be mimicked by human management, it adds expense, and it could disturb resident owls. However, if the regulatory agencies prohibit ground squirrel use in portions of the landfill where burrowing owl nesting habitat is installed, the next best approach is for humans to keep the burrow entrances clear. Other maintenance activities for owls include mowing and clearing of burrow habitat. Shrubs can be left in the forage habitat, but should be removed in the burrow habitat. Burrowing owls prefer open foraging areas, so fewer shrubs are optimal habitat. Shrubs also provide cover and perching sites for burrowing owl predators such as feral cats and raptors, so are not beneficial to areas set aside as burrow habitat. The Interim Byxbee Park Hills Concepts Plan will establish wildlife in an area where almost none exists at the moment. Flushing distances are meaningful in situations where extremely sensitive wildlife are already established and where a new disturbing activity is being undertaken. At Byxbee Park Hills a baseline of human activity has been established, and wildlife that can function within that baseline level will colonize the area, while disturbance-sensitive species may not. Shoreline Park is an excellent example that burrowing owls will become established in areas with the level of activity that can be expected at Byxbee Hills Park. Adaptive management strategies, including the addition of perimeter mounds or fencing to decrease disturbance to wildlife, can be undertaken if it becomes obvious that they are needed. Other Wildlife. Stakeholders asked what wildlife could be expected to occur in the park if burrowing animals are disallowed. Audubon requested that the City build nests or nesting areas for swallows. In the absence of squirrels, and potentially burrowing owls, once grasslands and other vegetation become established, the typical grassland suite of species will quickly begin to appear. These include invertebrates, field mice, deer mice and voles, gopher snakes and western fence lizards, song birds such as black phoebe, sparrows, California towhee, various flycatchers and aerial insectivores such as swallows, and raptors. At night the park will be used by opossum, raccoon, and owls that occur in the vicinity. Swallows generally nest on wood, concrete and stucco structures. Due to the issue of subsidence, it is not possible to construct this type of structure on the landfill. Currently the landfill does not support nesting habitat for swallows. Conversion of the landfill to a park does not result in any negative impacts to swallow nesting and foraging habitat, and should increase in foraging habitat area and quality. Trails and Stairs. Many questions and concerns were raised about trails including the number needed, appropriate trail substrate, off-road travel by maintenance personnel and hikers in their absence, and trail “etiquette”. The commission also asked if stairs could be added for runners. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 9 MIG | TRA May 2015 Landfill gas and leachate systems maintenance and monitoring are required by State and Federal regulations. Landfill Staff need adequate pathways to service the hundreds of gas wells, leachate wells, condensate sumps, valves and sampling ports. Staff needs to monitor and perform maintenance on these components on a daily basis. Access is especially limited during the wet season where the ground gets muddy and travel is restricted. Leachate well/pump maintenance requires staff to bring tools, pumps, piping and fittings to the actual well location. Staff needs to be able to drive up to these wells in many cases. There will be 1,850 feet fewer trails in Phase I than in the original Byxbee Park development. As a result of comments from the stakeholders meeting, staff reviewed the draft interim park concepts and eliminated 1,100 feet of trails in Phases IIA and IIB compared to the first draft, and also removed 150 feet of trails on Phase IIC. After the ad hoc committee meeting, an additional 500 feet of trail was removed. Staff has reviewed the options and has included the least intrusive and minimum number of pathways to service the landfill maintenance systems. These systems are monitored using a low impact vehicle. Ranger vehicles are only driven on sanctioned roads, and Open Space staff does not typically need to drive off the roads and trails. Exceptions are when there is a compelling reason to drive off road, such as a fire or medical emergency, or when the work requires being off-road, such as mowing. The off-road traffic is not expected to impact wildlife as long as trips are kept to a minimum, access routes are reused for the trip in and out, low driving speed are maintained, and care is taken to maintain a safe distance from wildlife occupying the area. These are in keeping with current practices. In addition, renegade trails created by hikers will be scarified to discourage usage and re-seeded with native seed mix to restore habitat. Signage will be added to indicate sensitive habitat areas. Trails will be graded and maintained so that they provide a smooth walking surface. They will be made with Class II aggregate baserock to be stable and not rocky. Stairs cannot be added to the site at this time because of issues related to landfill subsidence, maintenance and repair, and liability concerns. Park Utility Vehicles. Commenters voiced concerns about the use of large off-road equipment and its impacts on habitat. The City’s primary responsibility is to comply with the legally mandated post-closure plan. As a result, there may be times that heavy equipment is required to be used on the closed landfill/Byxbee Park Hills to repair the landfill cover and protect air and water quality. The required post-closure duties include: (1) maintain the structural integrity and effectiveness of all containment structures, and maintain the final cover as necessary to correct the effects of settlement or other adverse factors; (2) continue to operate the leachate collection and removal system as long as leachate is generated and detected; (3) maintain monitoring systems and monitor the ground water, surface water, and the unsaturated zone in accordance with applicable requirements of Article 1, Subchapter 3, Chapter 3, Subdivision 1 (section 20380 et seq.); (4) prevent erosion and related damage of the final cover due to drainage; and, (5) protect and maintain surveyed monuments [installed under section 20950(d)] Monitoring activities can be completed with a low impact vehicle. The City purchased a lightweight turf vehicle, to minimize impacts on the trails. The utility vehicle (Kubota brand) is used for monitoring and inspections of the landfill’s environmental control systems as well as Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 10 MIG | TRA May 2015 performing inspections of the landfill as required by Title 27, Section 21090 (C). It is used for maintenance to the extent possible, based on maintenance needs. Rock Swale. The Parks and Recreation Commission stated that the rock swale was unattractive. Other commenters asked if the size of the swales shown on the plan maps is correct. The swales are water quality protection features. They are designed to reduce scouring and erosion and to slow storm water flows off of the landfill and into the bay. The design minimizes adverse impacts to water quality, and the rock swales are an important water quality compliance feature. The size of the swales shown on the plan maps was checked and the correct sizes are shown on the updated plans. Public Art. Commenters expressed a desire for fewer public art features. No additional public art is proposed as part of the interim concepts. Signage. The Commission felt that signage restricting access to maintenance pathways may be bypassed and ignored by the public, that signs for sensitive habitat and “trail etiquette” are necessary, and interpretive signs for nature and art are desirable. Some like the signage presented in the Interim Park Concepts, and others did not. The Architectural Review Board reviewed the plans and gave staff guidance on the Byxbee Park Hills destination sign. The proposed signs for the Byxbee Park Hills were reviewed by staff in response to comments. Please see the current plan set for proposed signs, which meet the Baylands Design Guidelines. Graphical Presentation of Plan. A commission member commented that contour lines were incorrect on maps of the Park, and that it was not clear why certain areas are restricted to trail development. The contour lines provided on the map are correct. The maps have been revised to clarify elevations and slopes, and the plans include a different line type so the contours are easier to read. The trail map was developed by a landscape architect with trail expertise, and with sensitivity to City staff concerns about trail design and maintenance. City Public Works and Open Space staff have collaborated to develop the minimum necessary trail network. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 11 MIG | TRA May 2015 3.3 Existing Park Facilities and Activities 3.3.1 Park Amenities Trails. The Byxbee Park Hills currently contains trails that connect to other portions of the Baylands Preserve and to Shoreline Park in Mountain View. The trail system is currently limited to the portions of the landfill that are opened as parkland (phases I, IIA and IIB) Public Art. Public art in the Byxbee Hills Park includes several features installed around 1990. These features include a k-rail chevron, a pole field, and a wind wave structure. Habitat. The park currently provides ruderal grassland habitat for wildlife, including the burrowing owl. It does not provide habitat for the special-status species that occur in the salt marsh, except possibly where the upland habitat exists immediately adjacent to salt marsh. In those areas it is feasible that salt marsh harvest mouse could travel a short distance into the upland habitat, particularly if there is a high tide and it needs to move out of the pickleweed marsh. Park Signs. There are two metal signs in the Byxbee Park Hills, including the original aluminum sign in the parking lot, and a general Baylands Nature Preserve sign about rules. Elsewhere in the Baylands Preserve there are wooden signs in the Design Science (Carl Rohr) style. Furniture. The park currently contains two wooden benches on the top and 15 wooden benches located along the Bayshore Trail on the perimeter of Byxbee Park Hills. 3.3.2 Hours of Operation and Typical Park Use The hours of operation are 8 a.m. to sunset. Typical park use is passive, including walking/hiking/running, bird/nature watching, mountain biking, and dog-walking. A recent poll of 117 park users found 57 percent of the users were pedestrians, 24 percent were bicyclists, and 19 percent were walking dogs. 3.4 Current Landfill Monitoring and Maintenance California regulations mandate that the landfill be managed and maintained throughout a minimum 30-year post-closure period based on an approved post-closure maintenance plan. The primary purpose is to protect the integrity of the landfill cover, and monitor and to minimize impacts to air and water quality by managing landfill gas and leachate. The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department is responsible for landfill maintenance and management throughout the 30 year post-closure period. Activities include importing soil and re-grading to correct areas where the surface of the landfill has settled so that water does not pond, seep into the refuse and create leachate, maintenance and repair of gas wells, pipes, and sumps, and leachate wells and pipelines, and monitoring of leachate and gas extraction wells and piezometers. Emergency repairs to these facilities may also be necessary. The laws that govern the landfill operation and maintenance are described in Appendix B. The landfill gas and leachate collection/monitoring facilities are largely concentrated in the central areas of the landfill, with the perimeters having fewer areas that will require regular access for maintenance. There is an unavoidable need for earth moving equipment, utility vehicles and personnel to be able to access all areas of the landfill and park. Vehicles will remain on maintenance roads as much as possible. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 12 MIG | TRA May 2015 The landfill is comprised of several layers, including the waste layers, a cover layer or “cap” and a vegetation layer. The cap is designed to minimize the release of landfill gas and leachate, and to prevent infiltration of surface water. The landfill has been developed and closed in phases. Phase I, Phase IIA and Phase IIB are capped with a 12-inch thick clay cover. Phase IIC will be capped with a 4-foot deep evapotranspirative (ET) soil cover in 2015. Landfill leachate is monitored with 17 piezometers placed within the four phases of the landfill. Leachate is pumped from the landfill through a network of 23 existing extraction wells equipped with pneumatic pumps. The leachate is pumped to the City’s sanitary sewer for treatment. A perimeter groundwater monitoring well system is used to monitor the surrounding groundwater in case there is a release of contaminants, from the buried waste. The groundwater monitoring system consists of 13 existing wells and sampling points located around the facility perimeter. A perimeter drainage control system collects surface runoff as part of the landfill drainage and erosion control system. Runoff is collected in v-ditches that discharge to catch basins that discharge to surrounding water bodies. Runoff is also collected on the top deck of the landfill using berms and buried storm water inlets and pipes Five gas monitoring probes to monitor potential landfill gas migration are spaced at 300 to 500 foot intervals along the property boundary shared with the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP). Several structures on the landfill and several structures at the PARWQCP are monitored for the presence of landfill gas as a safety measure. Gas extraction on the landfill is accomplished through a system of 109 wells distributed throughout the landfill. The gas is pumped to a sewage sludge incinerator or an adjacent flare at PARWQCP via a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) network. Burrowing animals, including primarily the ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), are managed in landfill areas to insure that their burrowing does not damage the clay or evapotranspirative caps. Damage to the cap can allow surface water infiltration and lead to excessive load on the leachate extraction system; it also can result in the release of landfill gas, compromise both leachate and landfill gas extraction systems by damaging piping, and lead to violation of permit conditions. Ground squirrels are controlled throughout the landfill with a Pressurized Exhaust Rodent Control (PERC) system. The PERC system consists of a trailer-mounted combustion engine that exhausts to a pressurized tank. A mixture of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is delivered from the tank to the ground squirrel burrow, via a hose with a probe that is inserted into the burrow entrance for a minimum of three minutes. Once treated, the entrance to the burrow is sealed. Active burrows are identified for treatment by the presence of entering or exiting squirrels and the presence of fresh mounds of dirt or evidence of new burrow excavation. No treatment is applied where there are signs of burrowing owl occupation, including feathers, pellets or other visual indicators of owl presence. 3.5 Existing Park Operation and Maintenance This section describes existing park operation and maintenance activities. The proposed new maintenance practices are described in Section 4.3, below. Byxbee Park Hills is a passive use open space area with walking trails located on closed portions of the landfill. Capped and contoured slopes of the landfill have been covered with a layer of topsoil and hydroseeded with native grasses and forbs. The site is not irrigated, but the Phase I, Phase IIA and Phase IIB portions of the landfill that are open to park use have been Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 13 MIG | TRA May 2015 revegetated with a combination of annual grasses and forbs. Phase IIC is in the process of being capped and hydroseeded. In December 2014 approximately 18 acres was hydroseeded. The remaining 33 acres is under construction. The Palo Alto Community Services Department – Open Space, Parks and Golf Division is responsible for the maintenance of the Byxbee Park Hills facility, apart from the landfill maintenance activities that are implemented by Public Works. The City has assigned these maintenance activities to a contractor. For the purposes of maintenance, the park is divided up into three areas color coded as green, yellow and red (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). Areas color coded in green are maintained each year unless repair to the landfill cap is ongoing. Areas coded in yellow are still being capped. Areas coded in red were maintained beginning in 2014. Maintenance requirements include vegetation management, trail repair, and repair of park amenities. Maintenance activities include mowing, trail grading and filling, revegetation, coyote brush removal, maintenance of signs and benches, and application of herbicide. The current maintenance practices are described below. Mowing. Currently mowing is conducted in May as a weed maintenance measure and to provide sunlight to native perennials. All hydroseeded areas are mowed to a height of four to six inches, with mowing repeated as necessary to meet these height specifications. Mowing is conducted with a wheeled tractor fitted with a flail or rotary mower. A modified mowing regime to increase the prey base for burrowing owl (and other raptors) is proposed (see Section 4.3, below). Trail Maintenance. Six to 12-foot wide pedestrian and cycling trails were originally constructed using an oyster shell, and baserock, but these have been replaced with ten to 12-foot paths consisting of Class II aggregate baserock. Current maintenance methods used to maintain unobstructed access along these pathways include spot treating weeds with herbicide. “Renegade paths” created by cyclists and hikers who stray from established routes are rototilled and seeded on an as-needed basis. Seeding occurs in winter months. Trails are repaired by regrading and filling potholes or low spots as needed. Revegetation. Two general methods of reseeding can occur at the Byxbee Park Hills – mechanical and hydro-seeding. Prior to reseeding the soil will be loosened either by discing, chiseling, or rototilling to a depth of six to eight inches. For mechanical seeding the seed and fertilizer will be broadcasted then harrowed and ring-rolled. For hydroseeding, a balanced fertilizer is first applied to the loosened soil at a rate of 50 pounds per acres, and two inches of compost are tilled into the soil. Next, seed mixture is hydroseeded over the prepared area. The current hydroseed mixture4 includes the following species: • California brome (Bromus carinatus) • Blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus) • Small fescue (Vulpia microstachys) • Native clammy clover (Trifolium obtusiflorum) Coyote Brush Removal. Under current maintenance activities coyote brush is regularly removed from the park to prevent coyote brush roots from penetrating the landfill cap. Coyote brush is removed concurrently with annual mowing. 4 Seed mixtures will be selected based on area-specific needs (erosion control, ecotype, etc.). Additional seed mixes could include species approved in the Final Closure and Post-Closure Monitoring Plan (December 2013), or from the list of seeds in the “Proposed Hydroseed Species” list on drawing L-1 – Interim Construction Plan. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 14 MIG | TRA May 2015 Application of Herbicide. Herbicides are not a preferred means of vegetation control, and are used with written permission of the Supervising Ranger and in accordance with state and local regulations. Staff follows the City’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policies and tries other methods to remove weeds before using herbicides. Herbicides are only applied in designated areas and time frames. As noted above, weeds on trails are spot treated with herbicides. Herbicides may also be used to control noxious and/or highly invasive weeds that form dense stands and reduce wildlife habitat quality if other methods are determined to be ineffective. 4. Proposed Interim Park Concepts 4.1 Park Amenities Trails. The trails and maintenance paths are proposed to be ten feet wide. The trails will be composed of Class II aggregate base rock. Redundant or unnecessary trails have been removed, and trail alignments have been modified in a few areas to improve the park experience. The existing bayshore trail which connects Byxbee Park Hills to Baylands trails to the north and south will remain in its existing alignment. The trail system is composed of accessible trails most of which are less than 5 percent grade while the maintenance roads (dual-use trails) can be up to 8 percent grade. Accessible routes include both destination and loop trails that start at the parking lot. Benches. The park concepts plan provides for up to 15 benches placed to take advantage of surrounding views and provide opportunities to view wildlife, particularly birds (Figures 2, 3, and 4) in addition to benches provided at the vegetative island groupings and the group gathering node (see Figure 2, Sheet L-2, and Figure 3, Sheet L-3.1). The proposed bench design is wooden slats on a curved steel frame, with the option for a dedication plaque. Benches in the vegetative island groupings would consist of a segmental seatwall bench, and seating in the group gathering node will include benches that face outward to take advantage of the views. Signs. Signs proposed in the interim park concepts include park entry signage (1), park interpretive signs (5), trail marker signs (4), and park regulation signs (4). See Figure 2, Sheet L-3 for sign designs and Figure 2 for conceptual locations. All signs comply with the Palo Alto Baylands Design Guidelines. The proposed park entry sign is a second tier sign in accordance with the Baylands Design Guidelines and approved by the City’s Architectural Review Board. The park interpretive signs are intended as an educational tool to interpret unique natural, cultural and historic features, as well as management activities for park visitors. These signs are placed at trail nodes and overlooks, and a total of five signs are shown in the concept plan. They are composed of a 42-inch PVC/MDO panel printed with informational graphics surrounded by a two-inch frame on a 16-inch square wood base. They are four feet high. The five trail markers are placed where users enter the park and at the group node. Each indicates where the user is located on an illustrative map, and shows all of the trails and their distances as well as park amenities. They have the same design as the park interpretive sign. Up to four park regulation signs are sited in the park, at park entrances and at one vegetative island grouping near the parking lot. These signs indicate important park-specific regulations. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 15 MIG | TRA May 2015 They are two feet wide and four feet tall with 4x4 square redwood top and bottom rails, an R7 aluminum sign panel (18x24 inches), and two 4x4 square redwood posts. Vegetation. Most of the Byxbee Park Hills will be planted with grassland in order to maintain the integrity of the landfill cover, which could be compromised by deeper rooted plants. Steeper sloped areas will not be mowed as often as the flatter areas on the hilltops, so there will be a variation in vegetation height. In order to provide some visual relief and wildlife habitat, the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts plan includes up to eight vegetated islands (Figure 2, and Figure3, Sheet L-2.1). A limited number of islands will be constructed on a pilot basis before all of the islands are installed. These are areas designed as mounds above the landfill cover, with an HDPE liner underneath to protect the landfill cap. The additional protection allows for planting shrubs and perennials, including sage, manzanita, coyote bush, California lilac, buckwheat, lupine, and native grasses. Please see Figure 2, Sheet L-3 for a list of proposed species. These will be installed on a pilot basis, so that their success and technology can be tested. Rock-lined Swales; Bridges. The finished landfill slopes include five swales which will be lined with rock by Public Works to prevent erosion of the landfill cover (Figures 2 and 3, Sheet L-1.1). Bridges are necessary in some areas for trails crossing these swales. The bridge design consists of stacked segmental block walls with drainage culverts. The locations and an example picture are shown in Figure 2, sheets L-1 and L-2. There are two existing bridges that will remain, and there is one proposed bridge in the concept plan (see Figure 2, Sheet L-1 and Figure 3, Sheet L-1.1). 4.2 Burrowing Owl Management Plan Management actions for the burrowing owl take into account both landfill regulatory requirements and the ecological needs of the owl. These actions will only be implemented if the Burrowing Owl Management Plan is approved by the regulatory agencies. Long term maintenance and management of the landfill includes monitoring of and repairs to landfill control systems and the landfill cover. Large-scale repair to areas where landfill subsidence occurs is also anticipated. While the schedule of some of this work can be planned for the non-breeding season for burrowing owls, emergency repairs may also be necessary. Management actions addressed in the Burrowing Owl Management Plan (attached in Appendix C) include ground squirrel control, public use and access, vegetation management, creation and maintenance of artificial burrow sites, feral cat (Felis silvestris catus) control, and long-term monitoring. These are summarized in Table 2. The measures that are included in the Burrowing Owl Management Plan will benefit other grassland wildlife species as well, including small mammals, raptors, song birds, reptiles, and invertebrates. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 16 MIG | TRA February 17, 2015 Table 2 Summary of Burrowing Owl Management Activities Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions Install artificial owl burrows September to February Area 1: construct 1 nest burrow, 3 satellite burrows according to plans in Barclay 2008. Area 2: construct 2 nest burrows, 3 satellite burrows. Area 3: construct 1 nest burrow, 2 satellite burrows. Burrow construction is predicated on approval by landfill regulatory agencies, which may impose additional requirements. Install habitat features such as rock piles and mulch piles September to February Install these features where rodents and insects are infrequently observed and/or vegetation has not yet become established. Create a minimum of 5 rock piles and 20 brush/mulch piles up to a maximum of 50 habitat features for owl prey species throughout both nesting and foraging areas. To make rock piles, stack 15 to 17 6- inch minus-sized rocks, rip rap or similar. Mulch piles will consist of chipped wood, scattered to a depth of approximately 3-4” over a 100 ft2 area. Brush piles Will consist of piles of sticks or twigs, or grasses piled approximately 2 to 3 feet high by about four feet wide. See attached for possible locations and example photos. Maintenance, such as weeding of the habitat features is not required. Tentative locations may be subject to approval by landfill regulatory agencies. Install instructional signage As soon as feasible after approval of the Interim Park Plan. Along the edge of pathways bordering nesting habitat, install signage stating “Sensitive Wildlife Area. Please Stay Out”. Consider adding signage which says, “Sensitive Wildlife Area. Do not dump or feed cats” and “Please no dog walking in this area. Keep dogs on a leash at all times”. Keep signage vague to discourage vandalism of burrows or harassment of nesting owls. Mowing of forage habitat Twice Yearly - April and May Mow at the minimum frequency necessary for fire and weed control. The goal is to create foraging habitat with sufficient cover for small rodents and insects. Slopes with a grade steeper than 25% will be mowed at a decreased frequency to help create a mosaic of different vegetation heights throughout the forage habitat. Where weeds form dense, single-species stands in the forage habitat, mowing frequency can be increased. Mowing may also be combined with other methods of weed control in these areas. Where vegetation cover is sparse consider adding mulch or brush piles. Avoid mowing at dawn or dusk when owls are normally active. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 17 MIG | TRA February 17, 2015 Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions Mowing of burrow habitat Twice Yearly – February and November if owls are present. Feb, May, August and November if owls are not present. Mowing in the vicinity of active burrows may be done under the guidance of a qualified biologist and must follow the guidelines of the CDFW Staff Report (2012). Mow to keep vegetation at a height of approximately 5 inches or less. Conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting owls prior to undertaking mowing between February and August. If an active owl nest burrow is found, an avoidance buffer of 250 feet should be established. No mowing should occur inside that buffer. In consultation with a qualified biologist, an impact assessment can be conducted and if appropriate, buffer sizes may be reduced in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). Do not string trim breeding habitat areas. Mow only. No mowing should occur within 250 feet of any active burrowing owl nest burrow unless a qualified biologist has conducted an impact assessment and established alternative buffer distances in accordance with the guidelines established in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) Artificial burrow maintenance Annually in early spring. February is suggested. Debris accumulated at the burrow entrance. Conduct a survey for overwintering burrowing owls prior to clearing. Do not conduct maintenance on occupied burrows. Clear the PVC tubing that makes up the burrow entrance of any obstructions along its entire length using a plumbing snake such as a General Pipe Cleaners D-25-2 Handy Drain Auger. Do not conduct maintenance on burrows occupied by burrowing owls. Feral cat control. As needed Cats are observed in the Park. Live trap and transport to Palo Alto Animal Care and Control. The non-native red fox (Vulpes vulpes) may also occur at Byxbee Park Hills and is known to prey on ground-nesting birds. Contact United States Department of Agriculture for guidance on fox control should they be observed. Landfill maintenance activities As needed Emergency or routine landfill maintenance is needed. Conduct a survey for burrowing owls prior to conducting any landfill maintenance activities. Burrowing owls could potentially occupy a variety of natural and man-made features throughout the area, so surveys should be conducted to ensure that maintenance activities do not impact owls. If owls are found to be present within 250 feet of work in the breeding season or within 170 feet of work in the non-breeding season, contact CDFW for guidance. If owls are detected during the breeding season, a 75-meter (~250 feet) avoidance buffer should be maintained around any occupied burrow until young have fledged. If owls are detected during the non-breeding season a 50-meter (~170 feet) avoidance buffer should be established for the duration of the activity or until owls are no longer present. In the event landfill compliance emergencies require immediate relocation of owls, owls should be passively relocated by a trained biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 18 MIG | TRA February 17, 2015 Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions Vegetation survey for grass height and weed control Late January, April, July and October. Monitoring burrowing owl use 3 times spaced apart during the breeding season (suggest March, June, August); CNDDB report once per year Survey each burrow habitat area for signs of owl use at the burrow entrances; document which burrows are in use. Observe burrow and forage areas for owl activity at dawn and at dusk. Report burrow survey results to landfill and park maintenance staff so that avoidance measures can be implemented if necessary. Report sightings to the California Natural Diversity Database annually (https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting_data_to_cnddb.asp). If burrowing owls are not observed, the Supervising Ranger should consider measures to improve habitat conditions such as by altering the mowing regime, changing mowing heights, or increasing the number of prey habitat features (e.g., rock, brush, mulch piles). Monitoring burrowing owl habitat quality. 3 times spaced apart during the breeding season (suggest March, June, September) Maintain overall vegetation cover at approximately 70%, and no less than 50%. No more than 50% of all areas of the park intended to be vegetated either with hydroseed or other planting, should remain bare ground. If 70% vegetative cover is not achieved, staff will review remediation measures to increase the vegetative cover, such as re-seeding with a revised seed mixture. Survey rock, mulch and brush piles for presence of small mammals and insects. Conduct a visual inspection of the rock piles for small mammals, and/or signs of mammal use such as droppings, flattened grasses. Inspect brush piles by lifting material with a shovel or similar to see if rodents, insects or other prey species move out of the pile when disturbed. Report results to the Supervising Ranger. If prey species are not present, the Supervising Ranger should consider decreasing the mowing frequency, repeating hydroseed application, and/or adding more habitat features such as rock, mulch and brush piles. If vegetation is too sparse, burrowing owl prey species are unlikely to be present, and burrowing owl habitat would be considered of low quality. If vegetation is too tall in dense stands, burrowing owls will not be able to access the habitat to forage or breed. Dense monotypic stands of invasive weed species should be controlled using methods known to control the particular species. This may include mowing at a particular time of year, hand pulling, applying herbicide, or a combination of methods. Refer to the Maintenance Plan for a more detailed description of weed control techniques. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 19 MIG | TRA May 2015 4.3 Park Operation and Maintenance Activities and Best Management Practices The proposed park maintenance activities are described below, and an estimated schedule is presented in Table 3. Trail Maintenance. Trails will be inspected routinely by Open Space staff for disrepair, and a trail maintenance request will be provided to the Supervising Ranger. Trails will be re-graded, filled and re-compacted during the dry season. This may include grading/filling low spots/eroded areas with trail material and compacting the material to assure water does not pond on the trails, water runoff does not cause erosion, and safety hazards are repaired. Repairs will be completed annually or according to a schedule approved by the Supervising Ranger, and will be done during the dry season. Vegetation will be removed from the trails on a regular basis either by hand (with tools) or with herbicide as approved by the Supervising Ranger. The schedule will be determined by the Supervising Ranger and may be combined with other vegetation management schedules and contracts, and may be completed by a contractor or by a City employee as deemed appropriate by the Supervising Ranger. Maintenance of Signs, Benches, Site Furnishings. Signs, benches and other site furnishings will be inspected routinely by Open Space staff for disrepair, and a maintenance request will be provided to the Supervising Ranger. Maintenance may include repair to posts/legs to insure they are plumb and the footing(s) are adequately covered and compacted, removal of graffiti or repair of other vandalism, and repainting or replacement as needed and included in the Parks budget. Mowing Steep Slopes. Woody plants outside of the vegetation islands that are allowed to grow in areas where they will not compromise the landfill cover will be trimmed by hand as necessary to remove dead material, and will not be mowed. Grassland slopes will be mowed as specified in the Burrowing Owl Management Plan (see below) if necessary. See the weed management program for treatment of invasive/noxious weeds; in some cases heavy infestations require a different method of treatment that does not include mowing. Mowing Slopes Less Than 25%. These areas are subject to the same treatment specifications as the steep slopes. The slopes are called out because different equipment may be necessary on steep slopes. Mowing Western Burrowing Owl Breeding and Foraging Habitat. Grasses and weeds will be maintained at a height of less than five inches in the nesting burrow habitat areas to allow an unrestricted view of the surrounding habitat from the burrow. Vegetation that is allowed to grow too tall will discourage owls from colonizing the site and may cause them to abandon a site in which they have overwintered in preference for an area with lower vegetation. A survey for burrowing owls should be conducted in advance of mowing by Open Space staff. Mowing will be conducted in owl breeding areas in February and November if owls are documented to be using the burrows, and in February, May, August, and November if owls are not using the burrows (i.e., avoid mowing when owls are nesting). No mowing should occur within 150 feet of any active nest burrow. Because string trimming is a slower method of weed control, it requires a much more invasive human presence. Mowing will be the principal method of weed management in these areas and string trimmers will not be used when owls are present. Optimal owl foraging habitat consists of grasslands with a healthy population of small rodents and insects, so mowing of grassland foraging habitat will be conducted yearly in April and May, Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 20 MIG | TRA May 2015 and for the remainder of the year it will be done only at a frequency necessary for fire suppression. Weed Management in the Vegetative Island. Noxious weeds and invasive plant species, as defined by the California Invasive Plant Council or Open Space staff, will be removed from the vegetation islands by hand or with hand tools four times per year, or more frequently if approved by the Supervising Ranger. The irrigation system to the vegetation islands will be inspected at least monthly for 3 years after installation to insure the plants are established, and then the inspection period can be reduced as determined appropriate by the Supervising Ranger. Plants that die in the vegetation islands in the first year will be replaced as recommended through adaptive management practices. Weed Management in the Hydroseed Areas. Noxious weeds and invasive plant species, as defined by the California Invasive Plant Council or Open Space staff, will be hand pulled, mechanically removed or sprayed with herbicide subject to the approval of the Supervising Ranger. Treatment methods for heavy infestations of noxious weeds and invasive plant species shall be informed by “Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States” published by the University of California Weed Research and Information Center. Weed management will occur four times per year, or more frequently if approved by the Supervising Ranger. Maintenance of Landscape Art Features. Open Space staff will report any art features maintenance needs to the Community Services Manager responsible for public art. Maintenance of Swales/Drainage Systems. Rock-lined swales, culverts and other drainage systems will be cleaned of debris and muck once per year, or as determined necessary by the Supervising Ranger. Hand methods are recommended to maintain the integrity of the drainage systems. Erosion damage will be repaired once per year, or as determined necessary by the Supervising Ranger. This work may be done by a contractor or Open Space staff. General Maintenance Notes. Perform a quarterly check of all areas of the landfill to ensure no sinking or low spots. Re-grade, fill and compact areas where necessary to prevent water accumulation or further ground disturbance. Areas of the final landfill cover that are not successfully vegetated after hydroseeding will be re-seeded to provide erosion control, as determined by Public Works. Feral cat feeding stations that are found within the park will be removed and whenever they are observed in the park, feral cats will be live trapped and transported to Palo Alto Animal Services. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 21 MIG | TRA May 2015 Table 3. Estimated Maintenance Schedule JA N U A R Y FE B R U A R Y MA R C H AP R I L MA Y JU N E JU L Y AU G U S T SE P T E M B E R OC T O B E R NO V E M B E R DE C E M B E R TRAIL MAINTENANCE X X X X X MOW OWL NESTING BURROW HABITAT–Owls Absent X X X X MOW OWL NESTING BURROW HABITAT–Owls Present X X MOW HYDROSEEDED AREAS X X X X NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEED MANAGEMENT X X X X BENCHES/SITE FURNISHINGS* X RE-SEED (WEATHER DEPENDENT) X X IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE X X X X X X X X X SWALES/DRAINAGE STRUCTURES* X LANDSCAPE ART FEATURES INSPECTION* X *Annually, timing to be determined by the Supervising Ranger; a suggested month is shown in the table. 4.4 Interim Park Plan Evaluation Schedule and Future Planning Open Space staff will establish permanent photo-monitoring locations once the park has been developed, and will take photos at these specific locations in at least two seasons during the year. The reason is to document the progression of vegetation growth that benefits park users and wildlife. The photo-monitoring stations need to include burrowing owl burrow habitat, forage habitat in the rest of Byxbee Park Hills, habitat islands, and a landscape overview. The results will be reviewed annually by the Supervising Ranger and if changes are necessary to the maintenance and operation activities to improve vegetation results, the Supervising Ranger will provide recommendations to the head of the Open Space Division and to the Public Works landfill department. In addition to the photo-monitoring, Open Space staff will keep a log of the monitoring activities conducted under the Burrowing Owl Management Plan, if implementation of the plan is approved by the regulatory agencies. 5.0 Compliance with Baylands Master Plan Goals Master Plan Goals: The overall goal of the master plan was to convert the landfill into a rolling pastoral park that would be an environmental asset and a continuation of open space. In addition, the master plan established the following goals: Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 22 MIG | TRA May 2015 • Preserve and expand marshes • Protect wildlife and restore upland diversity of plants and animals • Control access to environmentally sensitive areas • Expand pedestrian and bicycle activities • Reduce vehicle traffic in the Baylands • Restrict storage and parking of vehicles • Prevent additional urban intrusion • Ensure the landfill area becomes a continuation of natural green space • Integrate art with the park landscape • Eliminate telephone and electric wires and poles Additional goals include the following: • Create habitat for burrowing owl populations to attempt to bring back historic burrowing owl populations • Control and remove invasive weeds • Create a hill and valley effect in the park • Provide panoramic views of the marsh • Create an area within the Baylands that provides passive recreational opportunities that are compatible with the goal of conserving and protecting the natural environment The Byxbee Park Hills Interim Concepts Plan addresses the Baylands Master Plan goals in the following ways: • The park design is pastoral. • The park offers numerous biking and pedestrian trails that provide access to the entire park and numerous viewing opportunities. • The trail system in the park provides pathways that guide park users and encourage them to stay on trails by providing a more navigable surface. The trails system is designed to keep pedestrians and bicyclists from entering environmentally sensitive areas. The interim plan also incorporates trail marker and park regulations signs to keep pedestrians and bicyclists on the trails and out of environmentally sensitive areas. • No motorized vehicles except authorized vehicles (i.e., those used by Open Space and/or Public Works staff or their contractors in the course of their duties, or emergency vehicles such as police, fire, medical). • The park is designed so that it incorporates upland open space and passive recreational activities. • The park provides panoramic views of the marsh. • The park provides three locations to create burrowing owl habitat. • The park design incorporates planting of native grassland and shrub vegetation. • Invasive species and weed management is incorporated into the maintenance plan for the park. • The park provides wildlife habitat. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 23 MIG | TRA May 2015 Appendix A: Figures Figure 1. Project Location Figure 2. Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Landscape Plan Site Amenities and Layout (3 Sheets) Figure 3. Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Plan Construction Documents (6 sheets) Figure 4. Byxbee Park Hills Maintenance Areas T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP Byxbee Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\Figure 1 SiteMap.mxd 9/16/2014 Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Byxbee Park Hills 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Figure 1 Regional and Site VicinityTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc. Byxbee Park Hills Limits and Closure Phases 9 8 8 092 17 280 2 3 7 85 8 7 84 84 Santa Clara San Mateo Alameda Santa Cruz Phase I Phase IIA Phase IIB Phase IIC BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015 L-1 SITE AMENITIES AND SIGNAGE LAYOUT 1 3 5 6 8 9 MAYFIELD SLOUGH RWQCP 7 4 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 56 6 7 7 7 7 9 3 ACCESSIBLE TRAIL MAINTENANCE PATH EXISTING BAYSHORE TRAIL GROUP GATHERING NODE PROPOSED BRIDGE BENCH(ES) LOCATION PROPOSED VEGETATIVE ISLAND(S) POSSIBLE FUTURE VEGETATIVE ISLANDS (PENDING PILOT EVALUATION) POTENTIAL BURROWING OWL HABITAT LOCATION ROCK-LINED DRAINAGE SWALES MEASURE E AREA (+/- 10 ACRES) EXISTING BRIDGE TO REMAIN15 6 7 8 9 4 3 2 KEYNOTE LEGEND SCALE: 1”= 300’ 0 150’ 300’ 600’ 1 A C C C C D B B B B B D D D A SIGN TYPE, REFER TO SHEET L-3 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015 L-2 VIGNETTE SKETCHES AND PHOTOS OF AMENITIES 10’ WIDE PATHWAY WITH MAINTENANCE CLEARANCE ON BOTH SIDES SMALLER VEGETATIVE ISLAND, 3’ MAX. ABOVE GRADE, TO PRESERVE BAY VIEWS LARGE VEGETATIVE ISLAND, 3’-8’ ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE NOTE: REFER TO “REVEGETATION PROPOSAL” BY JEAN LUM HOY (9/2013) FOR ADDITIONAL VEGETATION ISLAND UNDERLAYMENT REQUIREMENTS VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH EXISTING COBBLE DRAINAGE BED VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP. A A VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP. VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH COBBLE DRAINAGE SWALE PROPOSED TRAIL BRIDGE STACKED SEGMENTAL BLOCK WALLS WITH DRAINAGE CULVERTS AND ROCK RIP-RAP PROPOSED BENCHWOODEN SLATS ON CURVED STEEL FRAME, WITH OPTIONAL DEDICATION PLAQUE PLAN ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING WITH VIEWING AREA PLAN ‘B’: GROUP GATHERING NODE SECTION ‘A’: THROUGH VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING AND VIEWING PLATFORM PERSPECTIVE ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP. COMPASS ROSE FORMED WITH STEEL HEADER AND D.G. (CONTRASTING COLOR) WOODEN BENCHES SITUATED AROUND OUTER EDGE BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015 A PARK ENTRY SIGNAGE B PARK INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE C TRAIL MARKER SIGN D PARK REGULATION SIGN TO BE USED AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL TO INTERPRET UNIQUE NATURAL, CULTURAL, HISTORIC FEATURES, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR PARK VISITORS. INDICATES WHERE USER IS LOCATED AT ON AN ILLUSTRATIVE SITE MAP. SHOWS ALL TRAILS AND THEIR DISTANCES, AND SITE AMENITIES. INDICATES IMPORTANT PARK-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS. VEGETATIVE ISLANDS PLANT LIST SPECIES COMMON NAME Artemesia californica CaIifornia SagebrushArctostaphylos ‘Pacific Mist’ Pacific Mist ManzanitaArctostaphylos ‘Pumila’ Dune ManzanitaAtriplex lentiformis brewerii Coastal QuailbushBaccharis pilul. ‘Pigeon Point’ Coyote BushCeanothus maritimus Bluff LilacCeanothus thrysifIorus Blue Blossom LilacEriogonum fasciculatum CaIifornia BuckwheatEriogonum nudum Naked BuckwheatEriophylIum staechadifoium Yellow YarrowLimonium perezii Sea LavenderLeymus cond. ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild RyeLupinus chamaissonis Coastal Silver LupineMimulus aurantiacus StIcky Monkey Flower Muhlenbergia rigens Deer GrassPinus contorta v. contorta Shore PineSalvia mellifera Black Sage A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q L-3 PARK SIGNAGE DETAILS AND PROPOSED VEGETATION ISLAND PLANT MATERIAL INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REVISED COMPASS ROSE 4/8/2015 ES Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 36 MIG | TRA May 2015 Laws Related to Landfill Monitoring and Maintenance Federal Clean Air Act The Palo Alto Landfill is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), an area of non-attainment for national and state ozone, state particulate matter (PM10), and national and state fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The City of Palo Alto operates the Palo Alto Landfill in accordance with the requirements and conditions set forth in its Permit to Operate issued to the City by the BAAQMD in June 2012. The Palo Alto Landfill has a landfill gas recovery system that consists of pipelines, condensate sumps and landfill gas extraction wells. This system must be maintained and kept operational in order for the City to remain in compliance with the Permit to Operate issued by the BAAQMD. In addition to the gas recovery system the City is required to maintain and monitor the integrity of the landfill cover to minimize uncontrolled releases of landfill gas. Burrowing animals are controlled in areas where the landfill cover can be compromised by burrows which can potentially facilitate the process of gas migration out of the landfill. Federal Clean Water Act and State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set effluent limitations and guidelines for landfill operations including landfill leachate and gas collection condensate. The EPA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S, and the California State Water Resources Control Board enforces section 401. The State Water Resources Control Board sets statewide policy related to water quality, coordinates and supports regional water quality control boards, and reviews petitions that contest regional board actions. The RWQCB sets water quality standards, waste discharge requirements for its region, determines compliance with those standards, and takes enforcement action. Leachate is “liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or miscible materials removed from such waste”. Condensate is liquid which has condensed in a gas collection system during the extraction of gas from the landfill and typically consists of methane and carbon dioxide, the by-products of microbial breakdown of landfill waste. These are volatile gasses that need to be removed to control hazardous conditions. At PALF, the landfill leachate is monitored via piezometers and pumped from the landfill through extraction wells to the City’s sanitary sewer for treatment. Leachate movement through the bottom of the landfill or out of landfill waste is monitored via sampling points located around the facility perimeter. As part of the landfill drainage and erosion control system, runoff is collected in v-ditches that discharge to catch basins that in turn, discharge to surrounding water bodies. All of these systems must be maintained to comply with Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the RWQCB. The integrity of the landfill cover is also required to be maintained to minimize the infiltration of storm water into the waste. This includes re-grading areas that have subsided and where water can pond, fixing erosion, cracks or other openings in the landfill cover, and discouraging burrowing animals where burrows can potentially facilitate the process of infiltration of surface water. California Title 14 and CalRecycle The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) oversees the state’s recycling and waste management programs that are implemented according to Title 28 Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 37 MIG | TRA May 2015 of the California Code of Regulations. It relies on a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) to monitor landfill activities. Santa Clara County is the LEA for the PALF. The Engineering Support Branch of CalRecycle reviews and approves solid waste facility closure/post-closure maintenance plans to identify how state standards will be met, then the LEA inspects each site on a regular basis to insure that the standards are met. The state standards concern the integrity of the landfill, so that the landfill does not attract unwanted vectors (rats, flies), does not release landfill gases (methane), and does not impact ground or surface water as a result of storm or irrigation water percolating though the refuse (leachate). Burrowing animals are generally controlled at landfills in order to avoid non-compliance with state standards. As a result, the burrowing owl management plan needs to incorporate burrow designs that do not threaten the integrity of the landfill cover, and that are approved by CalRecycle and monitored by the LEA. Laws Related to Biological Resources Federal Endangered Species Act A 1998 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandated that the USFWS identify a list of nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The goal of this list, Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USFWS 2008), was to identify birds not yet listed under the ESA but that represented the highest conservation priorities, and to promote study and conservation of habitats and ecosystems important to these species. The burrowing owl is not listed under the ESA, but is included on the Shortgrass Prairie list of Birds of Conservation Concern. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The burrowing owl is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Sections 703 to 711). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Unless permitted by regulations, the MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Under the MBTA it is illegal to remove vegetation containing nests that are in active use, since this could result in killing a bird or destroying an egg. This would also be a violation of the California Fish and Game Code (see section 1.5.7, below). Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 38 MIG | TRA May 2015 State California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. CESA mandates that State agencies shall not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. The burrowing owl is not currently listed as a species protected by CESA. California Fish and Game Code Burrowing owls are protected by California Fish and Game Code section 3503, which reads, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, under Fish and Game Code section 3503.5, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto”. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The burrowing owl is in the order Strigiformes and is protected under both sections of Fish and Game Code. Local Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (Plan) was adopted by the County of Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and the cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose to streamline the permitting process for development, infrastructure and maintenance activities. The Plan, which was approved in January 2013, is intended as a comprehensive approach to evaluate impacts to natural resources and mitigation requirements instead of separately permitting and mitigating projects on an individual basis. It includes a fee-based conservation strategy to compensate for impacts to covered species and their habitats in a specified Plan Area (Figure 4). Jurisdictions, projects and activities outside of the Plan Area are not covered by the Plan. Because Palo Alto and the PALF are not within the Plan Area, activities at the PALF are not governed by the Plan. However, because most of the south bay burrowing owl habitat is not within the Plan Area, the Plan has a provision for mitigating future impacts to owls by creating habitat reserves in a designated region outside of the Valley Plan Area. The PALF is located in that designated region. If a developer wished to mitigate for burrowing owl impacts caused by a project in the Plan Area by funding a reserve at the PALF this would need to be coordinated with the City of Palo Alto and involve the Plan Implementing Entity. Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 39 MIG | TRA May 2015 Appendix C: Burrowing Owl Management Plan Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl Byxbee Park Hills Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Community Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2151 May 2015 Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl Byxbee Park Hills Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Community Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2151 Prepared by: MIG|TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. 545 Middlefield Road Suite 200 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650) 327-0429 May 2015 Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................................................................... 1 2.0 WESTERN BURROWING OWL DESCRIPTION AND ECOLOGY ............................................. 2 2.1 DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 LIFE CYCLE ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 HABITAT ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.4 HOME RANGE .................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF WESTERN BURROWING OWL .................................................... 3 4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................... 5 4.1 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT ...................................................................................... 5 4.2 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ........................................................................................... 5 4.3 CLEAN AIR ACT ............................................................................................................... 6 4.5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) .................................................. 7 4.6 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ...................................................................... 7 4.7 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE ............................................................................... 7 4.8 SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ................................................. 8 5.0 MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ................................................................................................ 8 5.1 CDFW CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA ................ 8 5.2 CALIFORNIA BURROWING OWL CONSORTIUM GUIDELINES ........................................... 8 5.3 CDFW STAFF REPORT ON BURROWING OWL MITIGATION .......................................... 9 6.0 LANDFILL MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT................................................................... 9 7.0 CURRENT BYXBEE PARK HILLS MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ACTIVITIES ................ 10 7.1 MOWING ........................................................................................................................ 11 7.2 TRAIL MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................... 11 7.3 REVEGETATION ............................................................................................................. 11 7.4 COYOTE BRUSH REMOVAL ........................................................................................... 11 7.5 MAINTENANCE OF MOUNDS AND OTHER ARTISTIC FEATURES.................................... 11 7.6 APPLICATION OF HERBICIDE ......................................................................................... 12 8.0 PROPOSED BURROWING OWL MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............................................. 12 8.1 SET ASIDE BURROW HABITAT AREAS AND MANAGE REMAINING AREAS FOR FORAGE 12 8.2 GROUND SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 15 8.3 INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ARTIFICIAL BURROWS, MOUNDS, PERCHES AND OTHER HABITAT FEATURES ...................................................................................................... 15 8.4 PUBLIC ACCESS FOR HIKING AND DOG WALKING AND INSTRUCTIONAL SIGNAGE...... 16 8.5 HYDROSEEDING, MOWING AND WEED MANAGEMENT ................................................. 16 8.6 FERAL CAT CONTROL ................................................................................................... 17 8.7 MONITORING, REPORTING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................................... 17 9.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 18 Table of Contents Page ii 10.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... 19 List of Figures Figure 1 Regional and Site Vicinity Location .......................................................................... A-1 Figure 2 CNDDB Occurrences of Burrowing Owls .................................................................. A-2 Figure 3 Byxbee Park Hills Overwintering Owl Locations ........................................................ A-3 Figure 4 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Expanded Study and Permit Area ........................... A-4 Figure 5 PALF Existing Environmental Control Systems ........................................................ A-5 Figure 6 Artificial Burrow Design ............................................................................................ A-6 Figure 7 Nesting and Foraging Habitat with Artificial Nest and Sattelite Burrow Locations ..... A-7 Figure 8 Tentative Habitat Feature Locations .......................................................................... A-8 List of Appendices Appendix A Figures ................................................................................................................. A-1 List of Acronyms CDFW – California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act CESA – California Endangered Species Act CNDDB – California Natural Diversity Database ESA – Endangered Species Act ET – Evapotranspirative HDPE – High density polyethylene MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act PALF – City of Palo Alto Landfill PARWQCP – Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant PERC – Pressurized Exhaust Rodent Control system USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 1 MIG|TRA May 2015 SUMMARY This plan describes ways to manage the local burrowing owl population at the Palo Alto landfill as the landfill is closed and converted to an open space park known as Byxbee Park Hills. The implementation of this plan is contingent upon approval from the landfill regulatory agencies, including the Local Enforcement Agency, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The plan describes the landfill regulations that require compliance with current air and water quality standards, and park maintenance and use requirements, as well as management recommendations for the owl, such as predator and vegetation control, guidelines for human use of and access to proposed park facilities, control of ground squirrels, and opportunities for enhancement of the site for burrowing owls. 1.0 Introduction and Purpose The Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto, and is located in the Palo Alto Baylands (Figure 1). The landfill is part of the Byxbee Park Master Plan, and portions of it have been closed and developed for park use. The entire landfill will eventually be converted to park use, and an interim park plan will be implemented before a final park plan is proposed. The interim plan offers an opportunity to test park design, vegetation, and management methods. Ongoing maintenance of the closed landfill and the park will be necessary after the site is converted to park use. Landfill maintenance is required by law and is paramount to public safety, thus landfill maintenance has priority over other activities at the site. All of these issues affect the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), a California Species of Special Concern which occurs in the area and has overwintered in burrows on the site. This Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl provides guidelines for the management of burrowing owls and their habitat on the landfill and park lands in a manner that is consistent with landfill regulations and the on-going need for maintenance of the closed landfill, as well as park maintenance and public access and use. Federal, state and local wildlife regulations, and the recommendations and guidelines of state agencies and local burrowing owl working groups are also considered. The plan recommends development of overwintering, foraging and breeding habitat for burrowing owls wherever possible, in consideration of other management, maintenance and monitoring requirements. This plan will be used to inform the overall maintenance plans for the landfill and park. This management plan has the following organization: • Description and Ecology – This section describes the owl, its habitat requirements, and range. • Local Distribution – Current population status and trends of the burrowing owl in the Santa Clara Valley and in the area surrounding the Byxbee Park Hills. • Regulatory Framework – Federal, state and local regulations pertaining to the burrowing owl and to the landfill that were the framework of the plan. • Burrowing Owl Management Guidelines – Existing goals and conservations guidelines for burrowing owls. • Landfill Maintenance and Management – PALF management and maintenance activities mandated during the 30 year post-closure period. • Management Measures – Management and maintenance activities that will be undertaken to optimize breeding and foraging habitat for owls, and to encourage colonization of the site by owls, and to stabilize and increase the local population Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 2 MIG|TRA May 2015 2.0 Western Burrowing Owl Description and Ecology 2.1 Description The western burrowing owl is a mottled brownish and sand colored, dove-sized raptor, with large yellow eyes, a rounded head lacking ear tufts, white eyebrows, and long legs compared to other owl species. It spends a great deal of time standing on dirt mounds at the entrance to a burrow, or perched on a fence post or other low perch from which it hunts for prey. It frequently hunts by hovering in place above the ground and dropping on prey from above. Burrowing owls feed primarily on insects such as grasshoppers, June beetles, and moths, but will also eat small rodents, birds, and reptiles. This owl species is active during the day and night, primarily active in the early morning and early evening hours. 2.2 Life Cycle The breeding season for the burrowing owl is February 1 through August 31. Up to eleven, but typically seven to nine, eggs are laid in a burrow, abandoned pipe, or other subterranean hollow where incubation is completed by the female in 28-30 days and the young hatch. Young burrowing owls emerge from their burrow to await delivery of food by the parents at approximately 2 weeks of age (Johnsgard 1988). Parents feed the young until they fledge at about 44 days of age (Landry 1979). Young remain in the vicinity of the natal burrow, using satellite burrows for refuge for about two months after hatching. Young reach sexual maturity at one year of age, but some females may not breed their first year (Lutz and Plumpton 1999). 2.3 Habitat The western burrowing owl is a ground dwelling owl, typically found nesting in arid prairies, fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground. It is heavily dependent upon the presence of mammal burrows (commonly ground squirrel and American badger) in its habitat to provide shelter from predators or inclement weather, and to provide a nesting place. Foraging habitat tends to be made up of grassland areas with a slightly taller average vegetation height than nesting habitat, so the presence of a mosaic of short and medium height vegetation is important to the survival of this species (Clayton and Schmutz 1999). Space between burrows occupied by burrowing owls is dependent on the species of animal that excavated the burrow and the local density of burrowing owls. Where burrows were clustered closely, such as in prairie dog colonies, occupied owl burrows were clustered more closely (Johnson, et al. 2010). Burrows tend to be lateral, rather than deep. They have an average maximum depth of 3 feet (range to 5.5 feet), and have an average length of 35 feet (Berentson et al. 2001). Level burrows are easier to dig, and are less prone to collect storm water, even with several openings. 2.4 Home Range The burrowing owl is a migratory species in portions of its range, which includes western North America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas and Louisiana. Burrowing owl populations in California are more often sedentary or locally migratory. In the Santa Clara Valley, paired owls remain sedentary year round unless some external factors such as loss of foraging habitat or disturbance of their breeding habitat forces them to relocate. Unmated owls, which are often owls dispersing from their natal burrow, range more widely in search of a mate. Harman and Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 3 MIG|TRA May 2015 Barclay (2007) reported the longest recorded movement of a banded burrowing owl in the south Bay Area to be 7.5 miles (12 km) from the San José International Airport to Moffett Federal Airfield. The western burrowing owl has disappeared from a significant portion of its range in the last 15 years. Nearly 60% of the breeding groups of owls known to have existed in California during the 1980s had disappeared by the early 1990s (Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). The conversion of grassland habitat has been a significant factor in the reduction of the local population. Because burrowing owls depend on other animals to dig their burrows, eradication of ground squirrels has also contributed to their decreased numbers (Haug et al. 1993). 3.0 Local Distribution of Western Burrowing Owl Between 1988 and 2002, 66% of sites occupied by the burrowing owl in the Santa Clara Valley were lost to development. At present, approximately 50 pairs of owls remain in the entire county (Trulio 2014). For owls to remain in Santa Clara, open grassland habitats of sufficient size and with a healthy population of ground squirrels must remain available. On lands that owls do not occupy, but where they are present nearby, owls can potentially become reestablished. Trulio (2004) observed that sites that have the greatest potential to attract burrowing owls have the following characteristics: • Are within 300 meters of occupied habitat • Were recently occupied by nesting owls • Are relatively large (in excess of 30 acres) • Are un-fragmented by roads, paths or other habitat features • Are relatively flat and of low elevation • Possess optimal habitat characteristics (grasses of suitable height, ground squirrel population) Byxbee Park Hills is located within a region of the south bay known to support burrowing owl. Owls have been recorded north, northeast, south and southeast of the landfill, and the landfill may be part of a corridor of open space that allows movement between breeding populations. A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2014) that includes all burrowing owls recorded within five miles of Byxbee Park Hills provided the following information, which is also shown by occurrence number and year on Figure 2. • Occurrence 21 – A colony located at Byxbee Park Hills, “just east of the city dump and west of Mayfield Slough” was monitored sporadically between 1911 and 2008. The most recent report of owls at this location was in January 2008, when one wintering adult was observed at a burrow. • Occurrence 27 – In 1983, one individual owl was observed at a burrow entrance at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport on a levee parallel to and northeast of the runway opposite the control tower. • Occurrence 25 – This colony was monitored between 1998 and 2005. The most recent observation was in May 2008, when one adult pair and one juvenile were observed. The colony is located on the Shoreline Golf Links, west of Mountain View Slough. • Occurrence 215 – In 1983 four pairs and an unknown number of juveniles were recorded at Long Point, just north of Shoreline Park and northwest of Moffett Federal Airfield. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 4 MIG|TRA May 2015 • Occurrence 1031 – This site was monitored between 1998 and 2003. The most recent occurrence is in 2003 when two burrows were observed. The burrows are located at Shoreline Golf Links east of Mountain View Slough. • Occurrence 1235 – A single active nest burrow was observed in 2004 between the salt pond levee and the northeast golf course at Shoreline Park. • Occurrence 1032 – This colony was monitored sporadically between 1998 and 2004. The most recent occurrence is from 2004 when four nests were reported. The colony is located at Shoreline at Mountain View Park, in the field northeast of the Amphitheater. • Occurrence 1033 – This burrow was monitored between 1999 and 2004, and was last documented as occupied in 2004. It is located east of Stevens Creek, 0.42 miles northwest of the intersection of Parsons and Arnold Avenues at Moffett Federal Airfield. • Occurrence 1035 – A single occupied burrow was documented at Moffett Federal Airfield in the field northwest of the tower in 1998. • Occurrence 22 – An “active colony” was reported in 1983, 0.75 miles west near the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Highway 237. • Occurrence 23 – Nine burrow sites were observed between 1999 and 2004, approximately 1.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. 101 and Matilda Avenue. • Occurrence 26 – This colony was monitored between 1998 and 2009. The most recent observation was made in July 2009, when “43 owls were trapped at 14 nests”. This colony is located at the north end and east side of the flight line at Moffett Federal Airfield and includes the golf course at Moffett Federal Airfield. • Occurrence 24 – This colony is considered inactive or extirpated, and the date of owls last being observed is unknown. The colony was situated southeast of the confluence of Coyote Creek and Alviso Slough. • Occurrence 784 – This colony was monitored between 1998 and 2009. The most recent observation was in 2009, when four adults and one juvenile were trapped at two nests. This colony is located at the southwest end of Moffett Federal Airfield. • Occurrence 51 – This colony is considered extirpated. It was situated southeast of the confluence of Coyote Creek and Alviso Slough, north of Sunnyvale and has no record date. • Occurrence 18 – This colony is considered possibly extirpated. It was situated northwest of the intersection of Jarvis Road and Thornton Avenue at the east end of the Dumbarton Bridge. The last observation of burrowing owls at this location was 1979. The CNDDB does not include the most current information on the population of western burrowing owl at Shoreline Park, which consists of two breeding pairs of owls as of June 2014. In 2014, one pair produced four chicks and the second pair produced two chicks. Shoreline Park averages approximately six breeding pairs of owls during the breeding season, with the population increasing temporarily during the non-breeding season as un-banded overwintering owls occupy the site (Phillip Higgins City of Mountain View Wildlife Preservation Biologist, personal communication). Shoreline Park is situated within 2 miles of Byxbee Park Hills, so dispersing offspring of this population of owls provide one of the best opportunities for recruitment of foraging and overwintering owls for Byxbee Park Hills. Owls may also disperse from Moffett Federal Airfield, situated approximately 2.5 to 3 miles from Byxbee Park Hills. At present (July 2014) Moffett Federal Airfield has 11 active nest burrows with four breeding pairs of owls (Christopher Alderete, personal communication). Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 5 MIG|TRA May 2015 The City of Palo Alto has monitored known occupied burrows at the Palo Alto Baylands, including Byxbee Park Hills, but does not have a formal burrowing owl monitoring or management program. Overwintering owls have been observed in the PALF Phase I closure (Figure 1) area just west of Mayfield Slough as recently as March 3rd 2014, but breeding activity has not been observed at that location. Two active burrow locations occupied by a single owl were observed in a topsoil stockpile between PALF Phase IIB and Phase IIC closure areas (Figure 1) in January 2014, and eight additional burrows, occupied by two owls, were observed in Phase I between November 2013 and March 2014 (Figure 3). No owls are known to currently occupy Byxbee Park Hills or the landfill as of the publication of this plan. In an area where very few opportunities exist to increase burrowing owl habitat, the PALF and park present a unique opportunity to establish and enhance up to 130 acres of open space for burrowing owls. At present, Byxbee Park Hills has limited breeding and foraging habitat for burrowing owls. The PALF Phase I closure area contains approximately 8 acres of breeding and foraging habitat (Figure 1). This area contains ground squirrel burrows that are potential nesting habitat and mowed annual grasses that could be used for foraging. Ground squirrel and other burrowing mammal populations have been managed throughout the park wherever there is a concern for the landfill cap being compromised, which currently limits the amount of natural burrow nesting and refuge habitat. Vegetative cover is also sparse. Two artificial nest burrows were created in the Phase IIB closure area of the landfill, but the surrounding area on the landfill does not currently have enough vegetative cover to support prey species for burrowing owl forage. To date, burrowing owls have not been observed at either artificial nest burrow, so the burrows will either be relocated or abandoned in place. 4.0 Regulatory Framework 4.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The burrowing owl is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Sections 703 to 711). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Unless permitted by regulations, the MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Under the MBTA it is illegal to remove vegetation containing nests that are in active use, since this could result in killing a bird or destroying an egg. This would also be a violation of the California Fish and Game Code (see section 1.5.7, below). 4.2 Endangered Species Act A 1998 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandated that the USFWS identify a list of nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The goal of this list, Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USFWS 2008), was to identify birds not yet listed under the ESA but that represented the highest conservation priorities, and to promote study and conservation of habitats and ecosystems important to these species. The burrowing owl is not listed under the ESA, but is included on the Shortgrass Prairie list of Birds of Conservation Concern. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 6 MIG|TRA May 2015 4.3 Clean Air Act The Palo Alto Landfill is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), an area of non-attainment for national and state ozone, state particulate matter (PM10), and national and state fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The City of Palo Alto operates the Palo Alto Landfill in accordance with the requirements and conditions set forth in its Permit to Operate issued to the City by the BAAQMD in June 2012. The Palo Alto Landfill has a landfill gas recovery system that consists of pipelines, condensate sumps and landfill gas extraction wells. This system must be maintained and kept operational in order for the City to remain in compliance with the Permit to Operate issued by the BAAQMD. In addition to the gas recovery system the City is required to maintain and monitor the integrity of the landfill cover to minimize uncontrolled releases of landfill gas. Burrowing animals are controlled in areas where the landfill cover can be compromised by burrows which can potentially facilitate the process of gas migration out of the landfill. 4.4 Water Quality Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set effluent limitations and guidelines for landfill operations including landfill leachate and gas collection condensate. The EPA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S, and the California State Water Resources Control Board enforces section 401. The State Water Resources Control Board sets statewide policy related to water quality, coordinates and supports regional water quality control boards, and reviews petitions that contest regional board actions. The RWQCB sets water quality standards, waste discharge requirements for its region, determines compliance with those standards, and takes enforcement action. Leachate is “liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or miscible materials removed from such waste”. Condensate is liquid which has condensed in a gas collection system during the extraction of gas from the landfill and typically consists of methane and carbon dioxide, the by-products of microbial breakdown of landfill waste. These are volatile gasses that need to be removed to control hazardous conditions. At PALF, the landfill leachate is monitored via piezometers and pumped from the landfill through extraction wells to the City’s sanitary sewer for treatment. Leachate movement through the bottom of the landfill or out of landfill waste is monitored via sampling points located around the facility perimeter. As part of the landfill drainage and erosion control system, runoff is collected in v-ditches that discharge to catch basins that in turn, discharge to surrounding water bodies. All of these systems must be maintained to comply with Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the RWQCB. The integrity of the landfill cover is also required to be maintained to minimize the infiltration of storm water into the waste. This includes re-grading areas that have subsided and where water can pond, fixing erosion, cracks or other openings in the landfill cover, and discouraging burrowing animals where burrows can potentially facilitate the process of infiltration of surface water. 4.4 California Title 14 and CalRecycle The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) oversees the state’s recycling and waste management programs that are implemented according to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. It relies on a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) to monitor landfill activities. Santa Clara County is the LEA for the PALF. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 7 MIG|TRA May 2015 The Engineering Support Branch of CalRecycle reviews and approves solid waste facility closure/post-closure maintenance plans to identify how state standards will be met, then the LEA inspects each site on a regular basis to insure that the standards are met. The state standards concern the integrity of the landfill, so that the landfill does not attract unwanted vectors (rats, flies), does not release landfill gases (methane), and does not impact ground or surface water as a result of storm or irrigation water percolating though the refuse (leachate). Burrowing animals are generally controlled at landfills in order to avoid non-compliance with state standards. As a result, the burrowing owl management plan needs to incorporate burrow designs that do not threaten the integrity of the landfill cover, and that are approved by CalRecycle and monitored by the LEA. 4.5 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15380 defines endangered, threatened, and rare species for purposes of CEQA and clarifies that CEQA review extends to other species that are not formally listed under the state or federal endangered species acts but that meet specified criteria. Under CEQA, a mandatory finding of significance is required if impacts to threatened or endangered species are likely to occur. Also, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 a mandatory finding of significance is required if a project has the potential to substantially degrade or reduce the habitat of or restrict the range of an endangered species. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has listed the burrowing owl as a Species of Special Concern. Impacts to burrowing owl need to be considered under CEQA, but there is not a mandatory finding of significance because the burrowing owl is not listed as threatened or endangered. 4.6 California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. CESA mandates that State agencies shall not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. The burrowing owl is not currently listed as a species protected by CESA. 4.7 California Fish and Game Code Burrowing owls are protected by California Fish and Game Code section 3503, which reads, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, under Fish and Game Code section 3503.5, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto”. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The burrowing owl is in the order Strigiformes and is protected under both sections of Fish and Game Code. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 8 MIG|TRA May 2015 4.8 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (Plan) was adopted by the County of Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and the cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose to streamline the permitting process for development, infrastructure and maintenance activities. The Plan, which was approved in January 2013, is intended as a comprehensive approach to evaluate impacts to natural resources and mitigation requirements instead of separately permitting and mitigating projects on an individual basis. It includes a fee-based conservation strategy to compensate for impacts to covered species and their habitats in a specified Plan Area (Figure 4). Jurisdictions, projects and activities outside of the Plan Area are not covered by the Plan. Because Palo Alto and the PALF are not within the Plan Area, activities at the PALF are not governed by the Plan. However, because most of the south bay burrowing owl habitat is not within the Plan Area, the Plan has a provision for mitigating future impacts to owls by creating habitat reserves in a designated region outside of the Valley Plan Area. The PALF is located in that designated region. If a developer wished to mitigate for burrowing owl impacts caused by a project in the Plan Area by funding a reserve at the PALF this would need to be coordinated with the City of Palo Alto and involve the Plan Implementing Entity. 5.0 Management Guidelines 5.1 CDFW Conservation Goals for the Burrowing Owl in California In 2008 CDFW developed a set of conservation goals for burrowing owls in California (CDFW 2008). Those goals include the following: • Maintain the size and distribution of extant burrowing owl populations. • Where possible, increase geographic distribution of burrowing owls into formerly occupied historic range where suitable habitat still exists or can be created or enhanced. • Increase the size of existing burrowing owl populations where possible and appropriate. • Protect and restore self-sustaining ecosystems or natural communities which do or could potentially support burrowing owls at a landscape scale, and which will require minimal long-term management by humans. • Remove or ameliorate unnatural causes of burrowing owl population declines, including control of rodent hosts and prey. • Recover populations of burrowing owls and their natural dynamics including movement and genetic exchange among populations. • Engage stakeholders in burrowing owl protection and habitat management. 5.2 California Burrowing Owl Consortium Guidelines The California Burrowing Owl Consortium is a group of wildlife professionals, agencies and advocates whose mission is to enhance the conservation of burrowing owls by providing a forum for the exchange of information about research, status, and policy and by developing management guidelines. In 1993 the Consortium developed the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines which provide a decision making process to be implemented whenever a project may impact burrowing owls or their habitat. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 9 MIG|TRA May 2015 5.3 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation In 1995 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife developed a comprehensive conservation and mitigation strategy for burrowing owls, which was updated in 2012 to reflect the continued decline of this species (CDFW 2012). The report provides rigorous methods for burrowing owl surveys, impacts assessments, avoidance and minimization measures, and mitigation measures. The staff report defines activities with the potential to take or impact burrowing owls, including burrow blockage, crushing burrow tunnels, and mowing among others. It defines the required qualifications for biologists who may conduct burrowing owl habitat assessments, surveys, and impact assessments, including: 1. Familiarity with the species and its local ecology; 2. Experience conducting habitat assessments and non-breeding and breeding season surveys, or experience with these surveys conducted under the direction of an experienced surveyor; 3. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to burrowing owls, scientific research, and conservation; 4. Experience with analyzing impact of development on burrowing owls and their habitat.” Also included are recommended setback buffers which are based on the level of disturbance as identified in the impact assessment. Buffers are as small as 50 meters for low-level disturbances in the non-breeding season, to as large as 500 meters for high-level disturbances in the vicinity of active nest burrows during the breeding season. 6.0 Landfill Maintenance and Management California regulations mandate that the landfill be managed and maintained throughout a 30 year post-closure period in accordance with an approved post-closure maintenance plan. The primary purpose is to protect the integrity of the landfill cover, and monitor and manage landfill gas and leachate to minimize impacts to air and water quality. The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department is responsible for landfill maintenance and management throughout the 30 year post-closure period. Activities include grading to correct areas where the contours of the landfill have settled so that water does not pond, seep into the refuse and create leachate, maintenance and repair of gas pipes and mains, sumps, and leachate lines, and occasional monitoring of leachate and gas extraction wells and piezometers. Emergency repairs to these facilities may also be necessary. The laws that govern the landfill operation and maintenance are described in section 4.0, above. The landfill gas and leachate collection/monitoring facilities are largely concentrated in the central areas of the landfill, with the perimeters having fewer areas that will require regular access for maintenance (Figure 5). The need for earth moving equipment, utility vehicles and personnel to be working within the maintenance and emergency repair areas is anticipated and unavoidable. Access to areas that require maintenance will be via existing and proposed new roads. The PALF is a Class III disposal site comprised of several layers, including the waste layers, a cover layer or “cap” and a vegetation layer. The cap is designed to minimize the release of landfill gas and leachate, and to prevent infiltration of surface water. The landfill has been developed and closed in phases. Phase I, Phase IIA and Phase IIB are capped with a clay cover. Phase IIC will be capped with an evapotranspirative (ET) cover. Landfill leachate is monitored with 17 existing piezometers within the four phases of the landfill. Leachate is pumped from the landfill through a network of 23 existing extraction wells equipped with a pneumatic pump. The leachate is pumped to the City’s sanitary sewer for treatment. A groundwater monitoring program is used to monitor leachate movement through the bottom of Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 10 MIG|TRA May 2015 the landfill or out of landfill waste. The groundwater monitoring system consists of 13 existing wells and sampling points located around the facility perimeter. A perimeter drainage control system collects surface runoff as part of the landfill drainage and erosion control system. Runoff is collected in v-ditches that discharge to catch basins that discharge to surrounding water bodies. Five gas monitoring probes to monitor landfill gas are spaced at 300 to 500 foot intervals along the property boundary shared with the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP). Landfill gas monitoring is currently conducted via seven structures, but during the post closure phase will be monitored from four locations, one in Byxbee Park Hills, and three adjacent to PARWQCP. Gas extraction is accomplished through a system of 109 wells distributed throughout the landfill. The gas is pumped to a sewage sludge incinerator or an adjacent flare at PARWQCP via a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) network. Burrowing animals, including primarily the ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), are controlled in landfill areas to insure that their burrowing does not damage the clay or evapotranspirative caps. Damage to the cap can allow surface water infiltration and lead to excessive load on the leachate extraction system, it can also result in the release of landfill gas, can compromise both leachate and landfill gas extraction systems by damaging piping, and it can lead to violation of permit conditions. Ground squirrels are controlled throughout the landfill with a Pressurized Exhaust Rodent Control (PERC) system. This practice was recently suspended pending further study and discussion. The PERC system consists of a trailer-mounted combustion engine that exhausts to a pressurized tank. A mixture of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is delivered from the tank to the ground squirrel burrow, via a hose with a probe that is inserted into the burrow entrance for a minimum of three minutes. Once treated, the entrance to the burrow is sealed. Active burrows are identified for treatment by the presence of entering or exiting squirrels and the presence of fresh mounds of dirt or evidence of new burrow excavation. No treatment is applied where there are signs of burrowing owl occupation, including feathers, pellets or other visual indicators of owl presence. 7.0 Current Byxbee Park Hills Maintenance Requirements Activities Byxbee Park Hills is a passive use open space area with walking trails located on closed portions of the PALF. Capped and contoured slopes of the landfill have been covered with a layer of topsoil and hydroseeded with native grasses and forbs. The site is not irrigated, but the Phase I, Phase II and Phase IIA portions of the landfill that are open to park use have been revegetated with a combination of annual grasses and forbs that support a colony of ground squirrels. Phase IIC is in the process of being capped, covered with topsoil and hydroseeded. In April 2014, vegetation was not yet well established throughout much of the Phase IIC area, with many areas of bare ground or where weedy species such as cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and mustard (Brassica sp.) had become established. Ground squirrels and other fossorial mammals are controlled throughout Phase IIC, so they are largely absent. The Palo Alto Community Services Department – Open Space, Parks and Golf Division is responsible for the maintenance of the Byxbee Park Hills facility, apart from the landfill maintenance activities that are implemented by Public Works. The City has assigned these maintenance activities to a contractor. Maintenance requirements include vegetation management, trail repair, and repair of park appurtenances. Maintenance activities include mowing, trail grading and filling, revegetation, coyote brush removal, maintenance of signs and benches, and application of herbicide. The current maintenance practices are described below. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 11 MIG|TRA May 2015 This plan recommends that some of the current maintenance practices be modified to benefit burrowing owl, and that some activities be added. The modifications and additions are described in section 8.0 of this report. 7.1 Mowing Currently mowing is conducted in May as a weed maintenance measure and to provide sunlight to native perennials. All hydroseeded areas are mowed to a height of four to six inches, with mowing repeated as necessary to meet these height specifications. Mowing is conducted with a wheeled tractor fitted with a flail or rotary mower. A modified mowing regime to increase the prey base for burrowing owl (and other raptors) is recommended in section 8.5. 7.2 Trail Maintenance Six to 12-foot wide pedestrian and cycling trails were constructed using an oyster shell, base rock and decomposed granite bed. Current maintenance methods used to maintain unobstructed access along these pathways include spot treating weeds with herbicide. . “Renegade paths” created by cyclists and hikers who stray from established routes are rototilled and seeded on an as-needed basis. Seeding occurs in winter months. Trails are repaired by regrading and filling potholes or low spots as needed. 7.3 Revegetation Areas of the park slated for revegetation are prepared in advance for seeding by chiseling and rototilling to a depth of six to eight inches, then harrowing and ring-rolling to create an even bed. A balanced fertilizer is then applied at a rate of 50 pounds per acre and two inches of compost are tilled into the soil. Next, a hydroseed mix is applied. The current hydroseed mix includes the following species: • California brome (Bromus carinatus) • Blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus) • California oatgrass (Danthonia californica) • Purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra) • Three weeks fescue (Festuca microstachys) • California melic (Melica californica) • Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) • Tufted hair grass (Deschamsia cespitosa) • Creeping rye (Leymus triticoides) 7.4 Coyote Brush Removal Under current maintenance activities coyote brush is regularly removed from the park to prevent coyote brush roots from penetrating the landfill cap. Coyote brush is removed concurrently with annual mowing. 7.5 Maintenance of Mounds and Other Artistic Features Under current maintenance activities string trimming is used around mounds, berms and other artistic features to remove weeds and other tall vegetation and to maintain an artistic appearance. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 12 MIG|TRA May 2015 7.6 Application of Herbicide Herbicides are not a preferred means of vegetation control, and are used with written permission of the Supervising Ranger. Herbicides are only applied in designated areas and time frames. As noted above weeds on trails are spot treated with herbicides. Herbicides may also be used to control noxious and/or highly invasive weeds that form dense stands and reduce wildlife habitat quality. 8.0 Proposed Burrowing Owl Management Measures Management actions for the burrowing owl take into account both landfill regulatory requirements and the ecological needs of the owl. Long term maintenance and management of the landfill includes monitoring of and repairs to landfill control systems and the landfill cover. Large-scale repair to areas where landfill subsidence occurs is also anticipated. While the schedule of some of this work can be planned for the non-breeding season for burrowing owls, emergency repairs may also be necessary. Burrowing owl management actions include ground squirrel control, public use and access, vegetation management, creation and maintenance of artificial burrow sites, feral cat (Felis silvestris catus) control, and long-term monitoring. These are summarized in Table 1 and described in more detail in the subsequent sections. 8.1 Set Aside Burrow Habitat Areas and Manage Remaining Areas for Forage The City of Palo Alto has designated three areas on the landfill/park totaling 6.6 acres that will be designed, protected, and maintained as burrowing owl nesting burrow habitat (Figure 7; please also see Figure 2 of the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Plan Narrative for the February 2015 proposed layout of the trail system) if approved by landfill regulatory agencies. These areas are located a sufficient distance from control systems (e.g., condensate traps and piezometers), maintenance roads, and from the new ET cover in Phase IIC to allow maintenance activities to occur without disturbing owls or owl burrow habitat. These areas are also located with public use and proximity to forage habitat in mind. Artificial burrows will be installed in these areas (see section 8.3, below). Perimeter berms will be built around these burrow areas so that they are clearly delineated for staff and the public. It is recommended that signs be installed to restrict access to these areas. Maintenance activities, including both park and landfill maintenance, are not excluded from these areas. In order to prevent ponding of surface water, the landfill cover in these areas will be contoured to match existing landfill slopes. Nesting habitat will be managed for owls, and will not include features that may be in other areas of the park such as benches for seating or areas where people are encouraged to congregate. The remaining 120 acres of the capped and closed landfill will be revegetated with annual grassland species, and can be managed in a way that enhances burrowing owl forage habitat. Management measures include mowing, installing habitat features to support prey species the owls eat, and monitoring. The specific management measures are described in Sections 8.2 through 8.7. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 13 MIG|TRA May 2015 Table 1 Summary of Burrowing Owl Management Activities Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions Install artificial owl burrows September to February Area 1: construct 1 nest burrow, 3 satellite burrows according to plans in Barclay 2008. Area 2: construct 2 nest burrows, 3 satellite burrows. Area 3: construct 1 nest burrow, 2 satellite burrows. See Figures 7 and 8. Burrow construction is predicated on approval by landfill regulatory agencies, which may impose additional requirements. Install habitat features such as rock piles and mulch piles (Figure 8). September to February Install these features where rodents and insects are infrequently observed and/or vegetation has not yet become established. Create a minimum of 5 rock piles and 20 brush/mulch piles up to a maximum of 50 habitat features for owl prey species throughout both nesting and foraging areas. To make rock piles, stack 15 to 17 6-inch minus-sized rocks, rip rap or similar. Mulch piles will consist of chipped wood, scattered to a depth of approximately 3-4” over a 100 ft2 area. Brush piles Will consist of piles of sticks or twigs, or grasses piled approximately 2 to 3 feet high by about four feet wide. See attached Figure 8 for possible locations and example photos. Maintenance, such as weeding of the habitat features is not required. Tentative locations show in Figure 8 may be subject to approval by landfill regulatory agencies. Install instructional signage As soon as feasible after approval of the Interim Park Plan. Along the edge of pathways bordering nesting habitat, install signage stating “Sensitive Wildlife Area. Please Stay Out”. Consider adding signage which says, “Sensitive Wildlife Area. Do not dump or feed cats” and “Please no dog walking in this area. Keep dogs on a leash at all times”. Keep signage vague to discourage vandalism of burrows or harassment of nesting owls. Mowing of forage habitat (Figure 7) Yearly - April and May Mow at the minimum frequency necessary for fire and weed control. The goal is to create foraging habitat with sufficient cover for small rodents and insects. Slopes with a grade steeper than 25% will be mowed at a decreased frequency to help create a mosaic of different vegetation heights throughout the forage habitat. Where weeds form dense, single-species stands in the forage habitat, mowing frequency can be increased. Mowing may also be combined with other methods of weed control in these areas. Where vegetation cover is sparse consider adding mulch or brush piles. Avoid mowing at dawn or dusk when owls are normally active. Mowing of burrow habitat (Figure 8) Yearly – February and November if owls are present. Feb, May, August and November if owls are not present. Mowing in the vicinity of active burrows may be done under the guidance of a qualified biologist and must follow the guidelines of the CDFW Staff Report (2012). Mow to keep vegetation at a height of approximately 5 inches or less. Conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting owls prior to undertaking mowing between February and August. If an active owl nest burrow is found, an avoidance buffer of 250 feet should be established. No mowing should occur inside that buffer. In consultation with a qualified biologist, an impact assessment can be conducted and if appropriate, buffer sizes may be reduced in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). Do not string trim breeding habitat areas. Mow only. No mowing should occur within 250 feet of any active burrowing owl nest burrow unless a qualified biologist has conducted an impact assessment and established alternative buffer distances in accordance with the guidelines established in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 14 MIG|TRA May 2015 Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions Artificial burrow maintenance Annually in early spring. February is suggested. Debris accumulated at the burrow entrance. Conduct a survey for overwintering burrowing owls prior to clearing. Do not conduct maintenance on occupied burrows. Clear the PVC tubing that makes up the burrow entrance of any obstructions along its entire length using a plumbing snake such as a General Pipe Cleaners D-25-2 Handy Drain Auger. Do not conduct maintenance on burrows occupied by burrowing owls. Feral cat control. As needed Cats are observed in the Park. Live trap and transport to Palo Alto Animal Care and Control. The non-native red fox (Vulpes vulpes) may also occur at Byxbee Park Hills and is known to prey on ground-nesting birds. Contact United States Department of Agriculture for guidance on fox control should they be observed. Landfill maintenance activities As needed Emergency or routine landfill maintenance is needed. Conduct a survey for burrowing owls prior to conducting any landfill maintenance activities. Burrowing owls could potentially occupy a variety of natural and man-made features throughout the area, so surveys should be conducted to ensure that maintenance activities do not impact owls. If owls are found to be present within 250 feet of work in the breeding season or within 170 feet of work in the non-breeding season, contact CDFW for guidance. If owls are detected during the breeding season, a 75-meter (~250 feet) avoidance buffer should be maintained around any occupied burrow until young have fledged. If owls are detected during the non-breeding season a 50-meter (~170 feet) avoidance buffer should be established for the duration of the activity or until owls are no longer present. Vegetation survey for grass height and weed control Late January, April, July and October. Monitoring burrowing owl use 3 times spaced apart during the breeding season (suggest March, June, August); CNDDB report once per year Survey each burrow habitat area for signs of owl use at the burrow entrances; document which burrows are in use. Observe burrow and forage areas for owl activity at dawn and at dusk. Report burrow survey results to landfill and park maintenance staff so that avoidance measures can be implemented if necessary. Report sightings to the California Natural Diversity Database annually (https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting_data_to_cnddb.asp). If burrowing owls are not observed, the Supervising Ranger should consider measures to improve habitat conditions such as by altering the mowing regime, changing mowing heights, or increasing the number of prey habitat features (e.g., rock, brush, mulch piles). Monitoring burrowing owl habitat quality. 3 times spaced apart during the breeding season (suggest March, June, September) Maintain overall vegetation cover at approximately 70%, and no less than 50%. No more than 50% of all areas of the park intended to be vegetated either with hydroseed or other planting, should remain bare ground. If 70% vegetative cover is not achieved, staff will review remediation measures to increase the vegetative cover, such as re-seeding with a revised seed mixture. Survey rock, mulch and brush piles for presence of small mammals and insects. Conduct a visual inspection of the rock piles for small mammals, and/or signs of mammal use such as droppings, flattened grasses. Inspect brush piles by lifting material with a shovel or similar to see if rodents, insects or other prey species move out of the pile when disturbed. Report results to the Supervising Ranger. If prey species are not present, the Supervising Ranger should consider decreasing the mowing frequency, repeating hydroseed application, and/or adding more habitat features such as rock, mulch and brush piles. If vegetation is too sparse, burrowing owl prey species are unlikely to be present, and burrowing owl habitat would be considered of low quality. If vegetation is too tall in dense stands, burrowing owls will not be able to access the habitat to forage or breed. Dense monotypic stands of invasive weed species should be controlled using methods known to control the particular species. This may include mowing at a particular time of year, hand pulling, applying herbicide, or a combination of methods. Refer to the Maintenance Plan for a more detailed description of weed control techniques. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 15 MIG|TRA May 2015 8.2 Ground squirrel management While burrowing owls are known to occur in situations where ground squirrels are absent, they are most likely to persist and thrive in an area with an active ground squirrel population. The owls use the burrows for cover and also find insects there for food; the owls do not eat the ground squirrels. The squirrels maintain the burrows and their food stores and excrement attract the insects and small mammals that the owls can eat. At Shoreline Park, Phil Higgins found that the most commonly consumed prey item of burrowing owls was earwigs (Forficula sp.). This could be because of the burrow microclimate (Phil Higgins, personal communication) and the vegetative material and excrement that attract earwigs (University of Lethbridge 2014). The University of California Ground Squirrel Best Management Practices (University of California 2014) states that “the average squirrel burrow is usually less than three feet deep”. Two feet of cover is applied to the entire landfill cap in advance of hydroseeding. Five feet of additional cover will be added to the three areas set aside for burrowing owl nest burrow habitat to provide a total of seven feet of burrowing substrate. Ground squirrels will not be managed in these three areas, and are expected to colonize and establish burrows which will provide natural nesting habitat for burrowing owls as well as habitat for insects that provide food for the owls. 8.3 Installation and Maintenance of Artificial Burrows, Mounds, Perches and Other Habitat Features Artificial nest burrows have proven to be an effective alternative to natural ground squirrel burrows, but they are most successful where a population of ground squirrels is present (Phil Higgins, personal communication). The entrances to the artificial owl burrows installed at nearby Shoreline Park in Mountain View accumulate dirt and debris except where ground squirrels are present (Phil Higgins, personal communication). The ground squirrels apparently remove dirt and debris from the entrances, and probably from the tunnels as well, as part of their normal activities. Apparently the owls do not maintain the burrows. If necessary, artificial burrows can be kept clear by maintenance personnel. Maintenance involves clearing out debris such as dead and live vegetation, trash, and/or dirt that has accumulated at and is blocking the PVC tubing that makes up the entrance to the burrow. Maintenance should be completed once in early spring, in advance of burrowing owl nesting season and should be done with the use of a plumbing snake such as a General Pipe Cleaners D-25-2 Handy Drain Auger, so that the entire alignment of the burrow entrance can be cleared. The burrow design proposed for use in Byxbee Park Hills will be based on the design in “A Simple Artificial Burrow Design for Burrowing Owls” (Barclay 2008) (Figure 6). This design uses unperforated plastic drain line as “burrows” leading to plastic irrigation valve boxes for nesting. The four-inch plastic tubing in Barclay’s design will be substituted with a six-inch tube, with a slot cut along its length that allows owls to walk along the natural substrate instead of on the plastic tubing. The concrete block (labeled D in Figure 6) can also be eliminated from the burrow design as burrowing predators have not been known to be a local problem (Phil Higgins personal communication). This design has been used successfully at nearby Shoreline Park in Mountain View. Artificial burrows created at grade rather than on a mound are easier to mow, but do not provide the elevated perch that a typical natural squirrel mound does.. Each nesting burrow area can contain one primary burrows (with at least two entrances). Satellite burrows have just one entrance. The exact spacing will be determined in the field at the time of installation, however, artificial burrows should be spaced no closer than 110 meters (approximately 360 feet) (Green and Anthony 1997). Nest and satellite burrows both use the design shown in Figure 6, but nest burrows differ in the number of entrances. The areas set Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 16 MIG|TRA May 2015 aside for burrow nesting habitat and foraging habitat within Byxbee Park Hills and the approximate number and locations of artificial nest burrows and satellite burrows are shown on Figure 8. Rock and brush piles placed throughout the nesting and foraging habitat will provide cover for insect and small rodent prey species, and can serve as perches for burrowing owls. Piles of mulch are also recommended because they provide habitat for both rodents and insects (Trulio and Higgins 2012b) particularly in the interim period before vegetation cover becomes established at the park. It is recommended that a minimum of five rock piles and 20 brush/mulch piles be installed, and that a maximum of 50 habitat features for owl prey species be created throughout the park, including both nesting and foraging areas. These features are described as follows, and possible locations are shown in Figure 10. • Rock piles are small. Stack 15 to 17 6-inch-minus rocks, rip rap or similar into a pile. • Mulch piles consist of chipped wood, scattered to a depth of approximately 3-4” over a 100 ft2 area. • Brush piles will consist of piles of sticks or twigs, or grasses piled approximately 2 to 3 feet high by about four feet wide. Maintenance of the rock and brush piles is not anticipated to be necessary. These features are intended only as habitat features for burrowing owl prey species, and will continue to function effectively if weed species become established. 8.4 Public Access for Hiking and Dog Walking and Instructional Signage Public access to Byxbee Park Hills is available, but limited to hiking trails. Hikers and dog walkers are allowed on all trails, but dogs must be kept on leash at all times. Dogs will be excluded from the 6.6 acres set aside as nesting burrow habitat as well as from perimeter berms that delineate these areas, but will be allowed on the adjacent trails. Signage will be placed at regular intervals along the trails mandating that all activities, including hiking, dog walking and bicycling be restricted to established trails. 8.5 Hydroseeding, Mowing and Weed Management The finished landfill will be hydroseeded with grassland species. Purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) and small fescue (Festuca microstachys) are included in the hydroseed mix throughout the park. These native California species were present in the burrowing owl’s natural habitat prior to the introduction of invasive non-native grass species and have the advantage of being adapted to California’s naturally occurring periods of drought. Because of their naturally low- growing morphology, they require less mowing to maintain optimal nesting habitat conditions for burrowing owls. These two grass species should be preferentially applied on and within 50 feet of the nest mounds. California sagebrush (Artemesia californica) and sticky monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), beach evening primrose (Camissoniopsis cheironthifolia), and American dunegrass (Leymus mollis mollis) should be eliminated from the hydroseed mix for burrowing owl nesting burrow areas. Grasses and weeds must be managed for fire control and habitat quality. It is recommended that the grassland vegetation in the nesting burrow habitat areas be maintained at a height of less than five inches to allow an unrestricted view of the surrounding habitat from the burrow. Vegetation that is allowed to grow too tall will discourage owls from colonizing the site and may cause them to abandon a site in which they have overwintered in preference for an area with lower vegetation. Mowing in owl nesting burrow habitat should be completed in February and Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 17 MIG|TRA May 2015 November if owls are present, and in February, May, August and November if owls are not present. If it is necessary to mow when owls are present, a qualified biologist needs to evaluate the impacts in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012, or as updated by CDFW). No mowing should occur within 250 feet of any active nest burrow. Because string trimming is a slower method of weed control, it requires a much more invasive human presence, so string trimming should not be done in the nesting burrow habitat areas if burrowing owls have been documented to occupy these areas. Optimal owl foraging habitat consists of grasslands with a healthy population of small rodents and insects, so it is recommended that the forage habitat only be mowed as necessary for fire suppression, which will depend on rainfall. Noxious and invasive weed species (as defined by the California Invasive Plant Council or the Supervising Ranger) can establish dense patches that will not provide habitat for burrowing owls. The treatment methods for these weeds are species-specific and may or may not include mowing. Weed management should follow the guidelines of the Landscape Plan, and may also consider professional guidance such as provided in “Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States” by the University of California Weed Research and Information Center. The University of California Integrated Pest Management website should also be consulted for specific weed management guidelines (http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/weeds_all.html). No weed management will occur within 250feet of burrows occupied by burrowing owl . String trimming will be avoided and only used where mowing is not possible. 8.6 Feral Cat Control In April 2014 the Palo Alto City Council approved an ordinance that prohibits feeding wildlife and feral animals in Palo Alto parks and other open-space areas. City staff has observed that feeding stations for feral cats lure in other pests and predatory species including rats, skunks, raccoons, opossum and nuisance birds such as gulls and crows. Feral cats that are fed continue to hunt wildlife and are a particular threat to ground-nesting birds (City of Palo Alto 2013). Cats will also reduce the native rodent population as noted in a study at the East Bay Regional Park District by the American Bird Conservancy (Winter and Wallace 2004), further degrading the site suitability for burrowing owls. While feral cats are limited in number at Byxbee Park Hills, the following measures are recommended to minimize impacts on the burrowing owl. Any feeding stations that are found within the park will be removed and whenever they are observed in the park, feral cats will be live trapped and transport to Palo Alto Animal Services. The City of Palo Alto also has an agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to capture predators of the Federally Endangered Ridgeway rail (Rallus obsoletus) formerly known as the California Clapper Rail. Predators of the rail include feral cat and non-native red fox (Vulpes vulpes), two species which may also prey on burrowing owl. This agreement with the USDA benefits the local burrowing owl population by expending the area in which their predators are controlled. 8.7 Monitoring, Reporting and Adaptive Management An ongoing program that includes monitoring of the burrowing owl habitat, prey base, artificial nest burrows, and nest success, is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of this program. It is recommended that a qualified biologist familiar with the foraging and breeding habits of burrowing owls train park personnel on how best to undertake a monitoring effort that answers the following questions: • Are invasive weeds being managed effectively? Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 18 MIG|TRA May 2015 • Is vegetation height within artificial nest burrow sites and foraging habitat maintained at a height optimal for nesting and foraging success? For example, vegetation within 100 feet of the burrows, and ideally throughout the burrow habitat should be mowed to a height of five inches or less (Trulio and Higgins 2012b), but taller vegetation is desirable in forage areas to support sufficient cover for rodents. Is there a mosaic of vegetation heights and prey species habitat? • How much vegetation cover is there throughout the park? No more than 30% of all areas of the park intended to be vegetated either with hydroseed or other planting should remain bare ground in order to optimize habitat for burrowing owl prey species. • Are ground squirrels present in the park? Are there natural ground squirrel burrows present or evidence that squirrels are occupying artificial burrows? • Are conditions on the site favorable to support burrowing owl prey species, or if not, are they improving? To improve conditions for owl prey species, should the mowing regime be changed, or should vegetation cover, rock, brush and mulch piles be increased? • Is there evidence of cat feeding stations, are cats present in the park? • Are owls present at Byxbee Park Hills? Are they foraging or breeding? The following surveys are recommended: • A vegetation survey once in March and again in late June, with a final survey in early August when annual grasses and forbs tend to go into a state of dormancy. • A survey every three months to assess burrowing owl prey species, ground squirrel, feral cat, and burrowing owl populations. • A survey of artificial and natural burrows will be undertaken on a monthly basis during the breeding season for burrowing owls, to determine if burrows are occupied by single or mated burrowing owls. Note the presence and number of any burrowing owl chicks. • Any active owl burrows in Byxbee Park should be protected from impacts from landfill maintenance projects to the greatest feasible extent, based on landfill post-closure regulations. The California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines (1993) recommend that an activity-specific plan to protect burrowing owls should be developed for each project that occurs within 50 meters (170 feet) of an occupied burrow during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), and within 75 meters (250 feet) during the breeding season (February 1-August 31). If owls are detected during the breeding season, a 75-meter avoidance buffer should be maintained around any occupied burrow until young have fledged. If owls are detected during the non-breeding season a 50-meter avoidance buffer should be established for the duration of the activity or until owls are no longer present. Report burrow survey results to landfill and park maintenance staff so that avoidance measures can be implemented if necessary. Report sightings to the California Natural Diversity Database annually (https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting_data_to_cnddb.asp). The results of these surveys should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and determine if changes are needed to adapt the plan to changing needs of the burrowing owl population or other species of concern. 9.0 CONCLUSION This burrowing owl management plan uses a combination of ground squirrel and vegetation management techniques to encourage owls that currently inhabit nearby areas (Shoreline Park, Moffett Federal Airfield) to venture into Byxbee Park Hills to forage and perhaps breed. Artificial nest burrows established in areas of the park protected from public use will provide refuge for Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 19 MIG|TRA May 2015 foraging owls and possibly nesting habitat so that the burrowing owl population in the south bay could increase. While one of the goals of this plan is to establish Byxbee Park Hills as a breeding area for burrowing owls, it is recognized that areas where ground squirrel populations can remain and burrowing owls can nest undisturbed are restricted by the need for ongoing maintenance of the landfill. Expanding foraging habitat for owls has a high chance of success and will benefit a broad range of species. Creating and managing grasslands in Byxbee Park Hills will improve the habitat for small mammals and birds, which will provide a food source for large mammals and birds of prey that forage in the same habitat. 10.0 LITERATURE CITED Barclay, J. H. 2008. A simple artificial burrow design for burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 42(1): 53 – 57. Bates, Christine. 2006. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). In The Draft Desert Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of desert-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Berentsen, A. R., T. P. Salmon. 2001. The structure of California ground squirrel burrows: Control implications. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 37:66-70. California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Guidance for Burrowing Owl Conservation. Habitat Conservation Branch, Wildlife Branch, Bay Delta Region, Sacrament, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission. 2013. Ordinance of the council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.270 by adding subsection 22.04.270(C) to prohibit the feeding of wildlife and feral animals in Palo Alto parks and open space areas. Clayton, K. M., J. K. Schmutz. 1999. Is the decline of burrowing owls (Speyotyto cunicularia) in prairie Canada linked to changes in Great Plains ecosystems? Bird Conservation International 9:163 – 185. Desmond, M. J. and J. A. Savidge. 1999. Satellite burrow use by burrowing owl chicks and its influence on nest fate. Pages 128-130 in P.D. Vickery and J.R. Herckert, editors. Ecology and conservation of grassland birds of the western hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19. Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2008. Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan: Wildlife Management Element – Byxbee Park Hills and Future Landfill Closure Area, Wildlife Habitat Assessment. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto. Feeney, L. R. 1997. Burrowing owl site tenacity associated with relocation efforts. Pages 132 – 137 in J.L. Lincer and K. Steenhof (Editors). The burrowing owl, its biology and management including the proceedings of the first international burrowing owl symposium. Journal of Raptor Research Report 9. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 20 MIG|TRA May 2015 Golder Associates, Inc. 2013. Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan, City of Palo Alto Landfill. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto. Green, G. A., and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Ecological considerations for management of breeding burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin. Pages 117 – 121 in The Burrowing Owl, its biology and management, including the proceedings of the First International Burrowing Owl Symposium (J.L. Lincer, and K. Steenhof (Editors). Raptor Research Foundation. Harman, L. M. and J. H. Barclay. 2007. A summary of California burrowing owl banding records, in Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, November 2003, edited by Barclay, J. H., K. W. Hunting, J. L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, pp. 123 – 131. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc. Point Reyes Station, CA, vii + 197 pp. Haug, E. A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. The burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia) in The Birds of North America, No. 61, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. ICF International. 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan: Appendix M Western burrowing owl conservation strategy. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. Johnsgard, P. A. 1998. North American Owl: Biology and Natural History. Washington D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press. Johnson, D. H., D. C. Gillis, M.A. Gregg, J. L. Rebhotz, J. L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff. 2010. Users Guide to Installation of Artificial Burrows for Burrowing Owls. Tree Top Inc., Sehal, Washington. 34 pp. Landry, R. E. 1979. Growth and development of the burrowing owl. M. S. thesis, California State University, Long Beach, CA. Lutz, R. S., D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry and nest site reuse by burrowing owls: Implications for management. Journal of Raptor Research 33: 149 – 153. Josselyn, M., A. Hatch, C. Strong, and F. Nichols. 2005. Synthesis for Issue 8: Impact of invasive species and other nuisance species. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Science Team. Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L. Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication GWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington D.C. Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 178 – 180. Trulio, L. and P. Higgins. 2012a Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan. City of Mountain View Public Works and Community Service Departments. Trulio, L. and P Higgins. 2012b. Bufferlands Interim Burrowing Owl Management Plan. San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. Trulio, L. 2014. Burrowing Owl Workshop. Elkhorn Slough Coastal Training. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 21 MIG|TRA May 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. University of California. 2014. Ground Squirrel Best Management Practices: Identifying burrows. http://ucanr.edu/sites/Ground_Squirrel_BMP/Biology/Identifying_Burrows/ (accessed June 7, 2014) University of Lethbridge. 2014. Burrow system of Richardson’s ground squirrels (also known as gophers). http://research.uleth.ca.rgs/burrow.cfm (accessed April 25, 2014). Winter, L and G. E. Wallace. 2006. Impacts of feral and free-ranging cats on bird species of conservation concern. A five-state review of New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and Hawaii. American Bird Conservancy. Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 22 MIG|TRA May 2015 BURROWING OWL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE BYXEBEE PARK FINAL INTERIM PARK PLAN APPENDIX A FIGURES MIG|TRA Environmental Sciences OASIS Associates T:\ C A S E \ B i o \ B B P P B y x b e e P a r k \ B u r r o w i n g O w l \ M X D s \ F i g u r e 1 S i t e M a p . m x d 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Byxbee Park Hills 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Figure 1 Regional and Site VicinityTRAENVIRONMENTALS CI NC ESE,Inc. Byxbee Park Hills Limits and Closure Phases 9 8 8 092 17 280 237 85 8 7 84 84 Santa Clara San Mateo Alameda Santa Cruz Phase I Phase IIA Phase IIB Phase IIC Appendix A Figures Page A-1 Occ# 24 - Date Unknown Occ# 26 - 2009 Occ# 51 - 1950 Occ# 215 - 1993 Occ# 25 - 2008 Occ# 784 - 2009 Occ# 1032 - 2004 Occ# 27 - 1983 Occ # 21 - 2008 Occ# 22 - 1983 Occ #23 - 2004 Occ# 18 - 1983 Occ# 1031 - 2003 Occ# 1033 - 2004 Occ# 1035 - 1998 Occ# 1235 - 2002 Fremont Hayward Palo Alto San Mateo San Jose T:\ C A S E \ B i o \ B B P P B y x b e e P a r k \ B u r r o w i n g O w l \ M X D s \ C N D D B M a p B U O W . m x d 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., California Natural Diversity Database, Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Byxbee Park Hills 0 1 20.5 Miles Figure 2 Burrowing Owl Locations within 5 MilesTRAENVIRONMENTALS CI NC ESE,Inc. Burrowing Owl CNDDB Occurrence # and Date (see text for descriptions) Palo Alto Baylands Which Includes Byxbee Park Hills Major Road County Boundary Appendix A Figures Page A-2 T:\ C A S E \ B i o \ B B P P B y x b e e P a r k \ B u r r o w i n g O w l \ M X D s \ F i g u r e 5 O v e r w i n t e r i n g O w l s . m x d 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Byxbee Park Hills 0 0.06 0.120.03 Miles Figure 3 Past Locations of Overwintering OwlsTRAENVIRONMENTALS CI NC ESE,Inc. Burrow Palo Alto Baylands Which Includes Byxbee Park Hills Appendix A Figures Page A-3 Habitat PlanPermit Area T:\ C A S E \ B i o \ B B P P B y x b e e P a r k \ B u r r o w i n g O w l \ M X D s \ F i g u r e 2 H a b i t a t P l a n M a p + B U O W . m x d 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Byxbee Park Hills 0 6 123Miles Figure 4 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Area Map with Expanded Burrowing Owl Study AreaTRAENVIRONMENTALS CI NC ESE,Inc. Palo Alto Baylands Which Includes Byxbee Park Hills Burrowing Owl Fee Zones Habitat Plan Permit Area Appendix A Figures Page A-4 T: \ C A S E \ B i o \ B B P P B y x b e e P a r k \ G r a p h i c s \ F i g u r e 5 P A L F E x i s t i n g E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n t r o l s . m x d 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 Byxbee Park Hills Figure 5PALF ExistingEnvironmental Control Systems TRAENVIRONMENTALS CI NC ESE,Inc. Appendix A Figures Page A-5 Figure Number Enter Map Figure Artificial Burrow Design (Barclay 2008) Byxbee Park Hills Princeton Appendix A Figures Page A-6 T:\ C A S E \ B i o \ B B P P B y x b e e P a r k \ B u r r o w i n g O w l \ M X D s \ F i g u r e 8 A r t i f i c i a l B u r r o w L o c a t i o n s . m x d 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 4 Source: Oasis Associates, Inc., TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. , Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Byxbee Park Hills 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Figure Burrowing Owl Burrow Habitat LocationsTRAENVIRONMENTALS CI NC ESE,Inc. Nest Burrow (2 entrances) Satellite Burrow (1 entrance) Forage Habitat Burrow Habitat Appendix A Figures Page A-7 T:\ C A S E \ B i o \ B B P P B y x b e e P a r k \ B u r r o w i n g O w l \ M X D s \ F i g u r e 9 H a b i t a t F e a t u r e L o c a t i o n s . m x d 9 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 4 Source: Oasis Associates, Inc., TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. , Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Byxbee Park Hills 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Figure Tentative Locations for Prey Species Habitat FeaturesTRAENVIRONMENTALS CI NC ESE,Inc. Tentative Habitat Feature Locations Forage Habitat Burrow Habitat Mulch Pile Brush Pile Rock Pile Appendix A Figures Page A-8 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5790) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: First Amendment to Contract S15155738 with American Reprographics Company, LLC ("ARC") Title: Approval of Amendment No. One To Contract Number S15155738 with American Reprographics Company, LLC ("ARC") for an Archiving and Information Management Solution in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $433,235 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S15155738 with American Reprographics Company, LLC (ARC) (Contract) by increasing the total compensation by $348,735 from $84,500 to $433,235 for an archiving and information management solution. Background Over the years, City departments have accumulated a large volume of paper files as a result of complying with public records retention requirements and meeting information access needs. For some City departments the paper filing systems are taking up as much as 50% of their office floor space, i.e., Planning and Development Services. When locating and managing these records it becomes increasingly hard for departments to work efficiently and effectively due to the manual, time consuming nature of accessing physical documents. For example, the Purchasing Division of the Administrative Services Department conducted an assessment that revealed 20 percent of an average work day was lost to records retrieval and 25 percent of the office floor space was committed to storing public records on site for manual retrieval. Document imaging and electronic document management technologies in the market place have proven to be the most viable means to address the challenges of document management and records retention. By employing an imaging service to digitize the City’s files from one City department to the next, along with managing current and future documents in electronic format, the City can electronically manage a large number of its public records. The benefits include: using document management software to ease retrieval and improve the security and availability of information and documents; gaining back valuable square footage office space once taken up by large file cabinet systems; savings in office supply costs from reduced copying; City of Palo Alto Page 2 and sustainability gains from using less paper and fewer copier toner cartridges. These benefits are being realized by the Purchasing Division. It has gone largely paperless as a business model. It has imaged all of its files and no longer needs to print or receive paper, for most processes, where all documents are received, processed, and managed electronically. With this contract the City is embracing the paperless model across much of the business operations. Together with the implementation of digital signature the City has taken an important step towards reducing paper-based processes. Discussion The competitive request for proposal (RFP) process to select ARC included the following steps: 1. Issued an RFP for document scanning and SaaS document management platform services in August of 2014. 2. Solicited eight vendors directly. 3. Solicited thirteen exchanges. 4. Received seven proposal responses. 5. Conducted an extensive evaluation of all proposals, shortlisting to five proposals to demo effectiveness of their cloud-based solutions and determining the best option to meet the City’s business requirements looking forward for this project. Initially, three City departments took part in the RFP process and initial contract with ARC. ARC was selected based on the firm’s overall competitiveness to meet the City’s planned scanning volume, assuming the eventual inclusion of additional departments, and functionality of their document management solution. As the ARC service started other City departments expressed interest to immediately start participating in the scanning project to address their document management needs. Therefore, a contract amendment is required at this time to meet the scanning and document management needs of additional City departments. This current contract amendment includes an estimated number of documents to scan of 1.7 million. Please see table below referencing these scans by department and amount. City of Palo Alto Page 3 FY 2016 ARC Scanning Services Department Amount Estimated Number of Images to Scan Average Cost per Scan Administrative Services $67,000 253,000 .26 Attorney's Office $60,000 666,667 .09 Development Services $200,000 500,000 .40 Fire $10,000 25,000 .40 Planning & Community Environment $75,000 187,500 .40 Public Works $6,235 20,783 .30 Utilities $15,000 166,667 .09 Totals $433,235 1,819,617 There are differences in the rates because some departments have multiple small and large format plans and microfiche (e.g., Development Services and Planning Departments). Fire Department has large plans as well. The City Attorney’s Office has books that will need to be rebound after the scanning process. Most departments will have some indexing to allow the users to find the documents once they have been scanned and uploaded to the online service. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Resource Impact This is a city-wide scanning services contract totalling $433,235. Each department either has dedicated scanning budget in their respective budgets or will initially use funds from existing Fiscal Year 2016 budget allocations. If insufficient funds are avaialble, staff may bring forward one-time budget requests for scanning as part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Midyear Budget Revew report. As part of the Fiscal Year 2017 budget process, staff will assess the ongoing funding needs for scanning. Environmental Review These services do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: Amendment1_S15155738_ARC signed (PDF) Attachment B: S15155739_ARC AIM Agreement_Executed 3.19.15 (PDF) Attachment C: Summary (PDF) 1 S15155738 for doc scanning & management services AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. S15155738 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND American Reprographics Company, LLC ("ARC") This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S15155738 (“Contract”) is entered into ________________, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California (“CITY”), and American Reprographics Company, LLC ("ARC"), a California Partnership, located at 1981 N. Broadway, Suite 385, Walnut Creek, California 94596, Telephone number (925)935.8700. (“CONTRACTOR”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of scanning and document management services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Sub-Section 1 of Section III titled “Rates”, is hereby amended to read as follows: “(1) Rates. During the Term if this Agreement, ARC and Client agree to the Rates shown for all Services in Exhibit B. A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of three Hundred Eighty-Two Thousand Dollars ($382,000.00). ARC will notify the client when this amount is reached and provide any remaining or additional services based on the Client’s written approval.” 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: b. Exhibit “B” entitled “Rates”: Section 1 titled “Rate for Services” is hereby amended to read as follows: “Commencing on the first day in which ARC begins to provide Services, Client may select from one of two payment options: 1. Pay a fee of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) as a onetime fee “fee” for the platform and a fee for Four hundred Dollars ($400.00) a month for information access to the platform during the term. Option 2: Pay a fee of Eight Hundred Thirty Three Dollars and Thirty Three Cents ($833.33) for Twelve (12) months in lieu of the onetime fee and a fee of Four hundred Dollars ($400.00)a month for information access to the platform during the term. Client may choose the fee is inclusive of the services noted in Exhibit A. A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Three Hundred Eight-Two Thousand Dollars ($382,000.00)” DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AA1AED1-1E8A-47F5-97A0-E3A84B7ED603 Amendment A 2 S15155738 for doc scanning & management services 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. APPROVED: __________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney American Reprographics Company, LLC By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AA1AED1-1E8A-47F5-97A0-E3A84B7ED603 5/17/2015 COO Dilantha Wijesuriya Amendment A Certificate of Completion Envelope Number: 9AA1AED11E8A47F597A0E3A84B7ED603 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: AMENDMENT 1 TO CONTRACT S15155738.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 2 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 John Montenero AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 5/15/2015 1:54:33 PM PT Holder: John Montenero john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Dilantha Wijesuriya dilo.wijesuriya@e-arc.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 76.220.63.132 Sent: 5/15/2015 5:34:10 PM PT Viewed: 5/17/2015 12:15:06 PM PT Signed: 5/17/2015 12:15:56 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 5/17/2015 12:15:06 PM PT ID: 8d64c0a6-d013-41b0-bbfb-aac9263dd87c In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Rick Carr rick.carr@e-arc.com Secretary Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/15/2015 5:34:11 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 5/15/2015 5:26:17 PM PT ID: 6362c25d-d7d7-49db-a264-21b03b726fb0 Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/15/2015 5:34:11 PM PT Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/17/2015 12:15:06 PM PT Signing Complete Security Checked 5/17/2015 12:15:56 PM PT Completed Security Checked 5/17/2015 12:15:56 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure Amendment A CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM Parties agreed to: Dilantha Wijesuriya, Rick Carr Amendment A How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will Amendment A have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. Amendment A Page 1 of 5 This ARCHIVING INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made by and between: American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. (“ARC”) 1981 North Broadway, Suite 385 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (925) 949-5100 City of Palo Alto (“Client”) 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 I. Term. This Agreement shall commence on March 1,, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue for a period of One (1) year(s) (“Term”). Thereafter, this Agreement may be renewed for not more than Three (3) additional one (1) year periods (“Maintenance Period(s)”). The Client’s contract number for invoicing is S15155738. II. Services. (1) Services. During the Term of this Agreement, ARC will provide to Client the services described in Exhibit A (“Services”), and at the rates described in Exhibit B (“Rates”). (2) Service Level Agreement. The AIM Service Level Agreement (“SLA”) is an agreement between the parties to ensure proper service level commitment for the provision of application support Services to Client. The SLA is incorporated by reference into this Agreement and available upon request for Client’s internal business purposes only. III. Rates. (1) Rates. During the Term of this Agreement, ARC and Client agree to the Rates shown for all Services in Exhibit B. A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Eighty-Four Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($84,500.00). ARC will notify the client when this amount is reached and provide any remaining or additional services based on the Client’s written approval. (2) Taxes. All prices and charges are exclusive of all taxes. Any applicable sales and services taxes required to be collected and remitted by ARC for the provision of Services will be billed to and paid for by Client. IV. Payment Terms. Payment for Services provided shall be due thirty (30) days after the invoice date. Any outstanding payments due past the due date will be subject to a monthly finance charge of two percent (2%) of the outstanding account balance. All returned checks will be assessed a fee of $50.00 per item. V. Exclusivity. During the Term of this Agreement, Client agrees to contract solely and exclusively with ARC for the Services. VI. Termination/Default. This Agreement may not be terminated during the Term, or during any Maintenance Period, of the Agreement. (1) Failure to Pay. The immediately preceding notwithstanding, in addition to any other rights that ARC may have at law or in equity, ARC shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon five (5) days written notice to Client, if Client fails to make timely payment of any amount due hereunder, and default continues for a period of ten (10) days after written notice of such default to Client. In the event of such default, the full amount of the month’s Rate for Services, and all future Rate installments, shall immediately become due and payable, together with any arrears unpaid at the time of default. (2) Effect Termination Upon Default. Upon the earlier of (i) receipt of notice from ARC that this Agreement and/or Client or a user’s access to the PlanWell Collaborate Solution software (“PWC”) are being terminated, or (ii) expiration of this Agreement, Client shall remove all Content (as defined below) and data from PWC. Client acknowledges and agrees that ARC also may delete the Content and data from PWC (and all backups thereof), without further notice upon any termination or expiration of this Agreement, and that ARC is not liable for any loss or damage which may be incurred by Client, users or any third parties as a result of such deletion. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, Client shall cease to access PWC; and Client and each of Client’s users’ rights hereunder shall cease. (3) Survival. The following sections and subsections shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement: “Intellectual Property Rights,” “Confidential Information,” “Representations and Warranties,” “Indemnification,” and “Termination - Survival,” and “General Provisions.” VII. Confidentiality; and Security Obligations. (1) Confidential Information. Each party receiving Confidential Information (as defined below) of the other party (the “Receiving Party”) agrees, during the term of this Agreement and for a period of two (2) years thereafter, except as expressly authorized in writing by the Disclosing Party (as defined below), (i) not to disclose or otherwise make available Confidential Information of the party disclosing its Confidential Information (the “Disclosing Party”) to any third party without the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party; provided, however, that the Receiving Party may disclose the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party to its officers, employees, consultants and legal advisors who have a "need to know", who have been apprised of this restriction and who are themselves bound by nondisclosure restrictions at least as restrictive as those set forth in this section; (ii) to use the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party only for the purpose of performing its obligations under this Agreement or, in the case of Client, to make use of the Deliverables, as defined herein; and (iii) to promptly notify the Disclosing Party in the event it becomes aware of any disclosure of any of the Confidential Information of Disclosing Party. Confidential Information shall mean information relating to trade secrets, inventions, ideas, processes, computer source and object code, formulae, data, programs, other works of authorship, know-how, improvements, discoveries, developments, designs, and techniques, information regarding products or plans for research and development, marketing and business plans, budgets, financial statements, contracts, prices, suppliers, and customers. “Confidential Information” shall not include information that: (a) is already known to the Receiving Party without restriction on use or disclosure prior to receipt of such information from the Disclosing Party; (b) is or becomes generally known by the public other than by breach of this Agreement by, or other wrongful act of, the Receiving Party; (c) is developed by the Receiving Party independently of, and without reference to, any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party; (d) is received by the Receiving Party from a third party who is not under any obligation to the Disclosing Party to maintain the confidentiality of such information; or (e) is required to be disclosed by applicable law, including without limitation, pursuant to the terms of a court order; provided, however, that the Receiving Party, to the best of its ability, has given the Disclosing Party prior written notice of, and opportunity to contest, such disclosure. (2) Ownership and Control of Information. (a) ARC Information and Software. Subject to paragraph II(2), Client agrees that all confidential and proprietary information and software used, or created, by ARC to provide the Services shall be and remain the property of ARC, including without limitation proprietary software, accounting and tracking systems, pricing, forms, reports, and other like material used to provide the Services. Client further agrees that it shall not use such information for any purpose not directly related to the provision of Services by ARC. (b) Client Data. ARC agrees that all documents, document scans and other electronic records furnished to ARC by Client or created by ARC for Client in the course of performing the Services (collectively, “Client Data”) shall be the sole and exclusive property of Client. ARC shall not obtain or assert any lien or other proprietary or security interest in Client Data and shall not use or exploit Client Data for any purpose other than to perform the Services. All Client Data will be deemed Confidential Information per the above Section VII (1). (3) Security Obligations. At all times during the Term, ARC shall be responsible for ensuring the integrity and security of the storage, processing or transmission of Client’s data and storage facilities, and transmission facilities on which or through which Client’s data is stored, processed, compiled, or transmitted. In this respect, ARC shall perform all of the tasks and take all of the measures described in the ARC Data Center Security, Business Continuity and Infrastructure document which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement and available upon request for DocuSign Envelope ID: D6911899-285A-4F5A-B3BA-AB32392C7010 Amendment B Page 2 of 5 Client’s internal business purposes only. VIII. Intellectual Property Rights. (1) Intellectual Property Rights. Except as expressly provided otherwise herein, title, ownership, and all rights and interest including, without limitation, patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, service marks, mask work rights and other intellectual property or proprietary rights, including any rights to registration of such rights in and to PWC remain with ARC and its licensors, whether created before, on or after the Effective Date. In addition, all content published on the PlanWell Client website site (“Site”), including, but not limited to, reports, presentations, written content, graphics, images, marks, logos, sound or video clips are protected by ARC’s copyrights or trademarks or those of ARC’s partners or clients. The structure, organization, and code of PWC and accompanying materials, if any, are valuable trade secrets of ARC and its licensors, and Client and its users shall keep such trade secrets confidential. No logo, graphic, sound, content or image from the Site may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted by ARC and/or its licensors in a separate writing. PWC is licensed, not sold. ARC hereby grants Client a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use PWC for the Term and Maintenance Periods of the Agreement, solely for Client’s own internal business purposes. (2) Pre-Existing Intellectual Property. Except as provided in Section VIII.3 below regarding Client’s right to use the Deliverables, as defined herein, Client acquires no rights in ARC’s proprietary works of authorship, preexisting or otherwise, including, without limitation, software, methodologies, templates, flowcharts, architecture designs, tools, specifications, drawings, sketches, models, samples, records and documentation, as well as copyrights, trademarks, service marks, ideas, concepts, know-how, techniques, knowledge or data, and any derivatives thereof, which have been originated, developed or purchased by ARC, its parent company, affiliates or third parties. As used in this Agreement, the “Deliverables” means any and all deliverables developed by ARC, as required to provide the Services to the Client, as specified in this Agreement, but excluding any Client Data. (3) Ownership. ARC shall retain all right, title and interest in and to: (a) the Deliverables, including, without limitation, all Intellectual Property Rights therein; (b) all methodologies, processes, techniques, ideas, concepts, product improvement suggestions (whether derived or originating from ARC or Client) and know-how embodied in, or relating to, the Deliverables or that ARC may develop or supply in connection with this Agreement (collectively, the “ARC Knowledge”). For greater certainty, the parties agree that the Deliverables, including, without limitation, all Intellectual Property Rights therein, shall not constitute, or be deemed to be, “work made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S. C. §101. Subject to the confidentiality provisions in this Agreement, ARC may use the Deliverables and the ARC Knowledge for any purpose. Client may, solely for its internal business purposes, use the Deliverables in accordance with this Agreement and any applicable subscription terms and conditions relating to the licensed product. Client shall not, without ARC’s prior written consent, disclose to a third party, publicly quote or make reference to the Deliverables. In the event ARC ceases to provide the Services, in breach of this Agreement, for more than seven (7) days, upon request by Client in writing, ARC shall place the source code for PWC and any Deliverables in escrow for the benefit of Client. ARC shall establish the escrow within thirty (30) days of receiving the written request from Client. (4) Content. The Site includes a combination of content that ARC creates, that ARC’s partners create, and that customers and users create. Client may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, reverse engineer, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the software, materials or content of PWC. Client is solely responsible for all materials, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, that Client uploads, posts, e-mails, transmits, or otherwise makes available on the Site or through PWC including Client Data (“Client’s Content” or “Content”). Client has the sole responsibility for the accuracy, quality, integrity, legality, reliability, and appropriateness of Client’s Content. Client warrant that Client owns or has sufficient legal right to the intellectual property rights in Client’s Content and that Client’s Content, including any use thereof by ARC as described herein, does not violate applicable law or the rights of any third party. Client hereby grants ARC a world-wide, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licensable right during the Term, and any Maintenance Period, to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish Client’s Content and subsequent versions of Client’s Content for the purposes of (i) displaying Client’s Content on the Site; (ii) processing Client’s Content in connection with ARC providing Services to Client; (iii) distributing Client’s Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it; and/or (iv) storing or hosting Client’s Content in a remote database or on the Site for access by Client’s users. This license will apply to the distribution and storage of Client’s Content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed. Client may be exposed to content that Client finds offensive, indecent or objectionable or that is inaccurate, and Client bears all risks associated with using that content. ARC has the right, but not the obligation, to remove any content that may, in ARC’s sole discretion, violate this Agreement or that is otherwise objectionable. ARC shall be entitled to adjust the scope of PWC and the underlying technical infrastructure to reflect the continuing development of the PWC and technical advances. IX. Terms of Use; and Acceptable Use and Privacy Policy. Client and each of Client’s users agree to terms and conditions contained in ARC’s Terms of Use, which is incorporated by reference into this Agreement and is available upon request for Client’s internal business purposes only. Client and Client’s users use of the PWC is also subject to compliance with ARC’s PlanWell Collaborate Acceptable Use Policy and ARC’s PlanWell Collaborate Privacy Policy, each of which is incorporated by reference into this Agreement and is also available and is available upon request for Client’s internal business purposes only. X. Representations and Warranties. ARC represents and warrants to the best of its ability that the Services will be provided in a workmanlike and professional manner, and in a manner consistent with the terms of this Agreement. The expressed warranty set forth in this Section XI is a limited warranty and is the only warranty made by ARC. Except as expressly provided otherwise in a written agreement signed by authorized representatives of Client and ARC, PWC is provided “as is,” “with all faults” and “as available” and ARC and its suppliers or affiliates makes no expressed or implied representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitations, (i) regarding the usability, suitability, condition, operation or accuracy of PWC; (ii) that access to or use of the Content or PWC will be available, timely, uninterrupted or error-free; or (iii) that the Content and PWC will be free of viruses, worms, trojan horses or other code that manifests contaminating or destructive properties. Except as expressly provided otherwise in a written agreement signed by authorized representatives of Client and ARC, ARC and its suppliers or affiliates specifically disclaim all warranties whether express, implied or statutory, including, without limitation, all warranties of merchantability, title, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, compatibility, security or accuracy. Client’s and Client’s users’ use of PWC and Content is at its own risk, and Client assumes full responsibility and risk of loss resulting from use or inability to use the Content or PWC. XI. Indemnification; Limitation of Liability. (1) To the fullest extent permitted by law, ARC shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to the negligent or willful misconduct by ARC, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement. (2) Upon Client’s written instruction, ARC will destroy all hard copies of the documents and other files provided by Client to ARC under this Agreement, and Client shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC from any claim or liability arising from said destruction of said hard copies. If prior to Client providing such written instruction Client suffers a loss resulting from damage to or destruction of any of Client’s documents while in ARC’s possession, ARC’s maximum liability shall not exceed the aggregate amounts paid or payable to ARC pursuant to this Agreement in the preceding three (3) month period. For purposes of the foregoing, ARC shall be deemed to be in DocuSign Envelope ID: D6911899-285A-4F5A-B3BA-AB32392C7010 Amendment B Page 3 of 5 possession of Client’s documents upon ARC’s receipt and acceptance of said documents, files (whether physical or electronic) or boxes. (3) If Client is dissatisfied with PWC or Client has any other dispute or claim with or against ARC with respect to this Agreement or PWC, then Client’s sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue using the PWC. Client’s discontinued use of PWC in no way relieves Client of their continuing obligations under this Agreement. In no event shall either party be liable to the other party or to any third party for any loss of use, revenue or profit or loss of data, or for any consequential, incidental, indirect, exemplary, special or punitive damages, whether arising out of breach of contract, tort (including negligence) or otherwise, regardless of whether such damage was foreseeable and whether or not such party has been advised of the possibility of such damages. ARC’s maximum liability shall not exceed the aggregate amounts paid or payable to ARC pursuant to this Agreement in the preceding three (3) month period. XII. Notices. All statements, notices and other communications to be given hereunder (other than requests from Client for Services) shall be in writing and, shall be deemed to have been duly given when delivered in person or when deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the other party’s business address as set forth above in this Agreement, or to such other address(es) as may be designated in writing by notice given to the other party. XIII. Insurance. ARC, at its sole cost and expense, shall maintain in full force and effect, during the Term, and any Maintenance Periods, of the Agreement commercial general liability insurance in an amount of no less than $1,000,000. Upon request from Client, ARC will provide a certificate of insurance evidencing such insurance requirement. XIV. Miscellaneous Provisions. A. Dispute Resolution. If a dispute arises, the parties shall attempt in good faith to settle the dispute by mediation administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Mediation Procedures before resorting to arbitration, litigation, or some other dispute resolution procedure. B. Force Majeure. ARC shall not be liable for any delay or nonperformance in the delivery or the rendering of Services hereunder which results from any cause or event beyond its control, including but not limited to natural disasters, war, riot, terrorist actions, civil unrest or labor disputes. C. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement cannot be transferred or assigned by either party without the prior written authorization of the other party; provided, however, that ARC may, without such authorization or prior notice, assign its rights and obligations hereunder to one (1) or more of its subsidiaries or affiliates. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their representatives, agents, and permitted successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and to their representatives, agents, and permitted successors and assigns. D. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall constitute the same document. A signed copy of this Agreement delivered by facsimile, e-mail or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original copy of this Agreement. E. Injunctive Relief. Each party acknowledges that a breach by a party of the section entitled “Confidential Information” may cause the non- breaching party irreparable damages, for which an award of damages would not be adequate compensation and agrees that, in the event of such breach or threatened breach, the non-breaching party will be entitled to seek equitable relief, including a restraining order, injunctive relief, specific performance and any other relief that may be available from any court, in addition to any other remedy to which the non-breaching party may be entitled at law or in equity. Such remedies shall not be deemed to be exclusive but shall be in addition to all other remedies available at law or in equity, subject to any express exclusions or limitations in this Agreement to the contrary. F. Waiver. Any waiver or failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement on one occasion will not be deemed a waiver of any other provision or of such provision on any other occasion. G. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement, together with all exhibits and any other documents incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties to this Agreement with respect to the subject matter contained herein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings and agreements, both written and oral, with respect to such subject matter. In the event of any conflict between the terms and provisions of this Agreement and those of any exhibit or any other documents incorporated herein by reference, the following order of precedence shall govern: (i) first, this Agreement, exclusive of its exhibits; and (ii) second, any exhibits to this Agreement. No modification of, or amendment to, this Agreement or any waiver of any rights hereunder or thereunder, shall be effective unless in writing and signed by ARC and Client. H. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable, the other provisions of this Agreement will be unimpaired and the invalid or unenforceable provision will be deemed modified so that it is valid and enforceable to the maximum extent permitted by law. I. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by substantive laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of law principles. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written below (“Effective Date”). “Client” City of Palo Alto By: Name: Title: Date: March 1, 2015 “ARC” AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS COMPANY, L.L.C., a California limited liability company By: Name: Title: Date: March 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: D6911899-285A-4F5A-B3BA-AB32392C7010 John Montenero Chief Procurement Officer Secretary D. Jeffery Grimes Amendment B Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A Services City of Palo Alto - Services Summary ARC shall provide the following Archiving and Information Management solution outlined below: 1. Software a. Client wishes to use a cloud based document repository which will allow authorized users to quickly locate documents for archived projects. This document repository shall provide tools and securities which will allow authorized users the ability to search for, view, download, and/or distribute documents to other entities or individuals that may need to review the information. The Advanced Search Modules for Attribute based search for large format documents and the Advanced search module for small format documents are included as part of the platform. b. This will be based upon ARC’s PlanWell Collaborate Solution software (“PWC”), and will integrate primarily with the PWC Cloud Storage system (also referred to herein as “PWC”) to capitalize on that platform’s existing document management capabilities. c. Each Party will designate and assign a project manager (each a “Project Manager” and collectively referred to herein as “Project Managers”). The Project Managers’ responsibilities will include, but not limited to, coordinating and communicating project requirements and providing feedback and information as appropriate to their respective parties in a timely manner. Delays in communications may impact the project schedule. The Client’s Project Manager will also be responsible for the validation testing and sign off. ARC will schedule a mutually agreeable timeline for a weekly progress meeting to keep all stakeholders updated on the progress and to discuss open items. The Client’s Project Manager must be available for these meetings. d. ARC will provide upgrades and maintenance of PWC throughout the Term and Maintenance Period(s). e. ARC will develop, test, implement and train Client staff, as set forth below in Section 10, on the use of the platform and the specific workflows built for Client. 2. Data Migration a. Client will provide the original content as hard copy documents that will be scanned to PDF or digital files to be migrated to PWC. Ownership of all client provided content will remain with the Client. ARC can provide a service to facilitate the transfer of this content from PWC in a non-proprietary file format via a database or CSV file at any point during the Term with written request from the Client. b. Client will provide ARC with the standard folder structure to be implemented in PWC for publishing the scanned content. c. Client will provide guidance and direction on the document collection. d. ARC will migrate all the scanned images and associated metadata into PWC based on the folder structure mutually agreed to by the Client and ARC. Should the folder structure creation require additional labor, indexing or management, ARC will provide a revised scope of work and pricing. e. ARC will provide Client’s PWC with One Hundred (100) GB of data capacity and Twenty (20) user’s access to the archived data from authorized Client employees. Additional cloud storage may be added based on the Rates set forth in Exhibit B below. 3. Data Hosting a. ARC will provide the cloud hosting and access Services via the Amazon Web Services. b. ARC will maintain a SLA for hosting Services, a copy of which may be provided to Client upon request. 4. Project Management a. During the data migration, the technology Services will be managed by ARC’s Project Manager. 5. Deliverables a. Images and database are formatted to be imported into ARC’s PWC platform and made available for search and retrieval simply using a web browser. Documents will be published based on Client’s office standard conventions. The primary means of searching for documents is by the Advanced Search enabled by the customization. This can be accomplished by selecting file attributes based search. Other methods are to search by file name assigned to the documents or by navigating the Windows Explorer like file structure to locate the files. In all cases, the minimum indexing requirement is the file name and all current and future scanned documents will require renaming to facilitate search and retrieval. 6. Professional Services a. ARC’s Project Manager will be Client’s primary contact with ARC once the project is underway and for the duration of the project. b. ARC’s Project Manager will ensure that the processing of documents and Services are provided as outlined in this Agreement, which shall include working: i. Defining a work plan for each phase of the project, including determining the volume and frequency of documents to be processed; ii. Directing and coordinating activities of the project; iii. Preparing status reports and modifying schedules as required; iv. Monitoring schedules and deadlines; v. Ensuing imaging specifications are accurately captured and processed; vi. Providing technical advice and resolving questions and issues as they arise in the course of the project; and vii. Communicating proactively with the Client, and responding in a timely manner to your questions. 7. System Training a. Four (4) hours of on-site and four (4) hours of web-based training is included for the initial launch of PWC after the back file conversion and software customization is completed: i. ARC will use the Client’s account and ARC demo accounts as needed to complete the training; ii. Training will include the basics of PWC as it applies to Client administrators and end users; and iii. Any additional training for Client administrators or for additional functionality added will be billed at the Rate set forth in Exhibit B. DocuSign Envelope ID: D6911899-285A-4F5A-B3BA-AB32392C7010 Amendment B Page 5 of 5 Exhibit B Rates 1. Rate for Services. Commencing on the first day in which ARC begins to provide Services, Client may select from one of two payment options: 1. Pay a fee of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) as a onetime fee (“Fee”) for the platform and a fee of Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) a month for information access to the platform during the term. Option 2: Pay a fee of Eight Hundred Thirty Three Dollars and Thirty Three Cents ($833.33) for Twelve (12) months in lieu of the onetime fee and a fee of Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) a month for information access to the platform during the term. Client may choose The Fee is inclusive of the Services noted in Exhibit A. A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Eighty-Four Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($84,500.00). ARC will notify the client when this amount is reached and provide any remaining or additional services based on the Client’s written approval. 2. Actual Document Volume. Depending upon the Client’s actual document volume, ARC will increase or decrease the Fee based on the rates noted in exhibit B. 3. Actual Document Condition. ARC expects the documents to be of good quality which will not require additional preparation prior to scanning. Should the quality of the documents require document preparation, ARC will provide the Service for these types of documents at the Rates specifically set forth below in Exhibit B. 4. On-Going Intelligent Storage and Access Fee. Client will pay an on- going information storage and access fee (“Maintenance Fee”) noted in section 1 above beginning with the first month of access. On the anniversary of any Maintenance Period, ARC may increase the Rates for PWC to reflect increases in the functional and underlying technological advances made to the PWC. ARC will provide written notification of any increases in Rates and such increase will be prospective. In no event shall any increase in Rates for the PWC in any given year exceed five percent (5%) of the prior year’s Rate. 5. Onboard & ad hoc training. ARC will provide a one hour, in person training session for each NEW city department who initiates use of the platform to convert their paper files to digital and to store their content. Additionally, ARC will host a one hour web conference/training to support ongoing education & subsequent training. These described services are inclusive with the monthly platform fee. 6. Services. Client will pay for additional system capacity or imaging services based on the following rates. Such additional fees will be invoiced as set forth below: Scanning and Indexing Services Price Scanning small format documents up to 11 x 17 $0.05/image Scanning Large Format Documents up to 30 x 42 to PDF: $0.90/page File Renaming/Indexing Small Format: $0.12/field File Renaming/Indexing Large Format: $0.12/field Additional Interactive Users $25.00/User/Month Additional Cloud Storage: $2.00/GB/Month Additional Professional Services/Training $90.00/hr Document preparation/repair $60.00/hr Document Shredding $3.00/Box DocuSign Envelope ID: D6911899-285A-4F5A-B3BA-AB32392C7010 Amendment B Certificate of Completion Envelope Number: D6911899285A4F5AB3BAAB32392C7010 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: City of Palo Alto- ARC AIM Agreement - PlanWell Platform Revised 3-16 Source Envelope: Document Pages: 5 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 John Montenero AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 3/16/2015 3:08:18 PM PT Holder: John Montenero john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp John Montenero John.Montenero@cityofpaloalto.org Chief Procurement Officer City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 3/16/2015 3:17:17 PM PT Viewed: 3/16/2015 3:17:25 PM PT Signed: 3/16/2015 3:17:46 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: D. Jeffery Grimes rick.carr@e-arc.com Secretary Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 173.13.166.155 Sent: 3/16/2015 3:17:47 PM PT Viewed: 3/19/2015 3:06:23 PM PT Signed: 3/19/2015 3:08:56 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 3/19/2015 3:06:23 PM PT ID: 59bb65f3-d631-4f15-ba54-5bd494a567a9 In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Mike Wells mike.wells@e-arc.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 70.197.24.184 Sent: 3/19/2015 3:08:57 PM PT Viewed: 3/19/2015 5:57:48 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 3/19/2015 5:57:48 PM PT ID: 09c4484d-2ecb-4ddc-be1a-b519205a015c Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Amendment B Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Mary Figone mary.figone@cityofpaloalto.org Senior Management Analyst City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 3/19/2015 5:57:48 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 12/1/2014 1:42:58 PM PT ID: 3c3fbe3d-dcb3-4039-b999-fb933973d14c Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 3/19/2015 5:57:48 PM PT Certified Delivered Security Checked 3/19/2015 5:57:48 PM PT Completed Security Checked 3/19/2015 5:57:48 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure Amendment B CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM Parties agreed to: D. Jeffery Grimes, Mike Wells, Mary Figone Amendment B How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will Amendment B have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. Amendment B Certificate of Completion Envelope Number: 9AA1AED11E8A47F597A0E3A84B7ED603 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: AMENDMENT 1 TO CONTRACT S15155738.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 2 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 John Montenero AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 5/15/2015 1:54:33 PM PT Holder: John Montenero john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Dilantha Wijesuriya dilo.wijesuriya@e-arc.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 76.220.63.132 Sent: 5/15/2015 5:34:10 PM PT Viewed: 5/17/2015 12:15:06 PM PT Signed: 5/17/2015 12:15:56 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 5/17/2015 12:15:06 PM PT ID: 8d64c0a6-d013-41b0-bbfb-aac9263dd87c In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Rick Carr rick.carr@e-arc.com Secretary Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/15/2015 5:34:11 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 5/15/2015 5:26:17 PM PT ID: 6362c25d-d7d7-49db-a264-21b03b726fb0 Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/15/2015 5:34:11 PM PT Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/17/2015 12:15:06 PM PT Signing Complete Security Checked 5/17/2015 12:15:56 PM PT Completed Security Checked 5/17/2015 12:15:56 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure Attachment C CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM Parties agreed to: Dilantha Wijesuriya, Rick Carr Attachment C How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will Attachment C have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. Attachment C City of Palo Alto (ID # 5967) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation regarding Project Safety Net Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Council on Project Safety Net Community Collaborative Update and Recommendation for Next Steps From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation The Policy and Services Committee and staff recommend that the Council support the transition of the Project Safety Net Community Collaborative (PSN) to the Collective Impact model of collaboration to ensure the on-going success by supporting the following actions: Solicitation for a contracted PSN Executive Director Completion of a PSN Collective Impact roadmap for youth well-being and prevention of teen suicide Establishment of a PSN “Executive Board” made up of key institutional leaders Resourcing a team for data collection, capacity building and facilitation Elevating Youth Voice within the PSN Collaborative leadership Background As requested by the Policy and Services Committee in October 2014, staff worked with the PSN Leadership Team to review options for working models (i.e. structures) to sustain the Project Safety Net (PSN) Collaborative’s work going forward. With the assistance of a subcommittee of PSN leaders past and present, the Collective Impact approach was reviewed, presented and agreed to by the PSN Leadership Team, full Collaborative and executive leadership from the City and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The PSN Leadership Team and staff recommendation was then discussed at the Policy and Services Committee meeting on June 9, 2015. Staff and several members of the Project Safety Net Leadership Team were in attendance including Kathleen Blanchard, Parent survivor of suicide, Brenda Carrillo, Palo Alto Unified School District, Pamela Garfield, Adolescent Counseling Services, and Dr. Shashank Joshi, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, and expressed their support of the Collective Impact model. Several members of the Collaborative also attended to express their City of Palo Alto Page 2 support for the recommendation including Leif Erickson,Youth Community Services, Sue Eldridge, Community Volunteer, and Patricia Lau, Project Safety Net Consultant. Discussion The staff report to the Policy & Services Committee and minutes contains a full discussion on the background and recommendations presented, and are provided with this report (Attachment A: Staff Report 5796 and Minutes.) The Policy & Services Committee Review & Recommendation included Council Member questions and comments centered on the following four areas: Greater understanding of the Collective Impact Model: Several questions centered on the difference between the structural model PSN is currently using and the Collective Impact Model of collaboration. It was explained that Collective Impact is a more rigorous form of collaboration whose difference is best illustrated when compared against the five conditions listed below that together lead to meaningful results: 1. Common Agenda: All participants share a vision for change that includes a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving the problem through agreed upon actions. 2. Shared Measurement: All participating organizations agree on the ways success will be measured and reported, with a short list of common indicators identified and used for learning and improvement. 3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities: A diverse set of stakeholders, typically across sectors, coordinate a set of differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action. 4. Continuous Communication: All players engage in frequent and structured open communication to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and create common motivation. 5. Backbone Support: An independent, funded staff dedicated to the initiative provides ongoing support by guiding the initiative’s vision and strategy, supporting aligned activities, establishing shared measurement practices, building public will, advancing policy, and mobilizing resources. While PSN’s current structural model contains elements of the five conditions listed above the Collective Impact approach would provide greater focus and rigor in which the PSN Collaborative would operate. Specifically this means PSN will: a) Identify, collect and evaluate actionable data measurements to guide the effectiveness City of Palo Alto Page 3 of the collaborative’ s efforts and; b) Align and mutually supportive activities across sectors based on an agency’s strength and PSN’s goals and; c) Resource an independent backbone agency, staffed by a director, whose full time job is to support and strengthen the PSN collaborative. Backbone Support/Staffing: The definition of “backbone” support is given under #5 above. There were several questions that centered on what “type” of backbone staff/PSN Leadership envisions, and the timing of such a transition. Staff responded that a decision regarding the type of backbone support that might be right for PSN is still under discussion and there are different opinions about this within the Collaborative and options to consider; for example whether to create a separate non-profit, or “nest” PSN within a partner agency or a non PSN related agency, or seek fiscal sponsorship with a suitable Foundation. Recent advice received from two experts in the field of Collective Impact recommended that it is best for PSN to have its fiscal and physical home in a neutral organization (not a PSN partner organization), that would provide office and organizational infrastructure. Staff reported that one of the key roles of the transitional PSN director in the next year, along with the direction of the new Executive Board (yet to be formed), and PSN Leadership, will be to thoroughly review and provide a recommendation on a backbone structure for PSN going forward. Track Watch: Chair Burt asked whether the management of the Track Watch program had been transferred to Public Safety and staff responded that this happened on May 1, 2015. Chair Burt reported that he feels that it’s “confusing” that the Track Watch expenses are a part of the PSN budget as it is primarily a public safety function and that with the large increase in Track Watch coverage starting in Fall 2014, it is the largest PSN expenditure. He stated that these expenses should be in the Public Safety budget. Staff shared that track security has been part of the PSN plan from the beginning, defined as a best practice of “means restriction to lethal harm,” a key PSN goal. Funding: Several Council Members expressed concern regarding the balance of PSN’s allocation from the Health and Safety Funds (listed above) and the ability to sustain the efforts of the enhanced PSN Collaborative under the Collective Impact approach. In addition to the funds supporting Track Security staff are in the process of working with Caltrain on several additional initiatives to enhance public safety at along the rail corridor, which include a proposal to install an Intrusion Detection System (IDS) with an estimated cost of $172,000, and adding enhanced fencing with associated vegetation removal at an estimated cost of $276,000. Given the considerable costs to support the Project Safety Net effort and associated public safety improvements it is imperative that a more sustainable funding model be developed. At the end of FY 2016, there will be a projected balance of approximately $764,000 left in the City of Palo Alto Page 4 PSN account. If the above referenced initiatives are approved, the remaining balance is projected to be $316,000. Staff reported that they share this concern, and that the City’s contribution to the PSN Collaborative needs to be seen more as “seed money” and that additional resources will be necessary to achieve a sustainable model that includes funding from Collaborative partners as well as considerable fundraising efforts. This is a key area that needs to be analyzed by the partner agencies going forward. Staff was encouraged to also look beyond non-profit partners and look to non-traditional partners to solicit support for PSN’s efforts. Data and Measurement As data collection and analysis is a cornerstone to Collective Impact success, staff was asked whether there was sufficient and dedicated funding in the budget to support this needed component. Staff responded that at present there was not money set aside for resourcing a data team, but City Manager Keene responded that he did not feel it would be a problem to find funding to support such an effort, and he will work with staff in seeking such necessary support. After a time of discussion and questions, Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach that the Policy & Services Committee recommends the City Council support the transition pf PSN to the Collective Impact Model (CI) of collaboration to ensure the on-going success of the Project Safety Net collaborative by supporting the following actions: Solicit for contract services to act as an interim PSN Director Complete PSN Collective Impact roadmap for youth well-being and prevention of teen suicide Establish a PSN “Executive Board” made up of key institutional leaders Resource a team for data collection, capacity building and facilitation Elevate Youth Voice within the PSN Collaborative leadership The motions passed 4-0, for a full account of the discussion, please see Attachment B: Policy & Services Committee Meeting Minutes June 9, 2015. After the Policy and Services Committee meeting on June 9, 2015, the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2016 for Project Safety Net (see Resource Impact below) was passed on June 15, 2015. The PSN budget includes contract funding for Program Management Services which includes the services of a contracted Executive Director and other needed professional services that may include data collection and analysis, communications and outreach and fund development. Staff is currently in the process of drafting and issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for such services and will return to Council for approval of a contract for a PSN Executive Director to shepherd the PSN collaborative transition to the Collective Impact structure. Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Page 5 The approved Fiscal Year 2016 PSN budget is $567,567. Expenditures are broken down in the table below: Item FY 2016 Dollar Amount Temporary Salaries: Hourly Administrative Assistant (filled) $ 25,883 Contract: Track Security $ 315,000 Program Management Services $ 198,458 Misc. Contract Expenses $ 25,000 Supplies: $ 3,000 Printing & Mailing: $ 226 TOTAL $ 567,567 At the end of FY 16, staff is projecting an available fund balance of $764,000. This amount, however, does not include any additional enhancements required to successfully implement the Collective Impact model for Project Safety Net or any supplementary mitigation efforts like the Intrusion Detection System and railway fencing previously mentioned. As a result, staff will be working with our institutional and community partners to develop a more sustainable funding strategy and will present this information the City Council before or during the FY 17 budget process. Attachments: Attachment A - Staff Report# 5796 Project Safety Net (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5796) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 6/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Project Safety Net Update Title: Project Safety Net Community Collaborative Update and Recommendation for Next Steps From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation The Project Safety Net (PSN) Leadership Committee and staff recommend that the Policy and Services Committee recommend to the City Council that the City support the transition to the Collective Impact model (CI) of collaboration to ensure the on-going success of the Project Safety Net Collaborative by supporting the following actions (defined in greater detail in the Discussion section of the staff report): Solicit for contract services to act as an interim PSN Director Complete PSN Collective Impact roadmap for youth well-being and prevention of teen suicide Establish a PSN “Executive Board” made up of key institutional leaders Resource a team for data collection, capacity building and facilitation Elevate Youth Voice within the PSN Collaborative leadership Executive Summary As requested by the Policy and Services Committee in October 2014, staff was instructed to work with the PSN Leadership team to review options for working models (i.e. structures) to sustain the PSN Collaborative’s work going forward. With the assistance of a subcommittee of PSN leaders past and present, the Collective Impact approach was reviewed, presented and adopted by the PSN Leadership team, full Collaborative and executive leadership from the City and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). The Collective Impact approach is a form of collaboration among organizations that clearly defines a workable framework for communities to align organizations from different sectors to agree to solve a complex social problem using a common agenda, aligning their efforts, and using common measures of success. Two national experts in Collective Impact were hired and worked with key stakeholders on exploring and analyzing PSN’s efforts so far. Based on their evaluation of the work and reach of PSN to date, City of Palo Alto Page 2 these advisors made recommendations on what the PSN Collaborative should focus its near- term effort. Background On October 21, 2014, staff presented to the Policy and Services Committee an update on the Project Safety Net Collaborative, including staffing, program accomplishments, Strategic Plan and plans for the future. (Attachment A – Staff Report. Attachment B – Minutes- Policy & Services Committee – 10-21-14.) At the October 21, 2014 meeting staff explained that in the past two years PSN has had two directors and neither remained in the position for long; due in part to the fact that the position was provisional and offered no benefits, yet required a high level of work requiring specialized expertise. Because the experience to hire and retain a suitably qualified PSN Director had been difficult, staff recommended that it not attempt to rehire at that time. Staff reported that the PSN Leadership Team was exploring the idea of recommending to Council that the bulk of PSN’s remaining funding be used to provide grants to agencies and individuals in the community working on suicide prevention and youth well-being efforts as laid out in its 2013 Strategic Plan (Attachment C – PSN Strategic Plan). The Policy and Services Committee was not supportive of this approach. The Committee expressed real value in the coming together of the different partners in the Collaborative and requested that staff review options for working models (i.e. structures) to sustain the PSN Collaborative’ s work going forward and report back to them. Subcommittee on PSN Structure: The PSN Leadership Team convened a subcommittee on structure of current and former members of the Collaborative and Leadership Team to review alternative working models in light of their collective history with the PSN Collaborative and their experiences with other organizations, collaboratives and models. Members are both groups are listed below. PSN Leadership Team: Kathleen Blanchard- Parent Survivor Brenda Carillo – PAUSD Jaymie Byron – Kara Rob de Geus – City of Palo Alto Pamela Garfield – Adolescent Counseling Services Dr. Shashank Joshi- Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford Lan Nguyen –Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services Soula Nicolakopoulus – PAUSD Susan Usman – PTA Council President Minka van der Zwaag – City of Palo Alto Subcommittee Members: Sally Bemus- Click PA Rob de Geus-City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Page 3 Leif Erikson – Youth Community Services Linda Lenoir –PAUSD Susan Usman, PTA Council President, Becky Beacom- Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Terry Godfrey – Developmental Assets Initiative Dawn Billman- Leadership Palo Alto, Minka van der Zwaag – City of Palo Alto The subcommittee on structure met in early 2015 with the purpose of reviewing several models of structure and leadership for the PSN Collaborative. In order to make an informed recommendation, the subcommittee first reviewed the history of the PSN collaborative which can be view in Attachment D in summary form. After much discussion and reflection of PSN’s efforts the subcommittee on structure came to the following key conclusions: 1. The current structure is inadequate to sufficiently hold the Collaborative together and make progress on its desired outcomes. 2. A PSN director with experience in collaborative facilitation is more likely to move the Collaborative forward than a director with clinical experience. 3. The Collaborative functions best when mechanisms exist for engagement and accountability (e.g. MOUs, financial commitment). 4. Relationships among PSN partners within the Collaborative are paramount to its success. 5. Earlier efforts on well-structured, frequent (monthly) meetings were effective at encouraging engagement, solidifying relationships and inviting new partners into the work. 6. There exists a perception in the community that PSN is a well-resourced organization that should “do something.” In reality the PSN Collaborative is a collaborative of partners and individuals working toward common goals. 7. The PSN Collaborative requires a backbone structure (see #5 below) to ensure progress. 8. Embedding the PSN Director in the City discourages financial donations as the $2M is perceived as adequate funding and some donors express skepticism that money donated via the City will be effectively used for PSN. 9. The City’s unwavering leadership has occasionally resulted in other organizations disengaging. The perception seems to be that the workload is being handled by the City and therefore further engagement is not essential. 10. Embedding the PSN Director at PAUSD may limit its scope (i.e. be less effective for our youth who don’t attend PAUSD schools.) The subcommittee considered possible solutions to the above realities by looking at a variety of community collaborative models used around the country as communities work together to address complex social issues from drug and alcohol issues, youth wellness, suicide prevention, City of Palo Alto Page 4 among many others. In so doing they discovered the most current and highly regarded community collaborative model called “Collective Impact”. The Collective Impact model clearly defines a workable framework for communities to align organizations from different sectors to agree to solve a complex social problem using a common agenda, aligning their efforts, and using common measures of success. The concept of Collective Impact was first articulated in the 2011 Stanford Social Innovation Review article Collective Impact, written by John Kania, Managing Director at FSG, and Mark Kramer, Kennedy School at Harvard and Co-founder FSG (Attachment E – SSI Article on Collective Impact) The Collective Impact approach is premised on the belief that no single policy, government department, organization or program can tackle or solve the increasingly complex social problems we face as a society. The approach calls for multiple organizations or entities from different sectors to abandon their own agenda in favor of a common agenda, shared measurement and alignment of effort. Unlike collaboration or partnership, Collective Impact initiatives have a centralized infrastructure – known as a backbone organization – with dedicated staff whose role is to help participating organizations shift from acting alone to acting in concert. Collective Impact is a more rigorous and specific form of collaboration among organizations than what the PSN Collaborative is currently engaged in. Collective Impact is an approach that is being implemented internationally and is generating an ever expanding knowledge base about how to tackle complex community problems and measure impact and change. There are five conditions that, together, lead to meaningful results from a Collective Impact approach: 1. Common Agenda: All participants share a vision for change that includes a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving the problem through agreed- upon actions. 2. Shared Measurement: All participating organizations agree on the ways success will be measured and reported, with a short list of common indicators identified and used for learning and improvement. 3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities: A diverse set of stakeholders, typically across sectors, coordinate a set of differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action. 4. Continuous Communication: All players engage in frequent and structured open communication to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and create common motivation. 5. Backbone Support: An independent, funded staff dedicated to the initiative provides ongoing support by guiding the initiative’s vision and strategy, supporting aligned activities, establishing shared measurement practices, building public will, advancing policy, and mobilizing resources. In a Collective Impact Model the backbone organizations engage in six important activities: – Guide vision and strategy – Support aligned activities City of Palo Alto Page 5 – Establish shared measurement – Build public will – Advance policy – Mobilize funding The Collective Impact model aligns very well with the PSN Collaborative’ s work and would enable the Collaborative to draw on the state of the art understanding of how to design, implement and manage community-wide efforts to effect change. Moreover, PAUSD School Board member Terry Godfrey and Executive Director of Youth Community Services Leif Erickson both have ongoing experience with this model through their non-profit work. For example the YESS Coalition (Youth Empowerment Strategies for Success) in the East Palo Alto/Menlo Park communities uses the Collective Impact model to coordinate youth development work (birth to 24-year-old young adults) with over 45 agency partners. Their mission reads: “YESS is a network of organizations and institutions dedicated to ensuring that children, youth and young adults, ages 0 -24, from East Palo Alto and eastern Menlo Park, are able to achieve their full potential through education, employment, and a healthy community.” The partners in the YESS Coalition include the Ravenswood K-8 school district, Sequoia High School District, City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County Supervisor Warren Slocum, Stanford University’s John Gardner Center, as well as some forty other community-based non-profit agencies. A steering committee leads the coalition that includes representatives from the school districts and City of East Palo Alto, and several non-profit agencies elected by the members (including Youth Community Service). Member agencies pay annual dues on a sliding scale basis; the public agencies each pay a larger annual fee. Membership requires an MOU agreement and participation in a rigorous system for data collection to track aggregate outcomes The subcommittee agreed that a director (working within a Collective Impact model) is necessary to facilitate the work including planning meetings and agendas, ensuring engagement and accountability, gathering and reporting best practices, data and metrics, designing and implementing a communications plan, creating an interface and serving as a spokesperson for the PSN Collaborative’s work. The PSN subcommittee considered whether this role should be embedded in the City, PAUSD or other partner agency but determined that a separate organization from the City and PAUSD would provide more focus, flexibility and ability to attract resources necessary for success. The subcommittee presented their recommendation to the PSN Leadership Team which was discussed at their February and March meetings. After discussing the recommendation the PSN Leadership Team unanimously supported the Collective Impact model and were very encouraged and hopeful for how this re-framing could improve the community collaborative efforts for youth well-being and suicide prevention. City of Palo Alto Page 6 As the co-leads of the collaborative, City staff (Minka van der Zwaag) and PAUSD staff (Brenda Carrillo) brought the Collective Impact model to City Manager Jim Keene and PAUSD superintendent Dr. Max McGee giving them an overview and they both appreciated the thoughtful recommendation and supported this model as a framework for PSN moving forward. As the final step to inviting support for the Collective Impact model as the path forward for PSN, the Collective Impact model was presented to the PSN Collaborative partners at their April 2015 meeting. Once again, the PSN Leadership Team received very positive feedback and broad support to adopt this framework and move without delay towards next steps to initiate and implement. Discussion With wide-ranging support for Collective Impact, the City and PAUSD brought in two national experts who use this model, to lead a workshop to begin developing a Collective Impact “roadmap” for PSN. This workshop occurred on May 7, 2015. The national experts were: – Dr. Jim Connell, president and cofounder of the Institute for Research and Reform in Education. He focuses his research on youth development in urban settings, and using a collective impact approach to planning and evaluation of systems change. – Dalene Dutton, the Executive Director of Five Town Communities That Care, a prevention coalition in Maine that uses a collective impact approach to work on promoting healthy youth development and preventing problem adolescent behaviors including suicide. Her community experienced a suicide cluster in 2001 and 2003. Over 30 key PSN stakeholders gathered to examine how Project Safety Net could begin to use data, a key condition to Collective Impact success, to drive its efforts forward. The meeting focused on how PSN could begin to answer the question, How will we know if the work we've been doing is making a difference and begin to align our efforts to address “shared measurement?” The three focal areas of the meeting were: Introduction to a data framework — outcomes that can be used to measure ongoing progress Mapping PSN Activities to a data framework Gap Analysis—are there activities or gaps that need to be addressed? In addition to the workshop with key stakeholders, Dr. Connell & Ms. Dutton met in additional gatherings with some PSN Leadership Team and subcommittee on structure members, HEARD Alliance (Health Care Alliance for Responses to Adolescent Depression), and City Manager Jim Keene. Based on their evaluation of the work and reach of PSN to date, the national advisors recommended that the PSN Collaborative focus its near term efforts on the following: Project Safety Net Structure City of Palo Alto Page 7 • Institutional Leadership: There needs to be an Executive Board of key institutional leaders established that functions at the highest level to hire an Executive Director (see below), shape Project Safety Net's strategic focus, review evidence of impact and marshal ongoing funding and institutional resources. Members should include the City Manager, School Superintendent, and other high level leaders from key institutions. • PSN Organizational Structure: PSN needs to have its fiscal and physical home in a neutral organization (not a PSN partner organization) that provides office and organizational infrastructure. An ideal sponsor might be a local foundation. • PSN Staffing: PSN needs to hire a high-level PSN Executive Director to manage the work forward, alongside a resource team of local and national expertise, as needed. The Director should be a skilled community mobilizer, able to support a diverse coalition that proactively uses data to promote healthy youth development and ensure high quality implementation of effective programs, policies and practices. Project Safety Net Functions Project Safety Net can buttress its work by adopting the 5 Collective Impact criteria for success. The central purpose of PSN will be to strengthen the impact of the community's aligned efforts to ensure youth well-being and prevent teen suicide. There should be four main functions for the PSN Collaborative: 1) Provide actionable data about youth well-being and suicide prevention indicators: PSN should provide the collaborative, its members and the community with timely credible and actionable data annually on the state of youth's safety (risk behaviors and precursors) and their overall developmental assets. Data should address: a) youth's capacity to be connected, to navigate and to be productive in meaningful ways in all sectors of their lives; and b) the implementation and impact of the collaborative’s collective and individual efforts to improve these youth outcomes. PSN should also build its own and its partners capacity to use data to guide, monitor and strengthen specific programs and more comprehensive efforts to improve youth outcomes. 2) Strengthen or create connections between providers of services and supports for at-risk youth and families: PSN should identify, convey and help implement strategies for the providers within and across sectors of youth’s lives to share information, strategies and accountability for strengthening youth well-being and prevention of suicide. In the intervention arena young people and families need support to effectively access resources across systems and transition between systems. City of Palo Alto Page 8 3) Expand the reach of the Project Safety Net Collaborative: PSN should identify, convey and help implement strategies to ensure the highest priority strategies within each sector reach all of those who can benefit; specifically, those who have been hardest to reach up to this point. 4) Increase youth voice and leadership: PSN should gather, vet, share and help implement strategies to infuse coalition partners’ and PSN’s work with youth’s perspectives, including building capacity for youth to articulate their needs, evaluate responses to those needs and lead in identifying where gaps in supports exist and vet strategies to address these gaps. Key City and PAUSD staff and the PSN Leadership Team have reviewed the above recommendations and are in agreement that Dr. Connell and Ms. Dutton have provided sound advice for advancing the work of PSN. While much planning is needed to flesh out the PSN Collective Impact roadmap, staff and the PSN Leadership Team are positioned to move on several fronts in FY16 as defined in the next steps below: Contract for an interim PSN Director - Initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to hire a transitional leader to guide the Collaborative through the next steps listed below. The City would fully fund this transitional leader through the proposed FY16 PSN funding. Staff will initiate a RFP process in early FY16. Future City funding of the ongoing PSN Executive Director (as described in the proposed PSN staffing structure as described on pg. 7) is yet to be determined, but could include annual seed funding from the Health & Safety funding set aside for PSN. Complete PSN Collective Impact roadmap for youth well-being and prevention of teen suicide - Building off the advice given by the national experts and the initial analysis already completed by the Collaborative in mapping activities to desired outcomes, data already being tracked and a gap analysis, the Collaborative will complete a full Collective Impact roadmap for PSN that is plausible, testable, and doable and which will include effective data tracking across sectors to gauge for meaningful impact and results and mutually reinforcing activities that are outcome driven with a special emphasis on reaching “at risk” youth. Establish “Executive Board” - City Manager and Superintendent – At present, the City and PAUSD are the two lead entities in the PSN Collaborative, with a representative from each serving as PSN co-leads, and provide leadership and direction for the Collaborative along with the Leadership Team. In addition, the city has served as the convener and key administrative support of PSN since its inception. In the Collective Impact vision for PSN, the national advisors recommended a structure in which there is an “executive board” of key institutional leaders who hire an Executive Director, shape Project Safety Net's strategic focus, review evidence of impact and marshal ongoing funding and institutional resources. City of Palo Alto Page 9 A key next step is that in FY 16, City Manager Jim Keene and PAUSD Superintendent Dr. Max McGee will convene and serve on such a board. Resource a team for data collection, capacity building and facilitation– Key to instituting a Collective Impact approach and for PSN to achieve meaningful outcomes is the recruitment and resourcing of three vital functions/committees; data collection, capacity building and facilitation. As mentioned earlier, shared data collection across sectors is a cornerstone to what makes Collective Impact different than just collaboration. A group of individuals knowledgeable in creating and analyzing effective data tools and indicators will be recruited. PSN needs to establish a team to lay the framework for effective capacity building (people, knowledge, structure, funding, etc.) under a Collective Impact approach. Lastly, facilitation is a core Collective Impact expertise because of the large numbers of stakeholders involved, the challenge of hearing and synthesizing a diverse range of perspectives on youth well-being and suicide prevention, the complex group dynamics and the logistics of coordinating people in different organizations to agree on and execute joint ways forward is vital to PSN’s success. A person or team of individuals with good facilitation skills to lead Collaborative meetings (could be PSN director) and committees needs to be recruited. Elevate Youth Voice – PSN partners know that authentic youth voice is paramount to developing and implementing successful strategies involving youth. In the past PSN, has had occasional youth involvement at both Collaborative meetings, subcommittees, Leadership Team, and at Youth Forums, but these have not lead to effective youth voice in PSN programming and decision making. The PSN Leadership Team feels that establishing an ongoing avenue for authentic youth voice would be an attainable FY16 goal. Strong efforts would be made to ensure that the “voices” to be heard would reflect a diverse array of youth. It is believed that the five steps listed above will set the PSN Collaborative on the right path to not only Collective Impact success, but to making a positive and measurable difference in the lives of Palo Alto youth. Resource Impact The total proposed total FY16 PSN budget is $487,567. Expenditures break out as follows: Temporary Salaries: Hourly Administrative Assistant (filled) $ 25,883 Contract: Track Security $ 315,000 Program Director $ 118,458 Misc. Contract Expenses $ 25,000 Supplies: $ 3,000 Printing & Mailing: $ 226 Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 10 Attachment A-Policy & Service Report 10-21-14 (PDF) Attachment B - 10-21-14 Final PS Minutes (PDF) ATTACHMENT C -PSNStrategicPlan2013visual (PDF) Attachement D - PSN HistoryofCollaborative (DOCX) ATTACHMENT E - COLLECTIVE IMPACT (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5179) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type: Agenda Items Meeting Date: 10/21/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Health and Safety Funds (Stanford Development Agreement) related to Youth Well-being and Project Saf Title: Health and Safety Funds (Stanford Development Agreement) Related to Youth Well-being and Project Safety Net From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Executive Summary This report provides the Policy and Services committee an update on the Project Safety Net Program, including staffing, program accomplishments, the Strategic Plan and plans for the future of the collaborative. Background The Project Safety Net (PSN) community collaborative formed during the summer of 2009 in response to the tragic teen suicides our community experienced. The collaborative continues today, broadly represented with parents, medical and mental health professionals, Palo Alto Unified School District, youth-serving non-profit agencies, City commission representatives, Palo Alto Youth Council and many others. The Palo Alto community has a long history of community collaboration in support of youth and teens. Before PSN, there was a Youth Collaborative community committee, Palo Alto Drug and Alcohol collaborative committee, and SHARE community collaborative committee. The current PSN community collaborative builds on the commitment and tradition of the community’s interest in working together for youth well-being. The PSN community collaborative has evolved over the past four years and is now guided by its most recent comprehensive strategic planning effort that defines the collaborative values and guiding principles, problem statement, strategies and anticipated changes (Attachment A – PSN Strategic Plan). The PSN strategic plan represents the current collective thinking of local and national experts, Palo Alto’s community leaders, parents and students on what PSN should focus on and apply resources to. There remains a strong desire and commitment in the community to harness, maximize and coordinate the tremendous resources in Palo Alto for the City of Palo Alto Page 2 planning and implementation of effective strategies for suicide prevention and youth well-being and the PSN Strategic Plan serves as the guiding plan for where we hope to have an impact. PSN is only as effective as its partners, as the partners are the people working to accomplish PSN’s goals in collaboration with one another. Below is a sampling of projects, events and activities over the past four years that further the work of Project Safety Net: Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) remains committed to developing assets in children in youth in PAUSD. They maintain a contract with Project Cornerstone to serve all school sites with parent education, teacher outreach and student training. PAUSD has brought in national speakers on Developmental Assets, to train administrators, teachers, classified staff, counselors and school psychologists. Further, the district has embedded developmental assets work into their strategic plan, student surveys, and outcome measures. Before PSN, schools within PAUSD were utilizing different programs to address character development and anti-bullying. Now PAUSD and all major youth serving agencies in Palo Alto are using the Development Assets approach which includes a district-wide survey to measure student’s internal and external strengths over time. The first survey was given district-wide in 2010 and a follow up survey will be completed in 2015. PAUSD has incorporated a strong social-emotional, mental health component to the Living Skills curriculum, a course required for all students in PAUSD schools. Living Skills classes address risk and resiliency matters and offer critical information to students on how to access assistance and support. Professional mental health services are also available to all students at the school site, via services provided by contracted mental health organizations. These mental health services are offered at no cost to students and families. PAUSD has also completed a Suicide Prevention Toolkit available to staff and is reviewing opportunities to offer mental health training to teachers. PAUSD has also been bringing information about PSN and the Developmental Assets to parents of English Language Learners (ELL) in the district. There are 17 English Language Acquisition Committee (ELAC) meetings in the district. All sites with 20 or more ELL students must have an ELAC committee. Palo Alto High School and Greendell do not have 20 or more students and do not have this committee. Last year Minka van der Zwaag, City of Palo Alto, presented Developmental Assets to the District ELAC meeting (DELAC). The DELAC agreed that we could have Developmental Assets on ELAC agendas for 14-15. The DELAC is the governing board for ELL students and meetings. The ELAC groups at each site will hear about developmental assets in the spring ELAC meeting. The fall and winter meetings have other topics mandated by the state and other topics approved by the DELAC, for example Title 3 spending. Each ELAC varies City of Palo Alto Page 3 from attendance of 15-40 people per site. So the range is between 255 and 680 of families targeted. The materials used are from Project Cornerstone. The Developmental Assets (DA) Initiative was started as one of PSN’s key community initiatives in 2010 and since that time has made many strides in the community for youth well-being (see Attachment C – PSN Stories for more details.) Youth Speaks Out – Annually for the past three years this collaborative project led by Carolyn Digovich asks students to ponder their identity and share what they discover through art. The 2014 Youth Speaks out project had 200 high school students participate that culminated in an exceptional art exhibit at the Palo Alto Art Center in March. City of Palo Alto – Adopted Suicide Prevention Policy December 13, 2010 (CMR# 456.10) PAUSD – Adopted Suicide Prevention Policy Youth Forums – Brought teen and adults together to discuss most pressing concerns facing teens and then a working together to address those concerns City of Palo Alto –Passed Resolution to adopt the 41 Developmental Assets December 13, 2010 (CMR# 456.10). Most Community Services Department Staff have been trained in the Developmental assets; all Recreation Staff and all season summer camp and aquatic staff are trained. PAUSD – Passed Resolution to adopt the 41 Developmental Assets Track Watch – In an effort to reduce access to lethal means of harm, a security guard provides a presence at the Charleston and East Meadow crossings during evening hours. Cal Train has added suicide crisis hotline signage and cut down shrubbery to increase visibility along the train corridor. PTA Education – PTA Council was instrumental in getting the Developmental Asset survey done in 2010. PTA Council hosted Developmental Asset classes and QPR training (suicide prevention training) and continues to sponsor and work on student mental health parent education events. Sources of Strength - A strength-based comprehensive wellness program that focuses on suicide prevention but impacts other issues such as substance abuse and violence. The program is based at Gunn High School and uses teams of peer leaders mentored by adult advisors to change peer social norms about help seeking and encourages students to individually assess and develop strengths in their life. Gatekeeper Training (QPR) – At present, over 700 individuals have been trained in QPR. This does not include all the youth trained as part of their Living skills class at PAUSD. Teen Art Council – The Children’s Theater Teen Arts Council was created in response to the teen suicides experienced in 2009-2010 by Children’s Theater Manager Judge Luckey. The Children’s Theater continues to empower elevate students voices and self-expression through this active teen leadership group. PAMF Education – Education Manager Becky Beacom regularly invites leaders in youth serving agencies, parents and PAUSD personnel to participate in webinars City of Palo Alto Page 4 provided by Empathos who are empowering suicide prevention through education. HEARD Alliance – HEARD stands for Health Care Alliance for Response to Adolescent Depression (HEARD) continues to increase collaboration among primary care, mental health and educational professionals, to enhance the community’s ability to respond to adolescent depression. My Story – Students who have had depression and found their way back to hope and strength share their journey with fellow students in a safe setting with mental health professionals present to support any issues that come up during the story telling process. Funded community leaders to attend training on the power of Positive Community Norms (for more information see www.mostofus.org) Click PA - founded in 2013 by four high school students and caring adults is the one-stop website for exciting events, opportunities and other activities tailored to local teen teens in Palo Alto. Provided financial support to numerous events and workshops whose topics furthered the goals of our strategic plan put on by PSN collaborative partners. There are many more stories that could be shared about PSN partner agencies, parent led initiatives, and collaborative projects that support youth well-being and/or suicide prevention. Some of these activities may have taken place absent the Project Safety Net collaborative but most are directly or indirectly a result of the PSN collaborative. What we know for certain is the Palo Alto community has a deep desire to support youth and teens in a community collaborative approach. As a community we are fortunate to have the ongoing and steadfast commitment of the parent community, youth serving non- profit agencies, City government and School District all striving to create a safe and positive environment for youth and teens. The PSN collaborative brings people and ideas together for youth well-being. When together we learn from one another, we avoid duplicating services; we challenge one another to do more and to be better. As a result we are more informed and aligned as a community in our collective efforts for youth well-being as opposed to each agency, non-profit partner or individuals acting independently. The PSN collaborative aims to create a space where individuals and non- profit agencies that want to support suicide prevention and youth well-being efforts can seek resources, advice, support, and collaborate to make a difference. Discussion Since 2010, the PSN collaborative has had a number of different committee structures and leadership committees all with a desire to make a positive difference for suicide prevention and youth well-being. The City of Palo Alto has continued to be the lead convening partner and has invested in hiring a PSN Director using the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Funds. In the past two years we have had two PSN directors and neither remained in the position for long; due in part to the fact that the position is provisional and offers no benefits, yet requires a high level of work requiring specialized expertise. Because the experience to hire and retain a City of Palo Alto Page 5 suitably qualified PSN Director has been difficult for the reasons stated, staff recommends we do not attempt to rehire at this time. To attract and retain a highly qualified professional to lead the PSN collaborative in its current structure, experience has demonstrated we would require a fully benefitted position. Approximately seven years ago the City had a fulltime At Risk Youth benefitted manager position that might have been an appropriate positon to serve as the PSN Director, but that position was removed from the budget. Hiring an hourly administrative support staff remains feasible, but the lead facilitator role, albeit in a more limited capacity with respect to time, is recommended to be overseen by existing City and PAUSD staff. For the past year PSN has worked to implement the new Strategic Plan with a revised collaborative structure. The PSN Strategic Plans values and guiding principles, problem statement, strategies and anticipated changes are broadly supported by the Leadership Team and PSN partners. In regards to the three PSN working committees; Community Engagement, Committee Education & Outreach and Mental Health Services Committees, they require members of the community and or partner’s agencies to share the leadership role in order to be effective. Currently the Community Engagement Committee is led by Rob de Geus, city staff, and Becky Beacom of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. The committee meets regularly and is actively working on infusing the Developmental Assets framework in Palo Alto culture and policies and creates experiences across our community that foster meaningful connections among youth and adults. The Education & Outreach Committee is currently in need of new leadership but has in the past year focused on QPR training which stands for Question, Persuade and Refer, and has trained hundreds of new gatekeepers in the community. The Mental Health Services Committees is led by Dr. Shashank Joshi of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, this committee is in process of merging with the existing Health Care Alliance for Response to Adolescent Depression (HEARD) doing important work to create greater access to mental health services. With these observations and challenges in mind, the Leadership Team feels that PSN is at a crossroads. They have met on numerous occasions since the departure of the last Program Director. Based on those conversations two key questions have emerged: 1. How can we have the work of PSN be embedded in the community and “live” within the community? 2. How do we bring PSN efforts into the schools where the youth are and where their parents are already engaged? We have pushed from “outward” and from “inward” but for the greatest impact, the work of suicide prevention and youth well-being needs to be rooted in schools, especially on the secondary education level. City of Palo Alto Page 6 To that end and consistent with the PSN Strategic Plan, the Leadership Team is currently exploring the idea of recommending to Council that the bulk of PSN’s remaining funding be used to provide grants to agencies and individuals in the community working on suicide prevention and youth well-being efforts as laid out in the Strategic Plan. In light of the departure of PSN’s Program Director, there was a meeting of entire collaborative on October 9, 2014 in which the Leadership Team led a thoughtful reflection on PSN’s past work and visioning for the future. Stories were shared about the impact that the PSN collaborative has had in the community. There was an overwhelming interest in continuing to meet and work together on suicide prevention and youth well-being. The concept of granting out PSN funds was introduced and there was a robust initial conversation on the matter. There was agreement in the group that any granting of the funds needed to be systematic, organized, and impactful with measurable outcomes. Such a process was already envisioned as part of the recent Strategic Planning Process (Attachment B- pg. 7-8 – Strategic Plan Report). To the question of continued relevancy for the work of PSN in suicide prevention and youth well-being, here are some facts to consider. For youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is the third leading cause of death. Depression and other mental health concerns are a real threat to youth. This is not an issue that is going away, but with gatekeeper training, peer support groups, stigma reduction education, focused youth empowerment and support efforts community-wide, and the determination of the partners in the PSN collaborative, we are seeing an increased volume of youth seeking help for themselves and their friends. The efforts of the PSN collaborative partners are making a difference. This is good news, but great work still lies ahead. The PSN Leadership Committee has been reflective and asked members of the collaborative to share their stories, experiences, and insights on how the efforts of PSN have positively impacted them, their agency and/or the community in working towards suicide prevention and youth well-being. See Attachment C-PSN Stories for those responses. Resource Impact The Council allocated $2 million from the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement Health and Safety Funds to PSN on May 13, 2013. There has been careful oversight of this funding and at present, approximately $320,000 has been spent, primarily on salary expenses for the PSN directors, support of the Track Watch program, and miscellaneous program expenses such as support of suicide prevention and youth well-being related events and seminars in the community. PSN has also been granted additional funds from: City of Palo Alto Page 7 County of Santa Clara - $30,000 to create a blue print of the Project Safety Net work Parent Volunteers - $80,000 to support Track Watch Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund - $30,000 Stanford University – Community Partnership Award - $1,000 Palo Alto Firefighters Pancake Breakfast (2012,2013) - $10,321 PSN has and continues to attract the attention of both those communities who are struggling with suicide contagion seeking advice for creating a community response and entities wishing to recognize the work that PSN has done in this area including: City of Palo Alto Award for Excellence in the Health and Wellness Programs category of the 2011 Helen Putnam Award for Excellence program Santa Clara County Human Services Award Attachments: ATTACHMENT A - PSNStrategicPlan2013 (PDF) ATTACHMENT B - STRATEGICPLANREPORT (PDF) ATTACHMENT C- PSNSTORIES (PDF) Problem Statement The Palo Alto community struggles with the pain and loss of youth to suicide. There is urgency for on-going, coordinated community action to promote youth well-being and prevent suicide. Strategic Plan Project Safety Net Collaboration We effect change through the connections, creativity and contributions of our entire community working together. Hope We are committed to prevent- ing the most preventable form of death, suicide. Courage We face suicide related stigma with strength and perseverance. Integrity We act with honesty and sincerity. Cultural Awareness and Engagement Sensitivity and respect for diverse individuals and com- munities guide our efforts. Learning Best practice and on-going reflection advance our work. Values & Guiding Principles Infuse the Developmental Assets framework in Palo Alto culture and policies Create experiences across our community that foster meaningful connections among youth and adults Train youth and adults in best practices for identifying and responding to emotional and psychological distress Educate youth, parents and other adults in contact with youth about the risk factors for suicide such as mental health conditions, substance use and other stress factors Engage in a community-wide storytelling and listening campaign through a variety of media Learn and partner with community and faith groups to develop culturally specific education and outreach Collaborate with the community, police department, media and Caltrain to reduce access to the train tracks and other means of lethal harm Create a clear map of our community’s youth mental health services and identify gaps Advocate for increased and accessible mental health services for all youth Strategies Youth report increased personal and trusting connections to adults and peers in the Palo Alto community in order to foster youth well-being Peers and adults in contact with youth are knowledgeable and equipped to respond to their distress or thoughts of suicide Reduction of mental health stigma leading to acceptance and use of mental health services Access to means of lethal harm is reduced Our community’s mental health services are robust, coordinated and accessible to all youth Anticipated Changes Summary Report: THEORY OF CHANGE 2 The Context Project Safety Net was formed in response to five teen suicides the community of Palo Alto experienced between May 2009 and January 2010. The City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), along with other community partners, came together to create a comprehensive community- based mental health plan for overall youth well-being in Palo Alto to address the suicides. The plan includes education, prevention and intervention strategies that together provide a Safety Net for youth and teens in Palo Alto, and defines the community’s teen suicide prevention efforts. The name, Project Safety Net was chosen to reflect the integrated system of strategies that together form a safety net for youth and teens in the community. The collaborative project is housed at the City of Palo Alto and hired its first staff member in 2012. Since its inception, Project Safety Net has secured several successes including the creation of the comprehensive community-based mental health plan, two million dollars to be distributed in 2015, won the support for a resolution from the PAUSD that infuses suicide prevention curriculum and evaluation systems. Three years into the collaborative project, several questions surfaced that Project Safety Net asked CompassPoint with support to help answer: What is our philosophy that guides our program- suicide prevention- broader youth well-being? And therefore what core strategies should Project Safety Net affirm? Tension existed among stakeholders about the focus of its core strategies and the spectrum on which its programming is focused. How should we be structured to support the core strategies? There was confusion on the purpose, role, and decision-making authority with Project Safety Net’s structure. Given our revised structure, what is our decision-making process and policies? Without clarity on the right structure to support the collaborative and agreement on decision-making and authority, PSN was vulnerable to misalignment of its members now that it will be responsible for grant making. Project Outcomes PSN hired CompassPoint to work on the agreed upon outcomes: 1. Project Safety Net stakeholders will have increased clarity and alignment on the organization’s identity, strengths, and future direction as it relates to its Theory of Change. 2. Project Safety Net stakeholders will have documented core strategies that will serve as a frame for programmatic and organizational decision making in the coming years. 3. Project Safety Net stakeholders will have an agreed upon structure to support its Theory of Change and core strategies. 3 Our Process Phase One: Our Theory of Change To answer core questions regarding PSN’s direction and emphasis of its work, Phase One created the Project Safety Net’s theory of change: a visual representation of the interrelationship between Project Safety Net’s desired impacts, audience, strategies, and organizational values. Creating Project Safety Net’s theory of change helped to clarify who Project Safety Net is and aspires to be in the community. The benefits of using a Theory of Change include: A graphical representation of an organization’s mission and the change it seeks to make An agreement among stakeholders about what defines success A clear and testable hypothesis A blueprint for organizational learning & evaluation A powerful communication tool To create PSN’s theory of change we formed a Working Committee comprised of executive committee members, and steering committee members and stakeholders. Theory of Change Working Committee • Brenda Carrillo, Coordinator of Student Services, PAUSD • Christina Llerena, Project Safety Net Director, City of Palo Alto • Ray Bacchetti, Human Services Commission, City of Palo Alto • Dr. Lynette Hsu, Child/Adolescent Psychiatrist, M.D. Palo Alto Medical Foundation • Mary Ojakian, Parent Survivor and Suicide Prevention Advocate • Roni Gillenson, LMFT, Adolescent Counseling Services, Program Director • Jessica Feinberg, PALY HS Junior, Girl Scout, Peer Program Advocate • Danny Golovinsky, Gunn HS Sophomore, ROCK Secretary • Judy Argumedo, PAUSD Parent and Coordinator, Educational Services, PAUSD • Jean Kaelin, Suicide Prevention Associate, Santa Clara County Mental Health Department • Ruth Wu, PAUSD Parent and PTA President at Escondido Elementary School • Susan Shultz, Counselor at PALY HS. 4 The Working Committee’s role was to create PSN’s theory of change and test the document with community members and the PSN Steering Committee throughout its creation. The process kicked off with a community retreat held at the Lucie Stern Center in February of 2013 and also included involvement from the General Membership, focus groups of parents, youth, and faith leaders. PAUSD leadership was also consulted for input. The final theory change was finalized and adopted by the PSN Steering Committee on June 2013 and titled PSN Strategic Plan to make the language more accessible and to signal to directional nature of the document. Below is the final document: 5 Phase Two: Our Structure Phase Two built upon the alignment and clarity achieved by creating Project Safety Net’s strategic plan/theory of change and answered: How should we be structured to support the core strategies identified in our strategic plan? The work included naming the charge of each group, membership requirements, decision-making authority and relationship to each other. The process included: Using the MIG 2011 report- Organizational Structure & Implementation, CompassPoint made recommendations for structure changes to align to PSN Theory of Change CompassPoint testing recommendations with City of Palo Alto and PAUSD Recommendations were brought to the Steering Committee for feedback The Steering Committee finalized the Structure Changes The structure called for forming 3 working committees focused on carrying out PSN’s core strategies as named in its strategic plan: 1. Community Engagement anticipated change 1 and strategies a-b 2. Committee Education & Outreach- anticipated change 2 and strategies c-d 3. Mental Health Services- anticipated change 5 and strategies h-I The Committee Roles and Responsibilities include: • Implementing the strategies named in PSN’s Strategic Plan • A 2 year commitment • A co-chair model with 1 representative named to be on the Leadership Team • Creating a roles and responsibility document of committee members to address accountability in place of MOU • Creating a shared work plan template for all committees PSN staff supports the committees, serves as a thread and resource not as a lead Re-naming the Steering Committee to Leadership Team, Role and Responsibilities include: • Monitoring the progress of implementing PSN’s strategic plan • Reviewing and approving committee work plans & budgets in May of each year • Ensuring that committee work plans are being implement and infused with stigma- reduction strategies 6 • Coordinating PSN communication efforts • Creating and implementing a Statement of Commitment Document for agencies and individuals that serve on the working committees • Finance committee responsibilities • Meet 1 time per month Composition: PSN Staff, City staff lead, PAUSD staff lead, ACS rep, Kara rep, PTAC rep, committee co- chair rep, parent survivor, 2 student, 2 at large members The City Lead and PAUSD Lead serve as co-chairs Re-naming the General Membership to Community Partners, Role and Responsibilities include: • Educational, rallying, outreach mechanism for working committees • Meet 6 x a year during the school year and at a time when students, parents & teachers can attend Composition: nonprofit partners, parents, students, Police Department, Caltrain, City, PAUSD Re-stating the role of PAUSD & the City of Palo Alto in regards to PSN o City and PAUSD as co-leads of PSN- system advocates and champions for PSN o Creating a formal agreement between both entities City as fiscal agent City Staff supervise and host PSN staff 7 Phase Three: Our recommended Funding Policies Phase Three of our process answered the question: Given our revised strategic plan and structure, what is our recommended decision-making process and policies to distribute funds? The funds of a total of $2 million dollars were given to City of Palo Alto as part of development offset fees from Stanford University Hospital. The funds are now part of the City funds and PSN staff is responsible for reporting annually to City Council and Stanford Hospital how funds are spent. The process listed below requires approval of the Palo Alto City Council. The Recommended Role of the Leadership Team in funding The City of Palo Alto views the PSN Leadership Team as its key advisory body on the use of the non- regular/annual PSN expenses (staff, contract, supplies.) The following details the role and process for distribution of funds: The PSN Leadership Team Recommended Role in the distribution of funds Input on the Request For Proposal (RFP) language and process Input on the RFP scoring mechanism Input on the priority areas of funding based on PSN’s strategic plan Input on amount of money available to committees, the extra fund and grant amounts o Grant amounts should be small to larger, teens and adults not affiliated with an agency would be able to apply for them. o Consider a conference attendance fund o Consider PSN’s sustainability when identifying grant amounts o $5,000-$7,000 for each Committee plus same amount in Extra Fund- Amount To Be Finalized Provide 1-2 non conflicted members for HRC sub-committee The Recommended Process the PSN Leadership Team will use to distribute the funds The Leadership Team of PSN will follow the HRC’s type funding systems and process: o Creating the funding application process that names the priority needs in partnership with City staff. The ability to meet the anticipated outcomes listed in the PSN Strategic Plan will be a guiding tool in naming the priority needs. All fund recipients will be required to demonstrate level of impact in meeting the anticipated outcomes with specific measureable outcomes. o Identifying 1-2 non-conflicted member(s) of the Leadership Team to join an HRC subcommittee to review applications and bring their recommendations to the full HRC to review and approve a final HRC recommendation to present to council committee for approval 8 The Recommended PSN staff Role in the funding process Distribute and announce Request for Proposals Manage the application and review process Liaison with all city entities for review of applications The Recommended Human Relations Commission Role in the funding process Review of applications Provide recommendation on funding that is o Non biased o Reviews all grant funding city gives out Recommendation on how the Funds are managed The City Staff is ultimate manager of the funds. All grants given must PSN Staff must request a certain portion of the funds each year as part of the budget cycle PSN staff, contractors and office supplies and the City Council reviews and approves. The City staff manages all grant payments to be awarded 9 About CompassPoint CompassPoint intensifies the impact of fellow nonprofit leaders, organizations, and networks as we achieve social equity together. We believe that nonprofit organizations and leaders need relevant support that builds on their strengths, experiences, and achievements and that those individuals and organizations that invest in increasing their leadership and management capacities are better poised to achieve progress. For nearly 40 years, CompassPoint has worked to carry out this purpose by guiding nonprofits as they become better managed, more adaptive, and achieve higher impact. With 22 staff, our practice utilizes expert consulting, coaching, facilitation, and training to support the development of nonprofit leaders and their organizations. 500 12th Street, Suite 320 Oakland, CA 94607 415.541.9000 phone 415.541.7708 fax www.compasspoint.org adrianar@compasspoint.org 1 ATTACHMENT C PROJECT SAFETY NET – STORIES OF IMPACT We asked the PSN Leadership Committee, members of the Collaborative, and interested members of the community to share their views on how PSN has positively impacted them, their agency and/or the community in working towards suicide prevention and youth well-being. Adolescent Counseling Services (ACS) - Pam Garfield, Gunn Site Director In the 2008-2009 school year, ACS served 181 kids and 34 parents. In the 2013-2014 school year, 249 students were served and 38 parents. I believe there aren’t more problems, but services are now being more utilized. On the Gunn High School campus, the ACS offices are now in the attendance area, rather than the library, which gives more privacy (at the recommendation of a PSN member) and accessibility. In addition, the overall community in Palo Alto and Gunn high schools has changed. Stigma for receiving counseling has significantly reduced. We now see many self-referrals and peer referrals. Students and staff promote ACS in big forums and one on one. In fact, at the 2014 Sophomore assembly, the ROCK (peer counseling group created in 2009) gave rave reviews of ACS counseling to the entire Sophomore class of Gunn High School. In addition, staff and administration got widespread QPR training so they are educated on how to assess for suicide risk and refer the students to the appropriate help. Also, since QPR has been taught in living skills classes, ACS received more appropriate referrals. In fact, we served an 11th grade boy who was flagged in Living skills. He then received psychiatry through Dr. Joshi’s Stanford fellow and eventually was referred to Children’s Health Council, where he is now receiving comprehensive therapy and psychiatry. Last year he regularly struggled with suicidal ideations, and this year he has become stable and is now working on his social anxiety and college choices. ACS currently is in contact with his therapist and provides walk-in school support to him as needed. This is one example of many success stories that would not have happened without the efforts of PSN. PTA Council – Susan Usman, President The PTA Council president has served on the Project Safety Net Steering/Leadership team since its inception and has kept the heart of PSN at the center of our child advocacy and parent education programs. PTA Council was instrumental in getting the Developmental Asset survey done in 2010. PTA Council has hosted Developmental Asset Classes and QPR training (suicide prevention training) and continues to sponsor and work on student mental health parent education events. Almost every school has 2 had Project Cornerstone Developmental Asset Parent Education classes. Some school PTAs are in their third year of supporting Project Cornerstone’s ABC program having received much positive feedback from parents, students and teachers. Our middle school PTAs support and are involved in their school Climate Committees that include programing around Unity Day, Not in Our Schools Week service days and advisory activities. Palo Alto Unified School District – Judy Argumedo, Coordinator, Educational Services As a resident of Palo Alto, and employee of the school district the emergence of Project Safety Net during a time of crisis gave me hope that the city I live and work in truly values the well-being of our youth. In the early years PSN collaborated across agencies and was able to start a real dialogue about mental health and stigma. As a mother of two teen daughters, I did look to the city and school district for support, and was heartened to hear about the efforts of PSN. I officially joined PSN two years ago and participated in reshaping a new vision and mission as the collaborative moved forward to begin new endeavors. Being able to hear multiple perspectives and co-create plans on how to support youth has been a valuable experience for me as a resident, mother and educator. I am proud of the work the collaborative has been able to achieve and hope further collaboration between the city and district continues. Palo Alto Unified School District – Brenda Carrillo, Student Services Coordinator The district values the strong partnership of the City in supporting Project Safety Net. Project Safety New is successful due to the work of the many committed individuals who give time, energy and resources to support student health and safety. The collaborative efforts of community partners across Palo Alto have assisted the district to better serve children, youth and families struggling with mental health issues and to promote youth well-being. PSN has partnered with the district to provide and support QPR training, mental health education, suicide prevention training and outreach, and community events to raise awareness of mental health issues. District efforts to ensure the well-being of students are enhanced by the coordination of efforts across schools, city, and community partners. Palo Alto Unified School District - Tom Jacoubowsky, Vice Principal, Gunn High School I have to say that Project Safety Net (PSN) has been an invaluable resource for our community. Created during a time of critical need during our suicide contagion of 2009- 2010, PSN has been a great example of our community coming together and allowing the great resources we have to offer social emotional support for so many. 3 While there are those who feel the crisis period has passed, the need remains more than even for PSN as we always need to be vigilant in supporting the adolescents and young adults of our community. Thanks to PSN, we now have structure and resources available during times of emotional crisis. I am proud to be part of PSN for the past four years and I know it’s making a difference in the lives of so many. Parent – Kathleen Blanchard I know firsthand the crisis of our teens and concerns about their emotional and psychological health and well-being. My beautiful son JP died at the tracks five years and five months ago. Since JP passed away, I have been dedicated to doing what I can to help other children and spare their families such tragedy and sorrow. I am grateful that Project Safety Net was created to bring the community together and harness our collective energies in support of youth and teens in our community. In the compassionate, kind, and caring spirit of my son JP, I joined many others in this community effort. Over the past years, we have made some important progress over the continuum of support, including Adoption of the 41 Developmental Assets by the City and PAUSD Training hundreds in suicide prevention Increasing access to psychological counseling for students Track security Changing culture is not quick or easy, but we are seeing signs that the stigma around mental health issues is beginning to decrease, and that teens and adults are discussing emotional and mental health issues with increasing willingness and comfort. A quote from the July 2010 PSN Report speaks to the spirit we must continuously strive to foster in our unique community: “Everyone must play a role to look out after one another, and we must remain vigilant in our commitment to help those in distress find the support they need.” This is a very special vision of a place where each one of us cares for and looks out for one another; it is grounded in compassion and understanding; and it expects everyone to play a positive role because we are all a part of this community. Former PAUSD Student – Jessica Feinberg Project Safety Net was so helpful as I tried to complete my Gold Award project (which was promoting teen mental health and well-being). Having so many community members from diverse organizations gathered for the same goal made it so easy to find people who would help me, directed me toward resources, or just took me under their wing generally. 4 The Project Safety Net community members are all completely committed to teen mental health and suicide prevention. The meetings are places where we can reaffirm those goals, gain inspiration from others' projects and experiences, gain access to important resources (QPR training, etc.), and, most importantly, connect all of these community members. When Stanford professors, Palo Alto police officers, PAUSD teachers, PAMF medical professionals, PAUSD students, private therapists in Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto representatives, and parent survivors all gather in the same room for the same goal, incredible things happen, initiatives and collaboration that would never occur in the absence of this space. When I began my work, I suddenly had access to some of Stanford's peer-support practices; medical literature on suicide contagion; insights from private therapists that counsel the teens I was trying to help; parents who could tell me about the impact it has on families; city officials who could offer me spaces and resources for the project. I spoke on a panel for PAUSD parents about how to talk to your child about their mental health, and I would never have been on that panel had it not been for Project Safety Net. I don't believe I can fully express how meaningful this organization was for me and for my project, but more importantly for the entire Palo Alto community. So much of the work they do is largely invisible or goes unnoticed, operating quietly in the background. PSN has played huge roles in the recent initiatives to encourage interaction in neighborhoods, to give students QPR training during Living Skills, to educate parents and teachers on youth well-being - and all this despite the uncertainty that goes with changing leadership. Project Safety Net is a fantastic organization, and I fully support and appreciate their efforts. PSN Developmental Assets Initiative – Terry Godfrey, Chair The Developmental Assets (DA) Initiative was started as one of PSN’s key community initiatives in 2010 and since that time has made many strides in the community for youth well-being. The Developmental Assets Initiative supports strategy P-3 Character Education & Resilience Skill Building Programs of the Project Safety Net plan adopted in 2010. The mission of the DA initiative is that “Everyone in Palo Alto will be an Asset Builder”. PAUSD adopted the DA framework and is implementing it in the schools. The City also adopted the framework and is implementing it; it can be seen especially in recreation and youth programs. The DA Initiative chaired by Terry Godfrey has focused on the community and the three assets identified by the team as having been lower than desired (as measured in the DA Survey of 2010/2011) and not being addressed in the schools or by the City. The three (3) assets are; Caring Neighborhoods, Community Values Youth and Youth as Resources. The Caring Neighborhood Challenge was piloted in 2013 in conjunction with the City’s Know Your Neighbors grants. There were more than 30 block parties. Kids were challenged to write about their experiences and submit 5 photos of their block parties. 2014 summer’s Caring Neighborhood Challenge engaged a dozen teens to spearhead the effort. The teens coordinated and executed everything from updating the website to designing the marketing materials, to organizing events in their own neighborhoods to get the ball rolling to attending others’ events to take photos and write articles to convincing the Mayor to furnish the grand prize (the winning neighborhood youth get to cut the ribbon at the Mitchell Pak Library with Mayor Shepherd) to getting the Palo Alto Weekly to write a piece on their efforts. The winning neighborhood was Midtown and their youth will be cutting the ribbon alongside Mayor Shepherd. Over the years the team has also modeled that the community values youth by supporting our teens at Teens on the Green, staffing a booth at the 4th of July Chili Cook Off and May Fete parades. Reaching out by manning informational tables at the YCS sponsored MLK Day fair and Mothers’ Symposium. Creating and distributing the “Simple Actions Show Youth You Care” brochure. And just being with our youth, smiling, making eye contact, stopping at every lemonade stand and always assuming the best about every youth encountered. Special Education Advocate – Barbara Shufro When I was CAC- Special Education Chair, the CAC and Project Safety Net made a joint presentation about the very high risk that special education students have for anxiety and depression. We were able to present information showing that non-visible disabilities in particular, ASD, ADHD, Dyslexia or other learning disabilities, have a very high incidence of co-morbidity with anxiety and depression. PSN provided a targeted way to disseminate this information widely to the community working with our youth and that is very important. Also, the QPR training that PSN offers is very effective in helping adults know what to do when students need help in this area and very effective in removing the stigma of mental illness. Adolescent Counseling Services – Elizabeth Schar, Board Member PSN helped the media understand how to manage the news about suicides to avoid copy-cat behavior. Non sensationalization of the events saved lives. Webinars hosted by Becky Beacom on suicide prevention training at Palo Alto Medical Foundation trained me as a board member to advocate for youth mental health services. Former PAUSD Student – Lydia Huang I never got to say goodbye. He was my first love, my best friend, and my happiness. I never imagined that I would wake up one morning and find out that I would never be able to see him again. 6 I lost JP to suicide five years ago on May 5, 2009. The following days were a blur of paralyzing pain and endless tears. I couldn’t understand how someone I had seen a couple of hours ago was suddenly gone forever. The sense of hopelessness was overwhelming, and all I could think about was how pointless it was supposed to go on with my life when the most important piece had vanished. The smallest things would remind me of him, and send me spiraling into a break down. There were so many days where I couldn’t even function. I had nothing to look forward to. I obsessed over every little detail of our last conversations and thought about everything I wish I could go back and change. It was nearly impossible to think about anything else, but what I should have and could have done. Eventually I convinced myself that JP was just on vacation; then, he would show up one day to tell me about all his adventures. It was comforting to live in denial. I missed him incredibly, but I didn’t have to deal with the pain of knowing he wasn’t coming back. There are five stages of grief: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. I experienced each stage erratically, and sometimes went through multiple stages in a day. Denial and isolation lasted for a full two years. I felt so alone in my grief and like no one would ever understand what I was going through. It was hard to be around people. They didn’t know how to act around me, and vice versa. It became easier just to isolate myself and keep living in my dream world where JP was still with me. One day I realized it was futile to constantly wish I could go back in time and change things, since it was impossible. I also saw that it wasn’t a positive influence on my recovery. I started a diary and wrote all the entries to JP just as if I were having a conversation with him. The feelings of relief and comfort afterwards usually swept away the worst of the heartache. The most important part of my healing was support from JP’s mom. Anytime I missed JP, I could just pick up the phone. We understood each other’s pain and would reminisce about all our memories we had with him. It was never tiring to hear the same stories over again because it was so comforting to just listen to the memories. I saw that repeated storytelling was something survivors needed to go through in order to cope and find peace. When I started college at Penn State, I didn’t want to tell anyone about my loss. I didn’t want people to think of me any differently, and so I kept it to myself. It wasn’t until second semester of junior year that I finally felt ready to share my story. I had taken an entrepreneurship class and needed to write a feasibility report on a business idea of my own. Around this time, I had started doing some research on stigmas in the Asian culture. I found that due to the negative cultural perception in many traditional Asian cultures, topics such as suicide and depression are considered taboo, as they garner a sense of dishonor for the family. The similarities between my family’s views and the stigmas were unsettling, and the reason why I didn’t find the support I needed 7 from them. After reviewing various studies online, I found that these stigmas, along with inadequate education on mental health topics, were recurring reasons as to why Asian Americans are significantly less likely to seek help from mental health professionals. That’s when I decided to base my report off this hypothetical non-profit. I pitched the idea to my professor and he urged me to enter 1000 pitches, a business idea pitching competition where the winners received $1000. I posted my submission thinking I didn’t have a chance. When I ended up winning the Education category, it hit me that I could actually make this non-profit happen. That is why I became inspired to start Support with Love, a foundation dedicated to creating a community of support and education for Asian Americans dealing with stigmas of mental health, and with an emphasis in suicide prevention. Support with Love will develop and offer culturally-integrated workshops where people can learn the facts about mental health. It also has an online forum where people can go to share their experiences and provide each other with support. I knew that I needed to stop feeling sorry for myself all the time and asking why this had to happen to someone I loved. I channeled all that energy into designing my business model and website. It started to become my own coping mechanism because it allows me to think about JP without always feeling sad. To this day, I am still struggling with acceptance. It’s so easy to live in denial and push away the feelings of sadness. But I’ve accepted that it’s okay to let myself miss him and cry once in a while. Holding on to all my regrets wasn’t helping my healing process, and all the things I wish I could have said and done weren’t going to bring him back. Instead, I focus all my efforts into making this non-profit a community where people can find support. The most important thing I learned through my journey is that the pain never really leaves completely. But, as time passes, it stops hurting a little less than it did the previous day. POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 26 Special Meeting October 21, 2014 Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Klein, Price (Chair), Scharff, Schmid Absent: Oral Communications None. Agenda Items Chair Price had requested Agenda Item Number 4 be continued to a subsequent meeting due to the length of the Agenda. Council Member Klein concurred. Council Member Schmid preferred to reach the item on the Agenda before deciding to continue it. Council Member Scharff did not believe a great deal of time would be involved. Chair Price inquired about notice of the meeting. Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst, reported Staff was not present to address Agenda Item Number 4. Council Member Scharff wanted to retain the item on the Agenda. The presence of additional Staff was not necessary. The item was noticed for the meeting. Chair Price asked if Agenda Item Number 4 could be placed on the Agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Alaee answered yes. FINAL MINUTES Page 2 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Klein explained that Agenda Item Number 4 would remain on the Agenda as a vote would be 2-2. Mr. Alaee would request the City Attorney attend the meeting. Council Member Schmid suggested the Policy and Services Committee reach the item on the Agenda, determine the time, and then discuss continuing the item. Chair Price agreed. 1. Health and Safety Funds (Stanford Development Agreement) Related to Community Partners: Avenidas and Stanford Hospitals. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Community Services Senior Program Manager, was present to further the discussion of policies and procedures for the distribution of Health and Safety Funds. The item pertained to community health needs as identified by Avenidas, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and Stanford Health Care. Knowledge of these needs would assist the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) in identifying and categorizing specific needs in the community. Council Member Schmid asked if Agenda Item Numbers 1 and 2 would provide information for the Committee to discuss Agenda Item Number 3. Council Member Klein understood that was the purpose. Chair Price answered yes. The needs assessments and materials sent to the Committee was background information. Council Member Schmid inquired whether Staff would provide information about and from the three community partners in order to discuss Agenda Item Number 3. Ms. Van Der Zwaag replied yes. Council Member Klein felt the Committee was familiar with the programs and services offered by Avenidas and Stanford Hospital. Chair Price indicated Agenda Item Number 2 would be an update and discussion of Project Safety Net. Council Member Schmid stated discussion of Project Safety Net would be in the context of the Stanford funds. Chair Price noted both fell within the identified formula. FINAL MINUTES Page 3 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Ms. Van Der Zwaag inquired whether the Committee wished her to continue with background information. Chair Price requested she continue at a global level. The Committee received many materials in the packet and wished to provide time for community partners to speak. Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported Avenidas highlighted health and wellness, transportation, and engagement programs as the community health needs of local seniors. Health and wellness programs focused mainly on exercise and physical activity to help older adults gain flexibility, mobility and strength. Transportation of all types continued to be a community issue. A need for door-to-door transportation for seniors arose in the Human Relations Commission's (HRC) needs assessment several years ago. Avenidas provided a wide variety of programs that engaged seniors in learning and activities. In collaboration with community partners, Stanford Hospitals conducted annual community needs assessments to identify unmet needs and services in the community. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (Packard) focused its needs assessment on infants, children, adolescents, and pregnant women. Packard identified three priority needs of improving access to primary healthcare for children, teens and expectant mothers; providing preventative and education programs with special attention to pediatric obesity; and improving the social and emotional health of youth. Stanford Hospital's needs assessment identified four primary needs: cancer, access to healthcare, chronic disease, and unintentional injuries. From those four major needs, Stanford Hospital developed three major health initiatives as part of their multiyear strategic investment in the community. At the direction of the Committee, Staff could conduct further research or invite additional key community agencies, stakeholders or health experts to a future meeting. Sherri Sager, Chief Government and Community Relations Officer, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, wanted to provide the Committee with information regarding Packard's programs in order to leverage resources and programs. The Committee and the Council would need to determine whether funds would be expended in one year or over two or three years or used to establish an endowment. The Committee could not fund programs for recently identified needs over two or three years, and then expect those programs to be sustainable. One-time funds would be best spent in support of nonprofit agencies' capital needs. Whether funds would be spent in one year or over two to three years or placed in an endowment would determine the criteria for a grant process. The Committee should discuss this funding in relation to Project Safety Net; however, the discussion should consider broader mental health issues. FINAL MINUTES Page 4 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Schmid advised that Stanford's definition of community extended to the entire county while the Committee's purview was the City of Palo Alto. Ms. Sager agreed that Packard utilized a larger geographic area. Issues identified in the community needs assessment were common to every community in the state and country. The assessment identified needs concerning mental health, services for adolescents, obesity, asthma, and prenatal care. Packard prioritized three needs, because it could not tackle all of them. Council Member Klein agreed the Committee's first task was to identify a method to expend funds. He requested Ms. Sager's advice regarding expending funds and inquired about a need within Packard's three priorities that was not being addressed. Ms. Sager would expend money over three years to support one-time needs and would require agencies to match grant funds. In that manner, different agencies could apply for funds to support one-time needs, and the grant process would not be an excessive burden on Staff. Access to care was a primary concern. Grants could be utilized for remodeling facilities or obtaining new equipment. Grants could support schools in hosting onsite mental health counselors. The City could be involved in making communities more walkable to improve health and reduce traffic. Council Member Scharff inquired about transportation in relation to access to care, whether individuals were dropped off at healthcare providers or attendants accompanied the individuals. Ms. Sager advised that her experience with transportation was that individuals were dropped off and picked up. Assisted living facilities did ensure individuals went into the correct office. Council Member Scharff noted Ms. Sager recommended matching funds be required under any program the City chose. He inquired whether she recommended the City or the nonprofit agency determine the use of funds. Ms. Sager recommended the City solicit proposals of no more than two or three pages about an agency's need and requested amount of funds. Some proposals would request $10,000-15,000; some would request $100,000- $150,000. The review process should consider the agency, the request, and whether the proposal was fungible from another source. Council Member Scharff ask if Ms. Sager alternatively proposed the City solicit proposals for a lasting capital need that otherwise would not be met. FINAL MINUTES Page 5 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Ms. Sager replied yes. Council Member Scharff asked if that scenario should also require matching funds. Ms. Sager indicated it could. Nonprofit agencies could sell matching funds to donors. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the City should ask agencies about their capital needs. Ms. Sager would request agencies provide timelines in terms of the amount of funds to raise and when funds would be obtained. Council Member Scharff felt there was a difference between constructing a building and purchasing a van. He inquired whether the City should limit funding to an asset with a 30-year life or a 5-year life. Ms. Sager reported there were needs for both types of assets. A smaller organization would need shorter-lived assets and may not have other sources for those types of things. The City should consider funding assets that other sources were not willing to fund. Ms. Van Der Zwaag advised that agencies in Palo Alto often did not qualify for grants because of the socioeconomics of the City. Ms. Sager agreed. Chair Price felt the Committee was at a disadvantage in not knowing the magnitude of community needs. She assumed experts would review applications and make informed recommendations. She questioned whether the Committee should determine priority areas based on needs assessments or request applicants justify their requests. The Committee had to decide the criteria and the focus areas based on input from experts. Ms. Sager recommended the Committee select three to five priorities and then encourage agencies to qualify within those areas. Otherwise, proposals would be scattered. In addition, the Committee could choose to subsidize attendance at recreational and sports programs offered by the City; however, not all funds should be awarded to City programs. Andy Coe, Chief Government and Community Relations Officer, Stanford Health Care, reported Stanford Health Care, as a not-for-profit hospital, was required to invest in community benefit activities by State and Federal law. Stanford Health Care participated in community needs assessments every three years. Stanford Health Care's service area was San Mateo and Santa FINAL MINUTES Page 6 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Clara Counties. Stanford Health Care invested approximately $400,000 annually and coordinated other hospital programs. Community needs had remained virtually the same over the past six years. The key was matching resources and expertise with programs to make a difference. Stanford Health Care had expertise in aging adult services; therefore, it invested many resources in those programs. Because of the service area and Palo Alto's socioeconomic status, Stanford Health Care did not invest many funds in programs that directly served residents of Palo Alto. Stanford Health Care provided funds to the MayView Clinic and Peninsula Healthcare Connection and had contributed in the past to Avenidas. Chair Price asked if Stanford Health Care was involved in the Opportunity Center. Mr. Coe stated they were not currently involved in the Opportunity Center. Council Member Klein inquired about three areas that Stanford Health Care was not currently funding. Mr. Coe believed mental health issues were a primary concern. Council Member Klein requested Mr. Coe elaborate on mental health issues. Mr. Coe meant issues affecting young people, issues that Project Safety Net addressed. That was the larger issue throughout the country. Stanford Health Care was struggling to identify methods to improve overall mental health services and to collaborate with the County of Santa Clara (County). Council Member Klein asked if Stanford focused on adolescents. Mr. Coe responded no. Stanford Health Care was not an expert on mental health issues; therefore, it did not focus community investments on that particular issue. Stanford was attempting to gain knowledge in order to work with the County to provide better care for mental health patients who received health services at Stanford. Council Member Klein requested Mr. Coe's advice regarding actions the Committee should take. Mr. Coe was not an expert. He was offering his observations. Council Member Klein asked if there were any service gaps not presently being funded for which Stanford Hospital had expertise. Mr. Coe reported needs that surfaced in the assessments affected communities such as Palo Alto. He had no insight into a specific issue. FINAL MINUTES Page 7 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Stanford Health Care matched its expertise and resources with programs to make the greatest impact. Council Member Scharff recalled Ms. Sager's suggestion to separate needs into three parts, one of which could be needs Stanford Health Care was interested in supporting. He did not believe Mr. Coe indicated any needs in which Stanford Health Care might be interested. Mr. Coe advised that Stanford Health Care focused on access to care, programs for seniors, and reducing health disparities particularly in the field of cancer care. Those were the areas Stanford Health Care believed were community needs. Council Member Scharff asked if the community needs in Palo Alto were also countywide. Mr. Coe reported data was collected from both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. He could not segregate information solely pertaining to Palo Alto. Council Member Scharff asked if Mr. Coe could identify a community need in Palo Alto among the needs on which Stanford focused. Mr. Coe could not parse the information. Council Member Schmid noted Stanford Health Care provided good data regarding average scores, disparities, and prevention opportunities. Palo Alto did not resemble California, San Mateo County, or Santa Clara County numbers. He inquired about a method to determine the priority needs for Palo Alto. Mr. Coe suggested the Committee utilize data from focus groups or consult with organizations that worked in the community. Council Member Schmid asked if Stanford primarily utilized the expertise of County agencies. Mr. Coe answered yes, to gather information. Both Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties hired consultants to perform research assessments. Council Member Schmid believed cities did not have primary responsibility for providing healthcare, which was the reason for experts being located at the county level. A review of Palo Alto needs could identify different needs that did not fit the normal category of needs. Mr. Coe indicated that could be possible. The 10 or 11 identified needs would be found in Palo Alto as well. FINAL MINUTES Page 8 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Schmid suggested an enrollment grant could be effective in supporting and encouraging residents to participate in existing programs. He inquired whether that could be a logical use of funds. Mr. Coe replied yes. Stanford Health Care attempted to fund programs that provided services for people. Access to care enrollment would be a component of that. Council Member Schmid felt greater participation in programs could provide a real benefit. Chair Price recalled that Mr. Coe mentioned the lack of hospital capacity for emergency psychiatric hospitalization throughout the county. Those kinds of services were extraordinary expensive. Health and Safety Funds would not be an answer to that need; however, it underscored the need for collaboration and other opportunities. Mr. Coe would be happy to act as a resource or expert for the Committee. Amy Andonian, Avenidas President and CEO, advised that the true focus of all Avenidas' programs and services was healthy aging, access to healthcare, and social engagement. Whether funds were expended one-time only, over two or three years, or ongoing affected any proposal submitted. Funds could subsidize general operating expenses to support existing services and to ensure continuing service to existing clients and new clients. She was most attracted to the concept of funding community needs that were not addressed. A community needs assessment had not been conducted for quite some time in Palo Alto. There should be an opportunity to conduct a thorough community needs assessment before determining priorities. Mary Hohensee, Avenidas Vice President of Development, reported Avenidas raised a large portion of its budget from the community. Aging could place some of the harshest strains on community resources if it was not addressed properly. The people who founded Avenidas wanted to help people as they aged to be in charge of their own lives. Services could not be isolated from community needs. Funding of capital needs would always be attractive to Avenidas. Avenidas had not expanded programs because of lack of space. Council Member Klein asked if the Committee should support infrastructure projects or ongoing programs. Ms. Andonian loved the idea of matching grants. Capital needs such as space were a primary focus for Avenidas. She assumed one-time funds could be utilized for fundraising needs and infrastructure needs. FINAL MINUTES Page 9 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Klein inquired whether other agencies serving seniors would have the same needs as Avenidas. Ms. Andonian could not speak for other agencies. All agencies had wish lists; however, items on the lists would be different based on an organization's needs. With respect to allowing organizations to propose uses for funds, each organization should speak to its needs and how it addressed identified needs of the community. She shared her experience of identifying community needs while working at the County. Council Member Klein suggested the City obtain the procedures the County used in that instance. Chair Price asked if the County operated the program. Ms. Andonian responded yes. The Board of Supervisors oversaw the program. Council Member Klein inquired about who made the decision regarding awards. Ms. Andonian answered the Board of Supervisors with Staff input. The County hired staff to evaluate proposals based on criteria it drafted. It was a scientific process. Chair Price asked which department administered the program. Ms. Andonian believed it was Family and Senior Services. The process required a great deal of time, but the outcome provided services to a diversity of ages. The County focused on case management and transportation for senior services. Council Member Klein asked if Supervisors were involved in the process. Ms. Andonian answered yes. Funds were awarded for general operational expenses and new programs. The County also provided some one-time funding. Ms. Hohensee supported the use of matching grants. If an organization could not make a case for support to the community, then it could not make a case for support to the City. Matching grants could be obtained from foundations as well as the community. The Committee should engage the many foundations within the community for additional expertise and information. FINAL MINUTES Page 10 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Scharff was excited by Avenidas' expansion and was interested in utilizing some funds to support that. That seemed to provide a lasting benefit to the community. Ms. Andonian reported Avenidas was raising funds to construct the building. The fundraising campaign manager and staff were discussing new programs and services for the building. One concept was to integrate the fields of technology, design, and engineering into the folds of Avenidas to identify solutions that would assist older adults. The new building would provide an age-friendly environment. Council Member Scharff wondered whether a gym to replace the closing YMCA would fill a community need and bring more people into Avenidas. Gyms tended to become a community. Ms. Hohensee did not want to duplicate services available elsewhere in the community. The fitness center would have special flooring, special grab bars, and instructors well-versed in senior exercise. Ms. Andonian suggested in the future Avenidas could consider a fitness center for more active seniors. Council Member Scharff asked if Uber services could be an alternative to purchasing a van. Ms. Andonian reported a start-up called Lift Heroes used the Uber model to transform senior transportation. Aging 2.0 was working with Lift Heroes to provide services. Other funding sources were available for a new bus. The general consensus was to do something different and better than purchasing a bus. Chair Price remarked that the issue was sustainability of funding and programs. 2. Health and Safety Funds (Stanford Development Agreement) Related to Youth Well-Being and Project Safety Net. Carolyn Digovich, Youth Speaks Out, understood Project Safety Net (PSN) was being considered for restructuring. Youth Speaks Out originated under the Youth Collaborative and provided a safe environment for children to express themselves through the arts. Youth Speaks Out had some interventions every year. Brenda Carrillo, Palo Alto Unified School District Student Services Coordinator and Project Safety Net Co-Chair, reported Palo Alto Unified FINAL MINUTES Page 11 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 School District (PAUSD) valued the strong partnership with the City. The collaborative efforts of community partners had assisted PAUSD to better serve children, youth, and families struggling with mental health issues and to promote youth well-being. She looked forward to enhancing partnerships with the City. Judy Jaramillo Argumedo, Palo Alto Unified School District Education Services Coordinator, advised that PSN collaborated across agencies and began a dialog about mental health and stigma. She participated in shaping a new vision and mission for PSN to begin new endeavors. She was proud of the work PSN achieved and hoped for further collaboration between the City and PAUSD. Susan Usman, Parent Teacher Association Council President, indicated the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) had utilized PSN programs regarding Developmental Assets and building youth resiliency and well-being in most schools. The PTA hosted many parent education events with the focus of youth mental health. PSN was powerful for youth well-being. Rob De Geus, Community Services Assistant Director, remarked that the Palo Alto community had a long history of collaboration for youth well-being. Past programs included Safer Summer, the Youth Master Plan, and the Youth Collaborative. Because the community valued collaboration, Project Safety Net was born and achieved some success. PSN began with a plan that included 22 strategies under education, prevention, and intervention. PSN was subjected to a second Strategic Plan process that resulted in a more focused strategic plan. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Senior Program Manager, reported the Strategic Plan process began in the spring of 2013 and concluded in the fall of 2013. The collaborative could look back at significant accomplishments, but wanted to focus on the future. Discussions considered philosophy, core strategies, and structure. Compass Point led a collaborative planning process to revise the Strategic Plan. Community meetings resulted in a Strategic Plan with four elements. A collaborative needed a shared understanding of the spirit in which it wanted to work. Strategies crossed the spectrum from Developmental Assets to creating and nurturing meaningful connections to educating and training youth and adults access to mental health services for all youth. More work was still to be done. PSN's mark of success would be having children feel they were heard, valued, and supported. Mr. De Geus commented that the partner organizations performed the work of PSN. No single organization could perform the work of youth well-being and suicide prevention. PSN had three working committees that FINAL MINUTES Page 12 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 collaborated regarding community Engagement, community education, and mental health. Ms. Van Der Zwaag advised that the Leadership Team was now comprised of longstanding and new participants. Over the past five years, the collaborative had learned that willing partners were necessary. PSN partners had a long history of good work in Palo Alto. Due to limited resources, partners could not do more or support greater capacity. PSN needed leadership beyond the City. Filling the position of PSN Director was difficult because of the high level of work and the lack of employment benefits. There was value to bringing the collaborative together to build relationships; however, it was difficult to find leaders for PSN committees. Mr. De Geus felt it was important for PSN to document its work; however, PSN had not done as good a job as possible. PSN needed to document and measure effectively its work in order to maintain interest. The benefit of a collaborative was each partner working a little bit more and a little bit better. Council Member Schmid asked if PSN instituted an annual survey. Mr. De Geus indicated PAUSD performed several surveys. A survey of Developmental Assets was performed every five years and provided good data to guide PSN's work. Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported PSN's next steps included embedding PSN's work in the community, bringing PSN's efforts into schools, and considering a shared leadership model. PSN was exploring the possibility of offering grants to agencies and individuals to work on suicide prevention and youth well-being. PSN was also considering the extent to which funding choices included sustainability. Council Member Klein inquired about PSN expenditures. Ms. Van Der Zwaag indicated PSN had spent about $350,000 of the $2 million the Council gave it. Over the past three years, about 48 percent of funding covered staff costs, 38-40 percent covered Track Watch, and the remainder covered program expenses Council Member Klein inquired about funds in the present fiscal year with no Director and no Track Watch. Ms. Van Der Zwaag clarified that Track Watch continued to be a component of PSN. In the current year, personnel costs totaled approximately $17,000. In FY 2014 costs were approximately $40,000. With a full-time Director, costs increased to approximately $94,000. FINAL MINUTES Page 13 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Klein asked if the City provided all funds. Ms. Van Der Zwaag responded yes. Council Member Klein asked if Staff conducted exit interviews with the two Directors. Ms. Van Der Zwaag replied yes. Council Member Klein requested the Directors' comments from those interviews. Mr. De Geus reported the key concern was the provisional nature of the hourly position with no benefits. Council Member Klein wondered whether that reason masked deeper concerns as the Directors knew the terms of employment before being hired. Mr. De Geus explained that one Director's husband lost his job which provided benefits for the family. Working with different organizations and personalities could be difficult. Council Member Schmid inquired whether a search was being conducted for a new Director. Mr. De Geus answered no. Staff felt it was not prudent to expend funds for a Director at the current time. Staff wanted to discuss options for the position with the Council and PAUSD. Council Member Klein inquired about additional concerns the Directors may have had. Ms. Van Der Zwaag indicated a concern was identifying new leaders and workers from partner agencies. A deep concern to make wise decisions often led to paralysis such that new initiatives stalled. Mr. De Geus added that the Director position had to build relationships across many organizations. PSN did not have the structure and funding to attract a high caliber professional needed in the position. Council Member Klein asked if PSN was concerned with suicide prevention, youth well-being, or both. Youth well-being seemed to be an afterthought. Mr. De Geus reported suicide prevention and youth well-being were equal. Some participants were passionate about suicide prevention, others about youth well-being. FINAL MINUTES Page 14 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Klein asked why the two should be kept together. Mr. De Geus advised that the collaborative thought it was the right thing to do. All kids were at risk in some way. Most participants subscribed to youth well-being as opposed to suicide prevention. Ms. Van Der Zwaag remarked that the collaborative addressed a balance between the two through the Strategic Plan. Council Member Klein inquired whether PSN received real cooperation from PAUSD. Mr. De Geus noted PAUSD had adopted suicide prevention policies and Developmental Assets and provided activities in support of those initiatives. PAUSD provided less support for keeping the collaborative together and guiding the vision for the community. The City largely managed the collaborative effort. Staff wanted PAUSD to have a stronger role in programming, services, and financial contributions. Council Member Klein calculated expenditures of approximately $50,000 per year would allow funding of PSN for the next 34 years. Expending those funds more aggressively would be wiser. Mr. De Geus reported the Strategic Plan had a compelling vision of anticipated changes. The collaborative wanted to make funding available to partners. Partner organizations were doing the real work with programs. The Committee could obtain input from partner organizations. Ms. Van Der Zwaag was excited by the possibility of using funds to provide grants to partner organizations. She supported grants for programs rather than administrative purposes. Council Member Klein inquired whether utilizing funds for grants would mean the end of PSN. Ms. Van Der Zwaag believed some core aspects of the collaborative could continue with little funding. A role for the collaborative and the Leadership Team would continue. PSN committees addressed the efforts needed to bring people together to address needs in the community. Mr. De Geus felt the lack of a collaborative would result in a different kind of proposal to expend funds. If the collaborative continued, proposals would be much richer and deeper in terms of collaboration among the partners. FINAL MINUTES Page 15 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Ms. Van Der Zwaag suggested partner organizations could take on the work of PSN committees with the aid of grant funding. In that manner, the work of the committee could continue without City Staff leadership. Council Member Schmid noted the City had been funding the infrastructure for the collaborative. A number of community partners had a deep interest in PSN initiatives. Staff appeared to be indicating that organizations would need new funding to support the goals of the new Strategic Plan. Ms. Van Der Zwaag explained that Staff wanted partner agencies to consider outcomes of the new Strategic Plan that they could impact with additional funding. Mr. De Geus added that partners helped write the new Strategic Plan. New investments would allow partners to do even better work in the community. Council Member Schmid understood agencies were stating they could not continue existing programs with current resources. Mr. De Geus advised that partners were not doing all they wanted to do. Partners were nonprofit agencies that constantly sought additional support in order to do more. Council Member Schmid asked if Staff felt a larger investment and more funding was needed to help PSN achieve identified goals. Mr. De Geus viewed the issue as community partners investing and sharing in the leadership of the collaborative. The City being the only contributor to the foundation was not a sustainable model for the long term. Larger organizations needed to participate as well. Council Member Schmid recalled that a parent group established a program utilizing art to contribute to PSN initiatives. Mr. De Geus indicated Youth Speaks Out could not have occurred without the collaborative process. Youth Speaks Out surrounded children with support from partners of PSN. Chair Price felt continued work was needed in suicide prevention and youth well-being. She expressed concern around not having a PSN Director. Without that focus, it would be difficult to achieve success. In a shared governance model but with no additional support from partner agencies, PSN would remain under the auspices of the City. PSN had the foundations for a meaningful work plan. A stipend could provide benefits for a Director without committing the City to long-term benefits. FINAL MINUTES Page 16 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Ms. Van Der Zwaag reported the City offered the prior two Directors an increase that could support healthcare and time off after a specified length of employment. Staff was searching for methods to make the Director position attractive. Since the last Director departed, the collaborative had not fully discussed alternative models for grants. The collaborative wanted to get the work done. Grants for partner agencies would be a real way to get the work done. Perhaps the City could work with a partner agency to provide salary and benefits for a Director. Chair Price suggested the Director position could be embedded within a nonprofit partner or a nonprofit partner could provide matching funds for salary and benefits. Financial engagement of partner agencies was important to sustaining PSN efforts. The City could learn from comparable collaborative efforts to make PSN more feasible and accountable. Council Member Scharff felt PSN was not working and was not achieving its goals under the current model. The collaborative was the valuable component of PSN; however, partners were not willing to financially support the collaborative. He would oppose PSN becoming a grant organization unless Staff provided clear reasons for that. He was unclear as to the decision the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) was being asked to make. The Staff Report did not offer concrete suggestions for Committee action. Mr. De Geus believed the item was intended to be a Study Session and update regarding Project Safety Net. Staff was not asking the Committee to make a decision. Staff was struggling with the City's role in PSN and with ways to execute the Strategic Plan. Council Member Schmid believed the next step was a conversation about partnerships and PSN’s role. Mr. De Geus was concerned about the path forward. Council Member Scharff wanted options for the Committee. A grant funding model seemed separate from retaining the collaborative. The first step was to determine goals. James Keene, City Manager, explained that the challenge was outside Staff's experience and expertise. Project Safety Net had two aspects: providing a safety net for at-risk children and holding partners together to achieve human happiness. The collaborative was an activity, not an outcome. Council Members questioned the impact $2 million could make on such a large issue. An important question was, what would the conversation be if there was no money. The money was secondary to ensuring youth well- FINAL MINUTES Page 17 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 being. Funds could be seed money with an explicit expectation of return on investment. Staff needed basic policy direction with respect to the Committee's desires. Council Member Klein struggled with youth well-being. Project Safety Net did not address the happy children in Palo Alto. Many organizations provided programs for children with no problems. He recalled a Children's Hospital speaker stating that 95 percent of children were born with no physical problems. Children's Hospital dealt with the remaining 5 percent. Council Member Klein believed Project Safety Net focused on children who needed crisis intervention and was not in the youth well-being business. It would be difficult to change the expectation that the City would fund PSN. If funding of $1.7 million earned $85,000 a year in interest, PSN would never run out of funds because it was not spending $85,000 a year. When he voted to award $2 million to Project Safety Net, he expected part of the funds would support costs for Staff. Staff should provide information regarding Project Safety Net remaining as a collaborative or hiring a Director and increasing programs. Council Member Schmid felt Project Safety Net should focus on youth well- being rather than suicide prevention. The success of PSN resulted from collaboration. Many community organizations were devoted to children's mental health issues. The City's role was to build a collaborative from those organizations. The City and PAUSD were responsible for leading the collaborative; however, the City should determine the extent of its partnership with PAUSD with respect to funding and structure. Chair Price felt strongly about the characterization of mental health, mental illness, wellness, suicide prevention, and suicide ideation. The issue was not simply happy versus unhappy children. An individual's wellness covered a spectrum of issues. Statements made by the Committee were an oversimplification of the issues. Council Member Scharff agreed mental health issues were complex. He wanted the City to spend funds wisely. Funds could support programs other than the collaborative. Chair Price asked who would organize efforts if there was no collaborative. Council Member Scharff clarified that without a Director, an approach other than a collaborative could be instituted. Mr. De Geus would review that concept. FINAL MINUTES Page 18 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Scharff wanted Staff to provide and analyze options. He did not believe PSN should be a funding agency. Annual interest of $100,000 combined with funds from collaborative partners could support a collaborative for the next 20 years. He supported the use of matching grants. Mr. De Geus agreed that both youth well-being and suicide prevention were important. The issue was the City's role as a convening agency that brought people together around social issues. Staff was seeking commitments from partner organizations. Ms. Van Der Zwaag advised that Staff was aware of their role in the collaborative and the initiatives they wanted to promote. However, they wanted to be responsible stewards of funds. Staff wanted Committee feedback. Chair Price inquired about next steps for Staff returning to the Committee. Mr. De Geus needed to meet with the City Manager to discuss the Committee's feedback, meet with PAUSD, and return with specific options for proceeding. Mr. Keene did not believe Staff could provide options without direction from the Committee regarding mission and guiding principles. Council Member Klein felt (inaudible) was a different category. Before the Committee could disburse the $2 million, it needed to know (inaudible). Mr. Keene suggested a larger discussion could determine the amount of money provided to Project Safety Net or youth well-being. Council Member Klein wanted Staff to suggest a model. He did not believe establishing principles for health and welfare and adding another $1 million would help. Chair Price asked if Council Member Klein was suggesting preliminary efforts be made on the guiding principles, mission, and objectives for use of Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement funds simultaneous with options for Project Safety Net. Council Member Klein answered yes. Chair Price believed deferring a discussion of guiding principles, mission, and objectives would prevent resources in the fund from being utilized to the best advantage. Staff capacity would determine how quickly they returned FINAL MINUTES Page 19 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 with both or either item. She asked the City Manager if he had sufficient information to begin drafting guiding principles, mission, and objectives. Mr. Keene suggested the Committee determine whether it had provided sufficient guidance or boundaries for Staff. If not, then Staff could make a first attempt at drafting those items. Council Member Schmid inquired whether they were discussing a model for Project Safety Net. Mr. Keene replied no. Chair Price asked if the Committee needed to address Agenda Item Number 3 in more detail. Mr. Keene responded yes. Some of the thinking about Project Safety Net could carry over to the Health and Safety Funds. A subcommittee could provide additional guidance to Staff. Council Member Klein was comfortable with creating a subcommittee or with drafting general guidelines for Health and Safety Funds. The Council was not interested in establishing an endowment for other Stanford Development Agreement Funds, but this could be different. Chair Price suggested the Committee discuss Agenda Item Number 3. A subcommittee could be created in the future if needed. Council Member Schmid asked if Staff had sufficient information to proceed with Agenda Item Number 2. Mr. De Geus was not sure Staff had sufficient information; however, Staff would make an attempt. 3. Health and Safety Funds (Stanford Development Agreement) Related to Guiding Principles, Mission and Objectives; Determine the Pace of Fund Disbursement; and Review Ways to Preserve or Extend the Funds Depending on Option Chosen. Council Member Schmid understood from the earlier discussion that funds should be expended as one-time only funds. Programs should focus on the City's needs that were outside the purview of many organizations. Perhaps the first area could be access to care. A second area could be issues that were within the purview of the City such as homelessness. He was interested in the concept of designing a city that offered services that the elderly needed. Emergency preparedness was another option. FINAL MINUTES Page 20 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Scharff supported matching grants for one-time only funds. Outcomes should provide impact and meaning and be measurable. He concurred with focusing on issues within Palo Alto. Grants should demonstrate a preference for programs supporting the elderly. He hoped proposals would be innovative. Chair Price felt Staff could draw on guiding principles promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and on the Healthy Cities initiative. Some funding should support special projects that did not require ongoing operating funds. The key to success would be leveraging funds through creative recommendations from partners. Useful information could be obtained from foundations in the community as well as the County of Santa Clara (County). Council Member Klein was intrigued by the County's process for awarding one-time funds. Reviewing proposals would be time consuming. Chair Price inquired whether Council Member Klein was suggesting Staff utilize elements of the County's process. Council Member Klein responded yes. Council Member Schmid believed the Committee should identify three or four areas to focus proposals. Council Member Scharff concurred. Chair Price concurred. Council Member Schmid suggested each Committee Member propose one or two areas. Council Member Klein recalled Council Member Scharff suggested seniors. Council Member Schmid proposed seniors, homeless, and access to care. Council Member Scharff would not support homeless as an area. Chair Price proposed broadening the area of seniors. Mental health issues affected the whole range of the community. The Committee could propose several areas and then narrow those to three or four areas. Council Member Scharff wanted to focus on the programs of Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, and Avenidas. FINAL MINUTES Page 21 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Klein did not agree. He wanted new nonprofit agencies to apply for grants. Chair Price concurred with extending the scope beyond the three partners. She asked if Staff had sufficient information. James Keene, City Manager, replied yes. 4. Discussion Regarding Possible Procedure to Vote to go Into Closed Session. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Chair Price to continue Agenda Item Number 4. Council Member Schmid felt the question was the amount of time needed to discuss the item. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to hear Agenda Item Number 4. Council Member Scharff advised that the question was whether to have a Motion to move into Closed Session. That would not require a great deal of discussion. Council Member Klein asked if Council Member Scharff was proposing the San Francisco process. Council Member Scharff replied no. The Council should vote to move into Closed Session rather than simply holding a Closed Session. Council Members should think about holding a Closed Session. Chair Price asked if there would be any criteria or guidance for holding a Closed Session. Council Member Scharff noted any discussion of whether to hold a Closed Session would be part of a public meeting. James Keene, City Manager, understood the Motion would not change the definition of a Closed Session or the reasons for holding a Closed Session. The current practice was to notice a Closed Session, and at the appointed time the Council moved to the Closed Session. Under the Motion, Staff would agendize a Council vote to move into a recommended Closed Session. The public would have an opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of holding a Closed Session. The City Attorney would advise the Council as to whether State law allowed the Council to hold a Closed Session. FINAL MINUTES Page 22 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Scharff understood from the City Attorney that the Council had a choice whether to hold a Closed Session for almost all topics. Certain matters were required to be discussed in Closed Session. The better process would be a Council vote to retire to a Closed Session. Chair Price inquired whether Council Members would vote without any input from Staff regarding their recommendation for a Closed or Open Session. Council Member Scharff advised that a Council Member could move not to hold a Closed Session, at which point a Council Member could inquire about Staff's reasons for a Closed Session. Mr. Keene reported the discussion would focus on holding an open meeting beyond the standard of the Brown Act. Some situations could compromise Staff's ability to explain the need for a Closed Session. In that situation, the City Attorney could provide the Council with a confidential memorandum, but that might occur after the fact. Council Member Scharff suggested Staff simply state that Staff's reasons were confidential. Council Member Schmid recalled two instances in which the Council questioned holding a Closed Session. In circumstances similar to those two instances, a brief discussion of the issues would be helpful. Council Member Klein recalled moving an Open Session regarding interviews of finalists for the City Manager position in 2008. Council Member Schmid felt a formal process to raise concerns would be beneficial. Council Member Klein felt raising the issue of Closed Sessions encouraged future Council Members to vote against a Closed Session. Council Member Schmid noted five votes in support of an Open Session were needed. Council Member Klein believed Council Members would not support a Closed Session even though they knew a Closed Session was appropriate, because their vote would generate publicity. Council Member Schmid was concerned that a vote and discussion would further lengthen Council meetings. Council Member Klein would not support the Motion because the process was already in place. FINAL MINUTES Page 23 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Schmid inquired whether a Council Member could call for a vote prior to every Closed Session. Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported that was permissible. Council Member Scharff noted some Council Members did not attend the proceedings in Chambers prior to retiring to a Closed Session. Council Member Klein believed a Motion could be offered at the beginning of a meeting when all Council Members were present. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to recommend the City Council vote to go into Closed Session before going into Closed Session. Council Member Schmid stated a vote was permissible; however, the Motion provided an official process. Council Member Scharff added that a vote would increase transparency. This process would signal the community that a discussion could occur. Council Member Schmid asked if a topic could be agendized as a Closed Session and an Open Session. Ms. Stump responded yes. In order to hear an item in Open Session, the item had to be agendized as an Open Session. Mr. Keene clarified that a topic had to be agendized as an Open Session to be heard at the same meeting. Ms. Stump indicated the topic could be continued to a future meeting. A topic could be agendized as both a Closed and an Open Session if there was some question as to the Council's wishes. Although not legally required, a note on the Agenda indicating one or both of those sessions might not occur would be good. Council Member Schmid believed the statement should clearly indicate a Closed Session or an Open Session was possible. Mr. Keene explained that any discussion held in Closed Session required by law would be effectuated subsequently through a public discussion and action by the Council. The public should understand that the Council, in a Closed Session, was giving direction to Staff who would return to the Council for action in a public forum. FINAL MINUTES Page 24 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Klein did not believe there was a problem that warranted this action. A solution already existed. Chair Price concurred with Council Member Klein. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-2 Klein, Price no 5. Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014. Council Member Klein inquired about the amount of time needed to discuss Agenda Item Number 5. Chair Price felt the item should be heard. Council Member Scharff indicated some time would be required to discuss the future status of policy. Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, reported the Franchise Fee Audit contained three objectives; two being performed by the City Auditor's Office and one by a consultant. Staff had almost completed their work on the two objectives. Information regarding the consultant's objective would be presented at a later time. The Utility Meter Audit was close to completion. Field work for the audit of Parking Funds was approximately 75 percent complete. With respect to the National Citizens Survey, the correct number of respondents was 796. The response rate was 27 percent, 2 percent lower than the previous year; however, 3,000 surveys rather than 1,200 were mailed to residents. Marketing efforts did not increase the rate of participation. The Sales and Use Tax Audit recovered $31,699. The City received two hotline complaints during the quarter, and Staff closed both as unsubstantiated. In the future, Departments would report directly to the Policy and Services Committee regarding the status of responses to audit recommendations. Within the quarterly report, she would provide a summary of overall activity during the quarter. Council Member Schmid suggested Audits of Franchise Fees and Utility Meters would not provide the greatest payback. Ms. Richardson indicated the Utility Meter Audit resulted from issues identified during the Inventory Management Audit. Council Member Schmid noted the numbers were higher for the National Citizens Survey. He requested a categorization of hotline complaints. Ms. Richardson advised that most complaints pertained to employees' use of time. In most instances, there was no evidence to support complaints. FINAL MINUTES Page 25 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Schmid was interested in whether complaints concerned personnel or sexual orientation. Ms. Richardson remarked that most complaints were related to personnel. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to recommend the City Council accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Chair Price wished to review the status of Agenda Items. Council Member Scharff did not find the issue of Council Minutes on the list of Agenda Items. Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst, would add it to the list. Council Member Scharff felt the item would not require a long discussion. Council Member Schmid noted three Council Boards and Commissions utilized verbatim Minutes. That should return as soon as possible. Mr. Alaee would request a report from the City Clerk's Office. The Agenda for November 13, 2014 contained five items. Council Member Scharff inquired about amendments to the Fire Code. Chair Price inquired about the status of the amendment of the Municipal Percent for Art Policy. She had requested a potential date for a second meeting in December if necessary. David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, reported a date of December 3, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Alaee reported the Municipal Percent for Art Policy could return in either November or December. Council Member Scharff preferred to hear the item in December as November's Agenda was full. Council Member Klein reported online companies such as Airbnb.com could be violating the City's Zoning Code. FINAL MINUTES Page 26 of 26 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Final Minutes 10/21/14 Council Member Scharff recalled the Planning Director indicated she could not provide information until April 2015. Council Member Klein could not believe the issue would require that much time. Chair Price requested Staff place the item on the December 2014 Agenda. Mr. Alaee inquired if that issue was the same as implications of online travel companies. Council Member Klein clarified that the Transient Occupancy Tax portion of the item had been taken care of. The question was whether residents were operating a hotel in a neighborhood zoned R-1. Mr. Alaee would consult with Staff. Chair Price indicated the issues of the Airport and recruitment were not primary concerns. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:42 P.M. Problem Statement The Palo Alto community struggles with the pain and loss of youth to suicide. There is urgency for on-going, coordinated community action to promote youth well-being and prevent suicide. Strategic Plan Project Safety Net Collaboration We effect change through the connections, creativity and contributions of our entire community working together. Hope We are committed to prevent- ing the most preventable form of death, suicide. Courage We face suicide related stigma with strength and perseverance. Integrity We act with honesty and sincerity. Cultural Awareness and Engagement Sensitivity and respect for diverse individuals and com- munities guide our efforts. Learning Best practice and on-going reflection advance our work. Values & Guiding Principles Infuse the Developmental Assets framework in Palo Alto culture and policies Create experiences across our community that foster meaningful connections among youth and adults Train youth and adults in best practices for identifying and responding to emotional and psychological distress Educate youth, parents and other adults in contact with youth about the risk factors for suicide such as mental health conditions, substance use and other stress factors Engage in a community-wide storytelling and listening campaign through a variety of media Learn and partner with community and faith groups to develop culturally specific education and outreach Collaborate with the community, police department, media and Caltrain to reduce access to the train tracks and other means of lethal harm Create a clear map of our community’s youth mental health services and identify gaps Advocate for increased and accessible mental health services for all youth Strategies Youth report increased personal and trusting connections to adults and peers in the Palo Alto community in order to foster youth well-being Peers and adults in contact with youth are knowledgeable and equipped to respond to their distress or thoughts of suicide Reduction of mental health stigma leading to acceptance and use of mental health services Access to means of lethal harm is reduced Our community’s mental health services are robust, coordinated and accessible to all youth Anticipated Changes ATTACHMENT D PROJECT SAFETY NET HISTORY OF COLLABORATIVE 2009-2011 Collaborative formed in the summer of 2009 in response to the first two teen suicides of five that occurred in the 20019-10 school year. The City and Palo Alto Unified Schofol District (PAUSD) from inception were the co- lead agencies of the PSN Collaborative and included youth-serving agencies from across the city. In June 2010 PSN produced a report outlining 22 strategies addressing education, prevention, and intervention. Agencies and individuals engaged in the collaborative effort, signed Memos of Understanding (MOUs) to committing to work on one or more of the 22 strategies. (Attachment D – PSN Plan – 2010) This model resulted in some key early accomplishments. A few examples are below: o Resolutions by both the Council and PAUSD School Board adopting the Developmental Assets framework to youth development and suicide prevention policies. o A new method by which pediatricians screened their patients for depression and a new process (form) for sharing patient information among healthcare providers, school personnel and families in order to facilitate the transition of students back to the school setting after treatment. o A dedicated corps of Track Watch volunteers trained by Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) and supplemented with paid guards. Unfortunately we experienced two more deaths by suicide in the fall of 2009 and one in the winter of 2010. The PSN model remained a loose collaborative with the City taking on the primary share of the administrative work to hold the collaborative together. The City staff was doing this on top of their regular duties. In 2011 the Collaborative engaged the consulting firm MIG to formalize a structure, paid for by a grant from the Santa Clara County Mental Health Department. (Attachment E – MIG Report) Council’s support of the PSN collaborative led to the designation of $2M in funding from the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Health & Safety funds that would be used to hire a PSN Director. A director was hired in the spring of 2012. 2012-2014 The PSN Director became the “backbone” of the PSN Colaborative, organizing meetings, tracking progress and relationship-building. The PSN Collaborative had accomplished a number of objectives from the 2010 PSN Plan and partner organizations expressed the need for greater clarity on mission and focus of PSN efforts moving forward. The Collaborative engaged in further Strategic Planning which resulted in a new Leadership Team, fewer full collaborative meetings (6 times per year versus monthly), a new subcommittee structure and streamlined set of goals. The Strategic Plan has five goals (known as “Anticipated Changes.”) (Attachment F – Strategic Plan – 2013) The PSN Director was offered another position in a neighboring community and resigned in late summer of 2013. The search for a new PSN Director did not yield a suitable pool of candidates for over six months. After several recruiting efforts a candidate was hired in May 2014 however was offered another job opportunity and resigned within four months of starting. Two teens died by suicide; one in October 2014 and one in November 2014. 2015 Two teens died by suicide; one in January 2015 and one in March. Collaborative meeting attendance remains strong but engagement is low, especially when trying to fill committee membership and leadership roles. Many partners are making important progress in meeting PSN’s anticipated outcomes (as outlined in the 10/21/2014 report to the Policy and Services Committee) Stanford Social Innovation Review Email: info@ssireview.org, www.ssireview.org Collective Impact By John Kania & Mark Kramer Stanford Social Innovation Review Winter 2011 Copyright © 2011 by Leland Stanford Jr. University All Rights Reserved 36 Stanford Social innovation review • Winter 2011 Large-scaLe sociaL change requires broad cross-sector coordination, yet the sociaL sector remains focused on the isoLated intervention of individuaL organizations. By John Kania & Mark Kramer Illustration by Martin Jarrie Collective Impact 300 leaders of local organizations agreed to participate, includ- ing the heads of influential private and corporate foundations, city government officials, school district representatives, the presidents of eight universities and community colleges, and the executive directors of hundreds of education-related non- profit and advocacy groups. These leaders realized that fixing one point on the educational continuum—such as better after-school programs—wouldn’t make much difference unless all parts of the continuum im- proved at the same time. No single organization, however innovative or powerful, could accomplish this alone. Instead, their ambitious mission became to coordinate improvements at every stage of a young person’s life, from “cradle to career.” Strive didn’t try to create a new educational program or attempt to convince donors to spend more money. Instead, through a carefully structured process, Strive focused the en- tire educational community on a single set of goals, measured in the same way. Participating organizations are grouped into 15 different Student Success Networks (SSNs) by type of activity, such as early childhood education or tutoring. Each SSN has been meeting with coaches and facilitators for two hours every two weeks for the past three years, developing shared performance indicators, discussing their progress, and most important, learning from each other and aligning their efforts to support each other. Strive, both the organization and the process it helps fa- cilitate, is an example of collective impact, the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem. Collaboration is nothing new. The social sector is filled with examples of part- nerships, networks, and other types of joint efforts. But col- lective impact initiatives are distinctly different. Unlike most The scale and complexity of the U.S. public education system has thwarted attempted reforms for decades. Major funders, such as the Annenberg Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Pew Charitable Trusts have abandoned many of their efforts in frustration after ac- knowledging their lack of progress. Once the global leader—after World War II the United States had the highest high school gradu- ation rate in the world—the country now ranks 18th among the top 24 industrialized nations, with more than 1 million secondary school students dropping out every year. The heroic efforts of countless teachers, administrators, and nonprofits, together with billions of dollars in charitable contributions, may have led to important improvements in individual schools and classrooms, yet system-wide progress has seemed virtually unobtainable. Against these daunting odds, a remarkable exception seems to be emerging in Cincinnati. Strive, a nonprofit subsidiary of KnowledgeWorks, has brought together local leaders to tackle the student achievement crisis and improve education throughout greater Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. In the four years since the group was launched, Strive partners have improved student success in dozens of key areas across three large public school districts. Despite the recession and budget cuts, 34 of the 53 success indicators that Strive tracks have shown positive trends, including high school graduation rates, fourth-grade reading and math scores, and the number of preschool children prepared for kindergarten. Why has Strive made progress when so many other efforts have failed? It is because a core group of community leaders decided to abandon their individual agendas in favor of a col- lective approach to improving student achievement. More than Winter 2011 • Stanford Social innovation review 37 38 Stanford Social innovation review • Winter 2011 collaborations, collective impact initiatives involve a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communi- cation, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants. (See “Types of Collaborations” on page 39.) Although rare, other successful examples of collective impact are addressing social issues that, like education, require many different players to change their behavior in order to solve a complex problem. In 1993, Marjorie Mayfield Jackson helped found the Elizabeth River Project with a mission of cleaning up the Elizabeth River in southeast- ern Virginia, which for decades had been a dumping ground for indus- trial waste. They engaged more than 100 stakeholders, including the city governments of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach, Va., the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Navy, and dozens of local businesses, schools, community groups, environmental orga- nizations, and universities, in developing an 18-point plan to restore the watershed. Fifteen years later, more than 1,000 acres of watershed land have been conserved or restored, pollution has been reduced by more than 215 million pounds, concentrations of the most severe carcinogen have been cut sixfold, and water quality has significantly improved. Much remains to be done before the river is fully restored, but already 27 species of fish and oysters are thriving in the restored wetlands, and bald eagles have returned to nest on the shores. Or consider Shape up Somerville, a citywide effort to reduce and prevent childhood obesity in elementary school children in Somer- ville, Mass. Led by Christina Economos, an associate professor at Tufts University’s Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutri- tion Science and Policy, and funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, and United Way of Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley, the program engaged government officials, educators, businesses, nonprofits, and citizens in collectively defin- ing wellness and weight gain prevention practices. Schools agreed to offer healthier foods, teach nutrition, and promote physical activity. Local restaurants received a certification if they served low-fat, high nutritional food. The city organized a farmers’ market and provided healthy lifestyle incentives such as reduced-price gym memberships for city employees. Even sidewalks were modified and crosswalks repainted to encourage more children to walk to school. The result was a statistically significant decrease in body mass index among the community’s young children between 2002 and 2005. Even companies are beginning to explore collective impact to tackle social problems. Mars, a manufacturer of chocolate brands such as M&M’s, Snickers, and Dove, is working with NGOs, local governments, and even direct competitors to improve the lives of more than 500,000 impoverished cocoa farmers in Cote d’Ivoire, where Mars sources a large portion of its cocoa. Research suggests that better farming practices and improved plant stocks could triple the yield per hectare, dramatically increasing farmer incomes and improving the sustainability of Mars’s supply chain. To accomplish this, Mars must enlist the coordinated efforts of multiple organiza- tions: the Cote d’Ivoire government needs to provide more agricul- tural extension workers, the World Bank needs to finance new roads, and bilateral donors need to support NGOs in improving health care, nutrition, and education in cocoa growing communities. And Mars must find ways to work with its direct competitors on pre-competi- tive issues to reach farmers outside its supply chain. These varied examples all have a common theme: that large-scale social change comes from better cross-sector coordination rather than from the isolated intervention of individual organizations. Evi- dence of the effectiveness of this approach is still limited, but these examples suggest that substantially greater progress could be made in alleviating many of our most serious and complex social problems if nonprofits, governments, businesses, and the public were brought together around a common agenda to create collective impact. It doesn’t happen often, not because it is impossible, but because it is so rarely attempted. Funders and nonprofits alike overlook the potential for collective impact because they are used to focusing on independent action as the primary vehicle for social change. Isolated ImpactMost funders, faced with the task of choosing a few grant- ees from many applicants, try to ascertain which orga- nizations make the greatest contribution toward solv- ing a social problem. Grantees, in turn, compete to be chosen by emphasizing how their individual activities produce the greatest effect. Each organization is judged on its own potential to achieve impact, independent of the numerous other organizations that may also influence the issue. And when a grantee is asked to evaluate the impact of its work, every attempt is made to isolate that grantee’s individual influence from all other variables. In short, the nonprofit sector most frequently operates using an approach that we call isolated impact. It is an approach oriented toward finding and funding a solution embodied within a single organiza- tion, combined with the hope that the most effective organizations will grow or replicate to extend their impact more widely. Funders search for more effective interventions as if there were a cure for fail- ing schools that only needs to be discovered, in the way that medi- cal cures are discovered in laboratories. As a result of this process, nearly 1.4 million nonprofits try to invent independent solutions to major social problems, often working at odds with each other and exponentially increasing the perceived resources required to make meaningful progress. Recent trends have only reinforced this per- spective. The growing interest in venture philanthropy and social entrepreneurship, for example, has greatly benefited the social sector by identifying and accelerating the growth of many high-performing nonprofits, yet it has also accentuated an emphasis on scaling up a few select organizations as the key to social progress. Despite the dominance of this approach, there is scant evidence that isolated initiatives are the best way to solve many social problems in today’s complex and interdependent world. No single organiza- tion is responsible for any major social problem, nor can any single John Kania is a managing director at FSG, where he oversees the firm’s consulting practice. Before joining FSG, he was a consultant at Mercer Manage- ment Consulting and Corporate Decisions Inc. This is Kania’s third article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Mark Kramer is the co-founder and a managing director of FSG. He is also the co-founder and the initial board chair of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, and a senior fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. This is Kramer’s fifth article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2011 • Stanford Social innovation review 39 organization cure it. In the field of education, even the most highly respected nonprofits—such as the Harlem Children’s Zone, Teach for America, and the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP)—have taken decades to reach tens of thousands of children, a remarkable achieve- ment that deserves praise, but one that is three orders of magnitude short of the tens of millions of U.S. children that need help. The problem with relying on the isolated impact of individual organizations is further compounded by the isolation of the non- profit sector. Social problems arise from the interplay of govern- mental and commercial activities, not only from the behavior of social sector organizations. As a result, complex problems can be solved only by cross-sector coalitions that engage those outside the nonprofit sector. We don’t want to imply that all social problems require collec- tive impact. In fact, some problems are best solved by individual organizations. In “Leading Boldly,” an article we wrote with Ron Heifetz for the winter 2004 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review, we described the difference between technical problems and adaptive problems. Some social problems are technical in that the problem is well defined, the answer is known in advance, and one or a few organizations have the ability to implement the solution. Ex- amples include funding college scholarships, building a hospital, or installing inventory controls in a food bank. Adaptive problems, by contrast, are complex, the answer is not known, and even if it were, no single entity has the resources or authority to bring about the necessary change. Reforming public education, restoring wetland environments, and improving community health are all adaptive problems. In these cases, reaching an effective solution requires learning by the stakeholders involved in the problem, who must then change their own behavior in order to create a solution. Shifting from isolated impact to col- lective impact is not merely a matter of encouraging more collaboration or public- private partnerships. It requires a systemic approach to social impact that focuses on the relationships between organizations and the progress toward shared objectives. And it requires the creation of a new set of nonprofit management organizations that have the skills and resources to assemble and coordinate the specific elements neces- sary for collective action to succeed. the FIve condItIons oF collectIve successOur research shows that successful collective impact initiatives typi- cally have five conditions that to- gether produce true alignment and lead to powerful results: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforc- ing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organizations. Common Agenda | Collective impact requires all participants to have a shared vision for change, one that includes a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed upon ac- tions. Take a close look at any group of funders and nonprofits that believe they are working on the same social issue, and you quickly find that it is often not the same issue at all. Each organization often has a slightly different definition of the problem and the ultimate goal. These differences are easily ignored when organizations work independently on isolated initiatives, yet these differences splinter the efforts and undermine the impact of the field as a whole. Collec- tive impact requires that these differences be discussed and resolved. Every participant need not agree with every other participant on all dimensions of the problem. In fact, disagreements continue to divide participants in all of our examples of collective impact. All participants must agree, however, on the primary goals for the col- lective impact initiative as a whole. The Elizabeth River Project, for example, had to find common ground among the different objectives of corporations, governments, community groups, and local citizens in order to establish workable cross-sector initiatives. Funders can play an important role in getting organizations to act in concert. In the case of Strive, rather than fueling hundreds of strategies and nonprofits, many funders have aligned to support Strive’s central goals. The Greater Cincinnati Foundation realigned its education goals to be more compatible with Strive, adopting Strive’s annual report card as the foundation’s own measures for progress in education. Every time an organization applied to Duke Energy for a grant, Duke asked, “Are you part of the [Strive] network?” And when a new funder, the Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile Jr./U.S. Bank Foundation, expressed interest in education, they were encour- aged by virtually every major education leader in Cincinnati to join Strive if they wanted to have an impact in local education.1 types oF collaboratIons organizations have attempted to solve social problems by collaboration for decades without producing many results. the vast majority of these efforts lack the elements of success that enable collective impact initiatives to achieve a sustained alignment of efforts. Funder Collaboratives are groups of funders interested in supporting the same issue who pool their resources. generally, participants do not adopt an overarching evidence-based plan of action or a shared measurement system, nor do they engage in differentiated activities beyond check writing or engage stakeholders from other sectors. Public-Private Partnerships are partnerships formed between government and private sector organizations to deliver specific services or benefits. they are often targeted narrowly, such as developing a particular drug to fight a single disease, and usually don’t engage the full set of stakeholders that affect the issue, such as the potential drug’s distribution system. Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives are voluntary activities by stakeholders from different sec- tors around a common theme. typically, these initiatives lack any shared measurement of impact and the supporting infrastructure to forge any true alignment of efforts or accountability for results. Social Sector Networks are groups of individuals or organizations fluidly connected through purposeful relationships, whether formal or informal. collaboration is generally ad hoc, and most often the emphasis is placed on information sharing and targeted short- term actions, rather than a sustained and structured initiative. Collective Impact Initiatives are long-term commitments by a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem. their actions are supported by a shared measurement system, mutually reinforcing activities, and ongoing communication, and are staffed by an independent backbone organization. 40 Stanford Social innovation review • Winter 2011 Shared Measurement Systems | Developing a shared measure- ment system is essential to collective impact. Agreement on a com- mon agenda is illusory without agreement on the ways success will be measured and reported. Collecting data and measuring results consistently on a short list of indicators at the community level and across all participating organizations not only ensures that all efforts remain aligned, it also enables the participants to hold each other accountable and learn from each other’s successes and failures. It may seem impossible to evaluate hundreds of different or- ganizations on the same set of measures. Yet recent advances in Web-based technologies have enabled common systems for report- ing performance and measuring outcomes. These systems increase efficiency and reduce cost. They can also improve the quality and credibility of the data collected, increase effectiveness by enabling grantees to learn from each other’s performance, and document the progress of the field as a whole.2 All of the preschool programs in Strive, for example, have agreed to measure their results on the same criteria and use only evidence-based decision making. Each type of activity requires a different set of mea- sures, but all organizations engaged in the same type of activity report on the same measures. Looking at results across multiple organizations enables the participants to spot patterns, find solutions, and implement them rapidly. The preschool programs discovered that children regress during the summer break before kindergarten. By launching an innova- tive “summer bridge” session, a technique more often used in middle school, and implementing it simultaneously in all preschool programs, they increased the average kindergarten readiness scores throughout the region by an average of 10 percent in a single year.3 Mutually Reinforcing Activities | Collective impact initiatives depend on a diverse group of stakeholders working together, not by requiring that all participants do the same thing, but by encour- aging each participant to undertake the specific set of activities at which it excels in a way that supports and is coordinated with the actions of others. The power of collective action comes not from the sheer num- ber of participants or the uniformity of their efforts, but from the coordination of their differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action. Each stakeholder’s efforts must fit into an overarching plan if their combined efforts are to succeed. The multiple causes of social problems, and the components of their solutions, are interdependent. They cannot be addressed by unco- ordinated actions among isolated organizations. All participants in the Elizabeth River Project, for example, agreed on the 18-point watershed restoration plan, but each is playing a different role based on its particular capabilities. One group of or- ganizations works on creating grassroots support and engagement among citizens, a second provides peer review and recruitment for industrial participants who voluntarily reduce pollution, and a third coordinates and reviews scientific research. The 15 SSNs in Strive each undertake different types of activities at different stages of the educational continuum. Strive does not prescribe what practices each of the 300 participating organizations should pursue. Each organization and network is free to chart its own course consistent with the common agenda, and informed by the shared measurement of results. Continuous Communication | Developing trust among nonprof- its, corporations, and government agencies is a monumental chal- lenge. Participants need several years of regular meetings to build up enough experience with each other to recognize and appreciate the common motivation behind their different efforts. They need time to see that their own interests will be treated fairly, and that decisions will be made on the basis of objective evidence and the best possible solution to the problem, not to favor the priorities of one organization over another. Even the process of creating a common vocabulary takes time, and it is an essential prerequisite to developing shared measurement systems. All the collective impact initiatives we have studied held monthly or even biweekly in-person meetings among the organiza- tions’ CEO-level leaders. Skipping meetings or sending lower-level delegates was not acceptable. Most of the meetings were supported by external facilitators and followed a structured agenda. The Strive networks, for example, have been meeting regularly for more than three years. Communication happens between meetings too: Strive uses Web-based tools, such as Google Groups, to keep communication flowing among and within the networks. At first, many of the leaders showed up because they hoped that their par- ticipation would bring their organizations additional funding, but they soon learned that was not the meetings’ purpose. What they discovered instead were the rewards of learning and solving prob- lems together with others who shared their same deep knowledge and passion about the issue. Backbone Support Organizations | Creating and managing collective impact requires a separate organization and staff with a very specific set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative. Coordination takes time, and none of the participating organizations has any to spare. The expectation that collaboration can occur without a supporting infrastructure is one of the most frequent reasons why it fails. The backbone organization requires a dedicated staff separate from the participating organizations who can plan, manage, and support the initiative through ongoing facilitation, technology and communications support, data collection and reporting, and han- dling the myriad logistical and administrative details needed for the initiative to function smoothly. Strive has simplified the initial staffing requirements for a backbone organization to three roles: project manager, data manager, and facilitator. Collective impact also requires a highly structured process that leads to effective decision making. In the case of Strive, staff worked with General Electric (GE) to adapt for the social sector the Six Sigma process that GE uses for its own continuous quality improvement. The Strive Six Sigma process includes training, tools, and resources that each SSN uses to define its common agenda, shared measures, and plan of action, supported by Strive facilita- tors to guide the process. In the best of circumstances, these backbone organizations em- body the principles of adaptive leadership: the ability to focus people’s attention and create a sense of urgency, the skill to apply pressure to stakeholders without overwhelming them, the competence to frame issues in a way that presents opportunities as well as difficulties, and the strength to mediate conflict among stakeholders. Winter 2011 • Stanford Social innovation review 41 FundIng collectIve ImpactCreating a successful collective impact initiative requires a significant financial investment: the time participating organizations must dedicate to the work, the development and monitoring of shared measurement systems, and the staff of the backbone organization needed to lead and support the initia- tive’s ongoing work. As successful as Strive has been, it has struggled to raise money, confronting funders’ reluctance to pay for infrastructure and pref- erence for short-term solutions. Collective impact requires instead that funders support a long-term process of social change without identifying any particular solution in advance. They must be willing to let grantees steer the work and have the patience to stay with an initiative for years, recognizing that social change can come from the gradual improvement of an entire system over time, not just from a single breakthrough by an individual organization. This requires a fundamental change in how funders see their role, from funding organizations to leading a long-term process of social change. It is no longer enough to fund an innovative solution created by a single nonprofit or to build that organization’s capacity. Instead, funders must help create and sustain the collective processes, mea- surement reporting systems, and community leadership that enable cross-sector coalitions to arise and thrive. This is a shift that we foreshadowed in both “Leading Boldly” and our more recent article, “Catalytic Philanthropy,” in the fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review. In the former, we sug- gested that the most powerful role for funders to play in address- ing adaptive problems is to focus attention on the issue and help to create a process that mobilizes the organizations involved to find a solution themselves. In “Catalytic Philanthropy,” we wrote: “Mobi- lizing and coordinating stakeholders is far messier and slower work than funding a compelling grant request from a single organization. Systemic change, however, ultimately depends on a sustained cam- paign to increase the capacity and coordination of an entire field.” We recommended that funders who want to create large-scale change follow four practices: take responsibility for assembling the elements of a solution; create a movement for change; include solutions from outside the nonprofit sector; and use actionable knowledge to influ- ence behavior and improve performance. These same four principles are embodied in collective impact initiatives. The organizers of Strive abandoned the conventional ap- proach of funding specific programs at education nonprofits and took responsibility for advancing education reform themselves. They built a movement, engaging hundreds of organizations in a drive toward shared goals. They used tools outside the nonprofit sector, adapting GE’s Six Sigma planning process for the social sector. And through the community report card and the biweekly meetings of the SSNs they created actionable knowledge that motivated the community and improved performance among the participants. Funding collective impact initiatives costs money, but it can be a highly leveraged investment. A backbone organization with a modest annual budget can support a collective impact initiative of several hundred organizations, magnifying the impact of millions or even billions of dollars in existing funding. Strive, for example, has a $1.5 million annual budget but is coordinating the efforts and increasing the effectiveness of organizations with combined bud- gets of $7 billion. The social sector, however, has not yet changed its funding practices to enable the shift to collective impact. Until funders are willing to embrace this new approach and invest suffi- cient resources in the necessary facilitation, coordination, and mea- surement that enable organizations to work in concert, the requisite infrastructure will not evolve. Future shockWhat might social change look like if funders, nonprofits, government officials, civic leaders, and business ex- ecutives embraced collective impact? Recent events at Strive provide an exciting indication of what might be possible. Strive has begun to codify what it has learned so that other com- munities can achieve collective impact more rapidly. The organization is working with nine other communities to establish similar cradle to career initiatives.4 Importantly, although Strive is broadening its impact to a national level, the organization is not scaling up its own operations by opening branches in other cities. Instead, Strive is pro- mulgating a flexible process for change, offering each community a set of tools for collective impact, drawn from Strive’s experience but adaptable to the community’s own needs and resources. As a result, the new communities take true ownership of their own collective impact initiatives, but they don’t need to start the process from scratch. Activities such as developing a collective educational reform mission and vision or creating specific community-level educational indicators are expedited through the use of Strive materials and as- sistance from Strive staff. Processes that took Strive several years to develop are being adapted and modified by other communities in significantly less time. These nine communities plus Cincinnati have formed a commu- nity of practice in which representatives from each effort connect regularly to share what they are learning. Because of the number and diversity of the communities, Strive and its partners can quickly determine what processes are universal and which require adapta- tion to a local context. As learning accumulates, Strive staff will incorporate new findings into an Internet-based knowledge portal that will be available to any community wishing to create a collec- tive impact initiative based on Strive’s model. This exciting evolution of the Strive collective impact initiative is far removed from the isolated impact approach that now domi- nates the social sector and that inhibits any major effort at com- prehensive, large-scale change. If successful, it presages the spread of a new approach that will enable us to solve today’s most serious social problems with the resources we already have at our disposal. It would be a shock to the system. But it’s a form of shock therapy that’s badly needed. n Notes Interview with Kathy Merchant, CEO of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, April 10, 2010.1 See Mark Kramer, Marcie Parkhurst, and Lalitha Vaidyanathan, 2 Breakthroughs in Shared Measurement and Social Impact, FSG Social Impact Advisors, 2009. “Successful Starts,” United Way of Greater Cincinnati, second edition, fall 2009.3 Indianapolis, Houston, Richmond, Va., and Hayward, Calif., are the first four com-4 munities to implement Strive’s process for educational reform. Portland, Ore., Fresno, Calif., Mesa, Ariz., Albuquerque, and Memphis are just beginning their efforts. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5936) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: CDM Contract Amendment for El Camino Park Restoration Title: Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract Number C10131396 with CDM Smith in the Amount of $14,500 for a Total Compensation Not to Exceed $6,363,152 for the El Camino Park Reservoir Project, WS-08002 and the El Camino Park Restoration Project, PE-13016 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Contract Amendment No. 4 (Attachment A) to add $14,500 to Contract C10131396 with Camp Dresser McKee Smith (CDM Smith) for a total contract amount not to exceed $6,363,152, for the combined El Camino Park Emergency Water Reservoir and El Camino Park Restoration projects. Background The El Camino Park Emergency Water Reservoir Project was completed in January 2014, and construction of the El Camino Park Restoration Project began in January 2015. A description of the design process and features of the restored El Camino Park is available in (Staff Report #4578). The initial El Camino Park design contract included $397,000 for pre-design, design, construction administration and additional services for the restoration phase. Amendment No. 3 (ID# 4578) in the amount of $47,850 was negotiated to fund the additional design of the field lighting and environmental infill for the artificial turf; public outreach; and construction administration for the field lighting. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 2 CDM Smith exhausted the construction administration funds to analyze and address field changes and provide assistance during construction. Staff asked the consultant to perform additional tasks, beyond the original scope, and together negotiated the scope and terms of Amendment No. 4. Under the terms of the amendment, the consultant will perform the following tasks: Coordinate with inspectors, the construction manager and contractor to implement the project Attend six weekly field meetings Review submittals of upgraded artificial turf, pad and infill products The increased contract amount of $14,500 included in Amendment No. 4 will provide for the remaining services necessary to complete the project this fall as scheduled. Resource Impact Funds for this contract amendment are available in PE-13016, El Camino Park Restoration. Environmental Review The construction administration services to be provided are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: A - Amendment 4 (PDF) 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. C10131396 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CDM SMITH INC. This Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. C10131396 (“Contract”) is entered into on August 17, 2015 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CDM Smith Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, located at 100 Pringle Ave., Suite 300, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of consulting design services for the El Camino Park Restoration Project (“Project”). B. The parties wish to amend the Contract to increase the scope of services to include additional engineering and landscape architecture ESDC services associated with the construction of the Phase 2 design for El Camino Park Restoration Project and increase compensation by $14,500. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES is hereby amended to read as follows: CONSULTANT shall perform the services described in Exhibit “A” as revised in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY. SECTION 2. Section 4, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibits “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed six million three hundred sixty three thousand one hundred fifty two dollars ($6,363,152). The applicable rates and schedule of payments are set out in Exhibit “A” and “C”, as revised, which are attached to and made part of this Agreement. SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COMPENSATION”. b. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. DocuSign Envelope ID: 20D83516-59CA-4C98-BB32-2A62A4A3C148 2 Revision April 28, 2014 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney CDM SMITH, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COMPENSATION EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 20D83516-59CA-4C98-BB32-2A62A4A3C148 Cient Service Leader Arvind Akela EXHIBIT A CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. 10131396 Page 1 Scope of Services for the El Camino Park Restoration Project City of Palo Alto CDM Smith Amendment No. 4 This revised scope of services amends Exhibit “A” entitled ‘SCOPE OF SERVICES” in Contract No. C10131396 dated September 10, 2012. The following addition to the scope of services is necessary to address changes to the project since construction began on the project in February 2015. BACKGROUND The CDM Smith/Siegfried design team has met its current contract requirement for providing Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) to the City and its Construction Manager for the El Camino Park Restoration Project (a.k.a Phase 2 Project). These efforts have exhausted the team’s currently approved ESDC task budget and also brought the team to the approved upper limit of the Phase 2 contract. The purpose of this amendment is to provide additional engineering and landscape architecture ESDC services associated with the construction of the Phase 2 design for the El Camino Park Restoration Project. The additional service will include the following work: • Select Field Visits to Verify Proper Installation. • Attend six (6) weekly field meetings • Submittal Review of the Turf, Pad, and Infill Components. 4.1 Engineering Services During Construction – Additional Meetings and Field Visits Approach: CONSULTANT shall participate in additional project meetings and make additional field visits to the El Camino Park Restoration Project in order to verify proper installation of the synthetic field components. • CONSULTANT shall provide one field visit for each of the following construction activities: a. Rock and fabric installation, b. Testing of rock for compaction and infiltration, c. Synthetic Turf installation, d. Infill installation, e. Testing of irrigation coverage, f. Completion of plant installation. DocuSign Envelope ID: 20D83516-59CA-4C98-BB32-2A62A4A3C148 City of Palo Alto Contract No. C10131396 Page 2 Each field visit is assumed to be no longer than 4 hours in length. The date of the field visits shall be as identified and coordinated by the City’s Construction Manager. CONSULTANT shall be given at least 5 working days notification prior to the requested date of the field visit. • CONSULTANT shall attend six (6) weekly field meetings to complete intermittent technical review, specialty inspection, understand the progress of the construction, view architectural finishes, and to coordinate work with the Construction Manager. • CONSULTANT shall provide four (4) staff for a punch list walk through. The date of the punch list walk through shall be as coordinated and approved by the City’s Project Manager. CONSULTANT shall be given at least 5 working days notification prior to the requested date of the punch list walk through. Deliverables: One copy of the CONSULTANT’s finalized punch list shall be emailed in pdf format to the City’s Project Manager and Construction Manager. 4.2 Engineering Services During Construction – Additional Submittal Review Approach: The purpose of this subtask is to provide the review of shop drawings, product data, and samples submitted by the Contractor to the City. • CONSULTANT shall review submittals related to the turf, pad, and infill elements during construction. • CONSULTANT shall provide up to a total of 2 submittal reviews in association with the aforementioned elements during construction. • CONSULTANT shall write a summary memorandum of comments rather than annotate all copies of the submittal wherever possible. • CONSULTANT shall not be required to track submittal review labor hours or costs for individual submittals. • The Construction Manager shall review schedule, progress payment, and contractual issue submittals from the general contractor. The general contractor shall not be allowed to submit multiple submittals for the same basic topic that unnecessarily increase the number of submittals. • Responses shall be emailed to the Construction Manager. Deliverables: One copy of review comments shall be provided for each submittal. These shall be emailed to the Construction Manager. DocuSign Envelope ID: 20D83516-59CA-4C98-BB32-2A62A4A3C148 City of Palo Alto Contract No. C10131396 Page 3 COMPENSATION Compensation for the additional services shall be on a time and materials basis according to CONSULTANT’s Billing Rate Schedule (Exhibit C) attached to Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement. The total cost for the services described herein is summarized below and includes all related travel costs, reimbursables, and contract management fees. Tasks Quantity Amount 4-Hr Field Visits 10 person visits $8,200 Attend six weekly field meetings 6 person visits $5,000 Submittal Reviews 2 reviews $1,300 Total: $14,500 DocuSign Envelope ID: 20D83516-59CA-4C98-BB32-2A62A4A3C148 ATTACHMENT C COMPENSATION The City agrees to compensate the Consultant for progress in the performance of professional services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement as modified by this Amendment No. 4. For subconsultant, electronic document services, and photographic documentation services, the City agrees to make payment to the Consultant for services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement as modified by this Amendment, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Payment shall be calculated based on the actual cost of the subconsultant, plus a fee of 10%, up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The amounts to be paid to Consultant under the Contract and all Change Orders and Amendments thereto, including but not limited to this Amendment, for all services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed six million three hundred sixty three thousand one hundred fifty two dollars ($6,363,152). The total cost for the services for Amendment No. 4 is summarized below. Amendment No. 4 Costs Breakdown Tasks Amount 4-Hr Field Visits (10 person visits) $8,200 Attend six weekly field meetings (6 person visits) $5,000 Submittal reviews (2) $1,300 TOTAL $14,500 Revised Total Contract Amount Tasks Amount Original Contract Total w/ Contingency (CMR:424:09) $3,828,680 Amendment One (Staff Report ID #2979) $1,299,122 Amendment Two (Staff Report ID #3815) $1,173,000 Amendment Three (Staff Report ID #4578) $47,850 Amendment Four (Staff Report ID #5936) $14,500 TOTAL $6,363,152 DocuSign Envelope ID: 20D83516-59CA-4C98-BB32-2A62A4A3C148 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5945) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: CLG Grant 2015-2016 Title: Acceptance of a $37,000 Grant From the California Office of Historic Preservation for Completion of the Professorville Design Guidelines and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize acceptance of a $37,000 grant from the State Office of Historic Preservation towards the completion of the Professorville Design Guidelines (Attachment D) and adopt a related Budget Amendment Ordinance to recognize the $37,000 in grant revenue and appropriate a commensurate amount in the Planning and Community Environment Department General Fund budget (Attachment C). Executive Summary The Planning and Community Environment Department has been awarded a $37,000 grant from the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The grant was awarded for the purpose of completing the Professorville Design Guidelines. Background The City of Palo Alto is designated by OHP as a Certified Local Government (CLG). The CLG program encourages the direct participation of local governments in historic preservation activities and promotes integration of preservation in local planning and decision-making. Annually through a competitive process, OHP awards federal grants to CLGs to carry out projects that further local preservation interests and that are consistent with the Statewide Historic Preservation Plan. On April 20, 2015 the City of Palo Alto applied to OHP for a 2015-2016 CLG Grant of $37,000 to assist in completion of the long-running project to prepare Professorville Design Guidelines. On June 22, 2015 OHP notified the City that the grant request was awarded in full (see Attachment A). The City is one of five local governments selected by OHP to receive grants totaling $167,000 in 2015-2016. This year OHP received eight grant applications requesting $248,000. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion In 2011, the City Council directed the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staff to work with the community to develop Professorville design guidelines including compatibility criteria for remodels, additions and new construction. Between 2011 and 2013, an advisory committee composed of HRB members, Professorville property owners, and City staff prepared draft materials and presented information at public workshops and HRB meetings. However, development of the final guidelines has stalled due in part to staff attrition and competing work priorities. The HRB advisory committee members and City staff recommend that the services of an expert consultant are needed in order to produce comprehensive architectural design guidelines with high quality graphics and text. The less expensive alternative, which is to rely on volunteers and City staff, has not resulted in a final work product that meets the needs of the community. Under the current proposal, the City’s consultant would develop the final work product, which would be a bound volume of design guidelines, in the form of nontechnical drawings, images, and text written in straightforward language. The guidelines would provide illustrated examples of “dos” and “don’ts” tailored to the specific building types, construction materials, architectural styles, and site characteristics of the district. The guidelines would be used by the HRB and staff as reference tools during the application reviews that occur under existing regulations, as well as by property owners on a voluntary basis. The guidelines would not propose new application review procedures or changes to existing review procedures. As described in the CLG grant application (see Attachment B), the project calls for consultation early and often with Professorville property owners and the general public. In addition to holding regular meetings of the advisory committee, whose members include Professorville property owners, the project includes posting of the draft work products on the City’s website, a 60-day public review and comment period, several community workshops, and an informational presentation to the HRB prior to an adoption hearing. The HRB hearing to recommend adoption is anticipated for June of 2016, to be followed by a Council adoption hearing at the earliest available date. Work to be funded must be performed within the grant period, October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. The consultant may be selected before the start of the grant period. According to the CLG program requirements, the consultant must be selected through a competitive Request for Proposal (RPF) process. The RFP is subject to OHP review and approval prior to distribution, and the final consultant selection is also subject to OHP approval. Staff anticipates distributing the RFP in August, interviewing consultants in September, and completing the consultant selection by October 1, 2015, in order to begin work at the start of the grant period. It is estimated that completion of the project will require $50,000 in contracted services, including $37,000 in CLG grant funds (reimbursable) and $13,000 in City funds. The City may request reimbursement from OHP at the time of billings. OHP may withhold up to 50% of the City of Palo Alto Page 3 reimbursement, pending receipt and approval of the finished project deliverables. Failure on the part of the City to begin the project in a timely manner or to perform as agreed may result in OHP taking action through a Notice of Default to the City and rescinding the grant. Resource Impact The CLG grant has a matching requirement of 60% Federal/40% Non-Federal. The Non-Federal match may include cash and/or in-kind services. The total project budget amount is estimated at $62,825, including $50,000 in contract costs and $12,825 in in-kind services. In order to match the Federal grant amount of $37,000, the project budget proposes a total City match of $25,825. The City match includes $13,000 in cash and $12,825 in in-kind services including staff and volunteer time, facilities, postage, materials, etc. The $50,000 contract cost will span two fiscal years. With the adoption of the Budget Amendment Ordinance, the Planning and Community Environment department will absorb the balance of costs incurred within the Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Operating Budget. Environmental Review The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Class 8), which consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Attachments: Attachment A: OHP Announcement of Grant Award to the City of Palo Alto (PDF) Attachment B: Palo Alto CLG Grant Application 2015-2016 (PDF) Attachment C: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment D: Project Agreement (PDF) STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053 calshpo@parks.ca.gov www.ohp.parks.ca.gov June 22, 2015 Matthew Weintraub Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Via email Dear Matt: It is my pleasure to inform you that the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has selected the City of Palo Alto to receive a 2015-2016 Certified Local Government Grant in the amount of $37,000 to prepare architectural design guidelines for the Professorville Historic District. A minimum of ten percent of California’s yearly allocation of federal funds received through the Historic Preservation Fund Grants Program must be sub granted to certified local governments; this year’s allocation was approximately $1,494,240. As you know, OHP awards HPF monies to CLGs in a competitive process. This year OHP received 8 grant applications requesting $248,000 and has selected five local governments to receive grants totaling $167,000. On or about August 1, 2015, you will receive a project agreement (contract) from OHP for your review and signature stipulating the project scope, budget, due dates for progress reports, and the final products to be delivered. Please be aware that all expenses for work to be performed must be incurred within the grant period of October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. We look forward to working with you to accomplish the goals of this worthwhile project. Should you have any questions, please contact Lucinda Woodward in the Local Government and Environmental Compliance Unit, at (916) 445-7028 or by email at lucinda.woodward@parks.ca.gov, or John Thomas, in the Fiscal and Grants Unit, at 916-445-7024 or by email at john.thomas@parks.ca.gov. Sincerely, Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D. State Historic Preservation Officer Attachment A Attachment B 1 Revised July 23, 2015 5945/mb Attachment C Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 TO INCREASE REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR GRANTS IN THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT BY $37,000 WITH A CORRESPONDING INCREASE TO THE EXPENDITURE ALLOCATION FOR THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF $37,000 IN THE GENERAL FUND. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2015 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2016; and B. The City of Palo Alto received official notice from the State Office of Historic Preservation that the City would be awarded a Certified Local Government (CLG) grant in the amount of $37,000 for Fiscal Year 2016; and C. The CLG program encourages the direct participation of local governments in historic preservation activities and promotes integration of preservation in local planning and decision-making; and D. The grant funds will be used for the purpose of completing the Professorville Design Guidelines to provide illustrated examples tailored to specific building types, construction materials, architectural styles, and site characteristics of the Professorville district; and E. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2016 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The revenue estimate for grants in the Planning and Community Environment Department in the General Fund is hereby increased in the amount of Thirty- Seven Thousand ($37,000). SECTION 3. The expenditure budget for the Planning and Community Environment Department in the General Fund is hereby increased by Thirty-Seven Thousand ($37,000). SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two- thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. 2 Revised July 23, 2015 5945/mb SECTION 6. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 2015 CALIFORNIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND CITY OF PALO ALTO OCTOBER 1, 2015- SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 P15AF00029 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Continued on Page--1a-- Attached 36 Total costs supported by Federal grant funds under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966: 37 Thirty-seven Thousand Dollars ($37,000.00). 38 Minimum contributions of the Participant to match Federal grant funds under the National Historic Preservation 39 Act of 1966: Twenty-four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-eight Dollars. ($24,668.00). STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY OF PALO ALTO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DPR 831 (8/89)(Excel 8/23/1999) State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HISTORICAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION PROJECT AGREEMENT NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 SUBGRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPANT PROJECT PERIOD PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT SCOPE PROJECT FUNDING AGENCY BY TITLE DATE PARTICIPANT BY TITLE DATE The City of Palo Alto (Participant) will contract with a consultant to prepare architectural design guidelines for the Professorville Historic District, a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Participant shall ensure that principal project personnel meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications for Historic Architect or Architectural Historian, as set forth at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A. All work under this contract shall be performed and deliverables produced consistent with the National Park Service’s guidance, Creating + Using Design Guidelines (http://www.nps.gov/tps/education/workingonthepast/roletheyplay.htm.) PROGRESS REPORTS: Participant shall submit to the OHP regular progress reports with specified deliverables in accordance with the following schedule. Electronic submissions are preferred. A work plan will be developed in consultation among the Participant, the OHP coordinator, the selected consultant, and the CLG grant manager at the beginning of the grant period. Progress reports will include any deliverables specified in the work plan, detail the work accomplished to date, and identify any problems or issues which have the potential to adversely affect the scope or progress of the project. OHP may ask for additional progress reports or drafts of work papers during the project period. OHP reserves the right to withhold reimbursement of up to half the grant amount until the final product has been determined to be consistent with Creating + Using Design Guidelines and the agreed upon work plan and deliverables. Participant may submit billings for partial payments as the work progresses. http://www.nps.gov/tps/education/workingonthepast/roletheyplay.htm. 30 November 2015: On or before this date, Participant shall submit a progress report which will provide evidence that a contract between the Participant and a selected consultant has been executed and work has begun on the project, including a draft outline of the proposed guidelines. Attachment D 15 January 2016: On or before this date, Participant shall submit the first draft (non-public) of the proposed guidelines. 15 March 2016: On or before this date, Participant shall submit a second draft (for public review). 15 June 2016: On or before this date, Participant shall submit final draft along with any actions taken by the Historic Resources Board. 30 September 2016: On or before this date, Participant shall submit the final design guidelines. 10 October 2016: On or before this date, Participant shall submit the final Request for Reimbursement (DPR 417) with all claims for project costs dated prior to the end of the project period (30 September 2016), FINAL PRODUCTS shall include: Architectural Design Guidelines for the Professorville Historic District Hard copies (3) Electronic submittal A Final Project Performance Report which compares actual accomplishments to planned objective, discusses community response, explains how the information developed will be incorporated into local planning and preservation activities, and describes future needs or activities to derive continued benefit from the project. The attached General Contract Terms (12 pages) and Contract Terms for Preservation Planning, Identification, and Evaluation (4 pages) are incorporated and made a part hereof. Additionally, the budget as submitted in the grant application with revisions, if approved by OHP, is incorporated and made a part hereof. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5939) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: High Winds Renewable Resource Percentage Protection Amendment Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or his Designee to Execute the Off-Taker Generation Percentage Protection Amendment to the City's Power Purchase Agreement with Iberdrola Renewables, LLC From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve the Off-Taker Generation Percentage Protection Amendment (Amendment) (Attachment A) to the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Iberdrola Renewables, LLC (Iberdrola) concerning the High Winds Wind Energy Center (Project); and 2. Delegate to the City Manager, or his designee, the authority to execute on behalf of the City the Amendment, and any other documents necessary to administer the PPA that are consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and City Council approved policies. Executive Summary In November 2004, Council approved the PPA with Iberdrola (formerly known as PPM Energy, Inc.) to obtain a portion of the electric output of a 162 megawatt (MW) wind energy generating facility in Solano County over a 23 year and 7 month term. The Project began delivering energy to Palo Alto in December 2004. Under the PPA, the amount of renewable energy that is delivered to Palo Alto is equal to 12.35% of the Project’s total metered output, which represents 20 MW. Three other entities have rights under long-term PPAs to receive the remaining 87.65% of the Project’s output. In 2014, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) introduced a new market construct which makes curtailing the Project on a discretionary basis possible. One of the other City of Palo Alto Page 2 Project off-takers1 currently has the contractual ability to economically dispatch2 some, or all, of its share of the Project’s output. It is possible that the other Project off-takers may have the same ability in the future. An off-taker might choose to curtail in situations where price for that power falls below a certain threshold. If and when one of the other Project off-takers curtails some, or all, of its share of the Project, the total output of the Project is reduced. Under the current PPA language, since Palo Alto’s share is based on a percentage of the Project’s total output, curtailment by another Project off- taker reduces the amount of energy that Palo Alto actually receives. The proposed Amendment is intended to keep Palo Alto’s share of metered output whole by providing that if another off- taker economically dispatches, Palo Alto’s share of output is calculated as if there had been no such curtailment in order to maintain Palo Alto’s 12.35% share. The proposed Amendment thereby protects the amount of energy delivered to Palo Alto and ensures it is not affected by the decision of another Project off-taker to curtail its portion of the Project’s output. Staff therefore recommends that the Council approve the Amendment to the PPA, which is necessary to protect the City’s share of the Project output if curtailment by another off-taker occurs, and will result in no resource impact on the City. Background In October 2002 the Council approved the City’s first Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), setting goals of meeting 10% of the City’s load through renewable energy purchases by 2008, and 20% by 2015. (The RPS target has since been increased to providing at least 33% of the City’s retail sales volumes from renewable energy by 2015.) In its efforts to achieve those targets, the City executed the High Winds Energy Center PPA—its first ever renewable energy PPA—in November 2004 (CMR 424:04, Resolution 8472). The High Winds Project is a 162 MW facility located in Solano County, and the City’s contracted share of the Project is 20 MW, which equals 12.35% of the total resource. The City began receiving energy deliveries from the High Winds Project on December 1, 2004, and the contract term is set to run through June 2028. On average, the Project provides enough energy to the City to meet about 5% of its total annual load. Discussion In May 2014, the CAISO launched a new Fifteen Minute Market (FMM) for bidding and scheduling generation resources in order to comply with the Federal Energy Regulatory 1 An off-take agreement is an agreement between the owner of a resource and a buyer of a resource to sell/purchase portions of the resource’s future production. In this case, the City is one of the project participants, or “off-takers,” that buys the energy generated from the wind project. 2 Economic dispatch is the determination of the optimal output of an electricity generation facility, to meet the system load, at the lowest possible cost, subject to transmission and operational constraints. In the present situation, economic dispatch refers to the determination of one of the Project’s off-takers to reduce (or curtail) its share of the Project’s output (i.e., issue a “dispatch down” order) in the event that the value of the Project’s output becomes very low, or negative. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Commission’s (FERC) Order 764. The purpose of this intra-hour scheduling market was to facilitate the integration of intermittent resources such as wind and solar into the operation of the electric grid system. Prior to this point, CAISO had operated on an hourly scheduling market system, which was a distinct disadvantage to intermittent resources, whose actual generation patterns frequently varied significantly from the amount of generation that was forecasted an hour earlier. Proposed PPA Amendment Under the FMM, CAISO is now planning to implement economic dispatch capability for resources with multiple off-takers, such as the High Winds Project, which has four off-takers. Typically these four off-takers each simply receive their pro rata share of whatever energy the project generates in a given time interval. However, with the new CAISO economic dispatch capability, one of the Project off-takers has the ability to direct Iberdrola to shut down all or a portion of its share of the Project. (It might do so in a situation where the Project’s locationally determined price for a certain period becomes negative—meaning that the off-taker would essentially be paying the CAISO to take the energy that its share of the Project was generating, rather than being compensated by the CAISO for that output.) At this time, only one Project off- taker has the ability to economically dispatch the resource; the City does not currently have this capability. Because the PPA currently defines the share of the Project’s energy generation that the City is entitled to as a percentage of total Project output (12.35%), if another off-taker reduces the Project’s output by curtailing its portion, the City would receive less than its intended share of the output. For example, if one off-taker has rights to a 50 MW share of the 162 MW Project and chooses to curtail all of that capacity, the Project would effectively become a 112 MW resource. Under the current PPA language, the City would receive 12.35% of that amount, or 13.83 MW, rather than the full 20 MW share that Palo Alto was to receive under the PPA but for the curtailment. In order to address this situation, the City and Iberdrola desire to modify the PPA only with respect to this one issue. The proposed language modifies the definition of the term “Metered Output” such that if another off-taker economically dispatches its share of the Project for any period of time, the City’s “Metered Output” is calculated by Iberdrola as though there had been no such curtailment instruction, in order to maintain Palo Alto’s intended 12.35% share (20 MW) of the Project output. The proposed Amendment thereby protects the amount of generation to which Palo Alto is entitled under the PPA. Resource Impact Approving the recommendation is not expected to result in any resource impact to the City. Declining to approve the recommendation could result in the City receiving less renewable energy from the Project, resulting in additional replacement energy having to be procured from the market in order for the City to satisfy its load and RPS requirements. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy Implications Approval of the Consent and the proposed Amendment is in conformance with the City’s Long- term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), specifically the City’s RPS target of meeting at least 33% of the electric sales from renewable energy (Staff Report 2710). Approval of the proposed Amendment would also further the City’s efforts to achieve a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio entirely through the acquisition of additional “hard resources” that supply the City with both energy and environmental attributes (Staff Report 3550). Environmental Review Approval of the Consent and the Amendment does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. Attachments: Attachment A: High Winds Off-taker Generation Percentage Protection Amendment (PDF) ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto (ID # 5935) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution for Receipt of ABC Grant Funds Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a Contract on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto and to Receive Grant Funds from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, for Proactive Enforcement Activities to Limit Violations of Alcohol-Related Incidents in Fiscal Year 2016; and Approval of a General Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of the Grant Fund ($41,053) From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a grant of funds for Fiscal Year 2016 in the amount of $41,053 from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for increased education and enforcement efforts; and 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to increase revenue in the amount of $41,053 in the General Fund and allocate that funding to Overtime for the Police Department to increase education and enforcement efforts in the area of Alcohol related incidents. Discussion The state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has awarded a grant to the Police Department to fund increased education and enforcement efforts for the coming year. The monies will be directed to fund additional overtime shifts for officers to increase enforcement of laws pertaining to alcohol, specifically by targeting sales to minors, impaired driving, over- service/overconsumption of alcohol, alcohol-related nuisances and violence in the Downtown Entertainment District. In addition, 80 hours of Department staff time will be dedicated to outreach and education at City bars/restaurants, middle and high schools, and through press releases. City of Palo Alto Page 2 In accordance with the terms of the grant agreement, the Police Department will submit monthly reports to the ABC detailing project accomplishments. Resource Impact The increased education and enforcement efforts will be accomplished using police overtime. The grant funds will offset those overtime expenses, in addition to some required travel and training expenses associated with the grant. Revenue and expenditures of $41,053 are recommended to be appropriated in the General Fund as outlined in the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance. Policy Implications The recommendation in this report does not represent a change in City policies. Environmental Review The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A - RESO ABC Funding (PDF) ATTACHMENT B- Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control Agreement (PDF) ATTACHMENT C - ABC GRANT BAO (PDF) *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 150713 sh 0170012 Resolution No. ____________ Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Adoption of the Attached Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept a Grant of Funds for Fiscal Year 2016 in the Amount of $41,053 from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for Increased Education and Enforcement Efforts. R E C I T A L S A. The California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has awarded a grant to the Palo Alto Police Department to fund increased education and enforcement efforts pertaining to alcoholic beverage control for FY2016. B. The monies will be directed to fund additional overtime shifts for officers to specifically target the over-service/overconsumption of alcohol, alcohol-related nuisances and violence in the Downtown Entertainment District, sales to minors, and impaired driving. C. An additional 80 hours of Department staff time will be dedicated to outreach and education at our bars/restaurants, Middle and High schools, and through press releases. D. In accordance with the terms of the grant agreement, the Police Department will submit monthly reports to the ABC detailing project accomplishments. E. This City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City for the City to be a recipient of the designated grant funds for FY 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City hereby elects to be a recipient of the designated grant funds and hereby authorizes the ABC to release the designated grant funds to the City. SECTION 2. The Chief of Police of the City or his designee are each, acting individually, hereby authorized and directed to take, for and on behalf of the City, all such actions by the City as shall be necessary to enable receipt of the grant funds from the state. SECTION 3. All actions heretofore taken by any officers, employees, or agents of the City with respect to receipt of designated grant funds are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified; and any such other officers, employees, or agents of the City as may be authorized by City Manager and/or Chief of Police are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name of and on behalf of the City, to do any and all things and take any and all actions, which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or desirable to carry out, give effect to, and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution. *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 150713 sh 0170012 SECTION 4. The adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a “project” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus no environmental review under CEQA is required. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: _______________________________ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Police Chief 1 Revised July 9, 2015 5935 ph Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 TO INCREASE REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR INCREASED EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF OVER- SERVICE/OVERCONSUMPSION OF ALCOHOL FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) IN THE GENERAL FUND BY $41,053 WITH A CORRESPONDING INCREASE TO THE OVERTIME EXPENDITURE ALLOCATION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF $41,053 IN THE GENERAL FUND. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2015 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2016; and B. The City of Palo Alto received official notice from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) in June 2015 that the City would be awarded an ABC Grant in the amount of $41,053 for Fiscal Year 2016; and C. ABC grant funding will be directed to fund additional overtime shifts for officers to specifically target the over-service/overconsumption of alcohol, alcohol-related nuisances and violence in the Downtown Entertainment District, sales to minors, and impaired driving; and D. An additional 80 hours of Department staff time will be dedicated to outreach and education at City bars/restaurants, middle and high schools, and through press releases; and E. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2016 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The revenue estimate from the State of California in the amount of Forty- One Thousand Fifty-Three ($41,053) is hereby increased in the General Fund. SECTION 3. The Overtime Allocation for the Police Department in the General Fund is hereby increased by Forty-One Thousand Fifty-Three ($41,053). SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two- thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. 2 Revised July 9, 2015 5935 ph SECTION 6. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Police Chief City of Palo Alto (ID # 5961) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fuel Switching / aka Electrification Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Approve Work Plan to Evaluate and Implement Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies by Reducing Natural Gas and Gasoline use Through Electrification From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) request that the Council approve the proposed work plan to facilitate electrification in Palo Alto. Executive Summary In December 2014, Council approved a Colleagues Memo directing staff to develop an initial report on the resources and timeframe required to evaluate prospective fuel-switching1 programs and incentives for the community to reduce the use of natural gas and gasoline and to electrify buildings and vehicles. This report recommends a work plan with ten tasks to facilitate electrification in Palo Alto over the next five years. An estimate of resource needs and time lines for each of the tasks is also provided. Given the current state of technology, upcoming state regulations, and resource constraints, the report also recommends tasks that can be deferred until a more opportune time. The UAC considered the work plan at its July 1, 2015 meeting and unanimously recommended that Council approve the work plan. Staff will communicate progress on the work plan to the Council as each task yields results or when further Council direction is required. Staff will also provide a summary report on the progress of each of the work plan tasks as part of the annual Earth Day Report. This work plan 1 The term fuel-switching is a general term that refers to changing the fuel for a given application or end use from one source to another. This report focuses exclusively on electrification, which is a type of fuel-switching referring to switching from any other fuel (here, fossil fuels) to electricity, which in Palo Alto is carbon-neutral. City of Palo Alto Page 2 does not cover energy efficiency, renewable natural gas, or local solar development, as these activities already have robust programs and plans approved by Council2 and are not directly related to the topic of electrification. Background On December 15, 2014, Council approved a City Council Colleagues Memo (Colleagues Memo) that directed staff to develop an initial report on the resources and timeframes required to evaluate four “fuel-switching”, or electrification, topics: 1) prospective programs and incentives that would result in the use of electrical devices to replace those using natural gas; 2) possible building code changes to require, where feasible, the use of electrical appliances in the construction and renovation of residential and commercial buildings; 3) possible changes to utility rate structures that would not penalize fuel-switching; and 4) evaluation of additional strategies to support the addition of electric vehicles. On February 2, 2015, Council approved a two-phase work plan to prepare a report responsive to the Colleagues Memo (Staff Report 5463). The first phase of the work plan is to determine the scope of the analysis and identify any staff and/or consulting resources required to complete it. The second phase involves detailed analysis of the measures identified in the first phase and the development of an implementation plan. This staff report is the deliverable for the first phase of the work plan; the second phase would be subject to Council approval of this work plan. The report draws from staff analysis on the current cost-effectiveness of various electrification options for Palo Alto Utilities customers. The report also outlines the State’s analysis of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction measures through 2030 in order to provide context to Palo Alto’s own focus and work plan in the next five years. The report includes a list of recommended projects for the next five years for Council consideration as well as deferred projects, and the rationale for such prioritization. Discussion Existing Natural Gas and Gasoline Use Profile and Related GHG Emissions in Palo Alto Vehicle fuel and natural gas usage account for more than 80% of Palo Alto’s direct fossil fuel use and associated GHG emissions. Surface transportation related GHG emissions for Palo Alto are estimated to be 335,000 metric tons of CO2e per year (MT/year), while natural gas use accounts for 160,000 metric tons of GHG emissions per year. 2 Energy efficiency goals and performance (12/17/2012, Staff Report 3358); energy efficiency performance (5/18/2015 staff report 5708); Local solar plan and goals (4/21/2014, Staff Report 4608 and Resolution 9402); and PaloAltoGreen Gas program approval and alternatives analyzed (3/4/2014, Staff Report 4343). City of Palo Alto Page 3 Figure 1: Natural Gas End-Use in the Residential(R) & Commercial (C) Sectors3 Figure 1 illustrates the estimated distribution of natural gas end-use in Palo Alto. Programs to reduce natural gas use will need to target each of these end-uses. Space heating and water heating are the two dominant natural gas end-uses, followed by cooking in the commercial sector. Analysis of GHG emissions reduction paths and targets by 2030 for California With the state of California on track to meet the GHG emissions goal of reducing to 1990 levels4 by 2020, the Governor set a 2030 GHG emission reduction goal of 40% below 1990 levels5. The intent of the 2030 goal is to help guide policy and program development efforts that will enable the achievement of the state’s 2050 GHG emissions reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels. 3 Based on state-wide estimates, adjusted to account for Palo Alto’s space heating profile. 4 This is equivalent to approximately 15% reduction from the peak statewide GHG emissions seen in year 2005. 5 It is worth noting that Palo Alto’s 2014 GHG emissions have already been reduced by approximately 37% below 1990 levels. These reductions only account for natural gas/electricity use, fossil fuel used for surface transportation, and City operation; it does not account for other consumption related emissions. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The California State Agencies’ PATHWAYS Project6 explored the feasibility and cost of a range of GHG emission reduction scenarios and potential technology options in the future. The study findings confirm that deep GHG emissions reductions will require significant progress in multiple areas, such as achieving higher building efficiency, facilitating the rapid adoption of zero emissions vehicles, increasing renewable electric supply, and encouraging fuel-switching of water heating and space heating applications to low carbon fuels such as renewable electricity. These findings are in line with the intent of the Colleagues Memo to explore ways to promote electrification in Palo Alto, leveraging the City’s carbon-neutral electric supply. Palo Alto’s Progress To-date to Facilitate Electrification In addition to establishing a carbon-neutral electric supply portfolio, the City has undertaken several measures and analyses in recent years in support of electrification, including: Implemented a time-of-use (TOU) electric rate pilot program to provide discounted electric rates for night time charging of electric vehicles (EVs) at homes (2012, in progress, plan to expand in 2016) Installed EV chargers in parking garages and libraries; encouraging new development to install public chargers7 (since 2010, on-going) Adopted a policy preference for an EV City Fleet, except where not feasible (2015) Modified the building code requiring new construction to be pre-wired for EV charging equipment (EVSE) installation and to accommodate installation of PV systems (2014) Served as an information source for residents interested in purchasing EVs (since 2009)8 Streamlined the approval of permits for EV chargers9 (2012) Completed analysis that found compact electric vehicles and heat pump water heaters (HPWH) are currently the most cost-effective electrification measures in Palo Alto homes10 (2013, updated in 2015) Most recently, staff updated the analysis to estimate the cost and benefit of electrification of a new single family home in Palo Alto. Figure 2 summarizes the monthly net costs incurred by a home for each electrification measure. 6 The PATHWAYS Project: Long-term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scenarios is a study conducted by Energy + Environmental Economics (E3), sponsored by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO). Study results from April 2015 can be found at this web link: https://ethree.com/public_projects/energy_principals_study.php. 7 For example, the new development at 101 Lytton Avenue 8 For example the Cost Estimation Calculator for EV charging http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/sustainablehome/electric_vehicles/ev_calculator.asp 9 Requests for EV chargers that have a charging capacity of less than 10kW are granted permits over the counter 10 See Staff Report 5971 in the August 17, 2015 Council Packet (previously presented as staff report to the UAC July 1, 2015: Results of the Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Electrification Options for Appliances and Passenger Vehicles in Single Family Residential Homes, and City of Palo Alto Page 5 Figure 2: Monthly Net Cost of Electrification to Household The analysis suggests that compact EVs are cost-effective compared to their gasoline counterparts11. Switching from a standard gas water heater to an air-sourced water heater (heat pump water heater, or HPWH) a household is estimated to save $4/month; switching to heat pump space heating (HPSH) would incur a net incremental cost of about $2/month. However, staff’s research suggests that there is some uncertainty in these results, based on the wide variety of assumptions present in each of the scenarios examined. The accompanying line for each measure illustrates the range of possible cost or benefit for different scenarios examined; for example, switching to a HPWH could save as much as $10 per month or could cost an extra $10 per month, depending on assumptions such as the future cost of gas versus electricity. If all five measures are implemented, the potential monthly cost impact could range from a cost of over $60 to a saving of about $60. HPWH and HPSH technologies12 are the primary ways to energy efficiently electrify water heating and space heating end-uses, and these applications account for approximately 75% of natural gas related GHGs in Palo Alto13. For electrifying existing single-family homes, the study found the largest barrier is the upgrade of electric panel capacity to accommodate the increased electrical load; this upgrade alone could cost $2,500 to $5,00014. In addition to this panel upgrade cost, costs associated with 11 On a Net Present Value (NPV) basis, net of federal and state rebates for electric vehicles. 12 An appliance made with air-sourced heat-pump technology use electricity to operate a heat exchanger to absorb thermal energy from the atmosphere to heat water or building space. 13 Residential applications are estimated to account for 42% and commercial application 33% of natural gas-related GHGs in Palo Alto. 14 The results in Figure 2 exclude any costs associated with the electrical panel, such as upgrading to a 200A or 400A service. City of Palo Alto Page 6 running conduit and wiring to the appliance location could cost an additional $1,000 to $2,000 per appliance. These estimates emphasize that 1) new construction is a more cost-effective intervention point; and 2) creative programs and initiatives will be required to help existing homes to overcome the substantial additional up-front costs associated with electrification. Staff expects to undertake a similar high level assessment of the cost effectiveness for commercial building applications. An initial survey suggests that heat pump technologies for water and space heating applications are feasible in small and medium sized commercial buildings; in many of these smaller buildings, which account for about 40% of the square footage of all commercial buildings in Palo Alto, HPSH applications are not uncommon, and retrofitting smaller buildings with HPSH is relatively less burdensome. However, retrofitting existing large commercial buildings for space heating applications is likely to be cost prohibitive. Outline of Staff’s Recommended Work Plan and Tasks Based on the insights gained from these initial analyses and projects, staff recommends studying, and when feasible implementing, the ten tasks outlined below to promote electrification. Tasks #1 and #2 are related to encouraging the use of HPWH and HPSH applications in homes, which are largely cost effective in new residential construction, but face barriers to entry in existing homes as discussed earlier. Many of the tasks include both evaluation and implementation elements, but these three tasks are solely related to evaluation of the feasibility of implementing projects and programs in the future: Task #4 (explore possible building code changes) Task #9 (explore new financing sources) Task #10 (explore feasibility of district heating options) Estimates of timelines and resource requirements for each task are also provided in the list below. Upon Council consideration and approval of an electrification work plan staff will seek the additional resources needed as part of the annual or mid-year budgeting process. The work plan does not cover energy efficiency, renewable natural gas, or local solar development, as these areas have either already been analyzed and communicated to Council, or are not directly related to the topic of fuel switching. For example, sourcing natural gas from renewable sources was found to be expensive when evaluating the green-gas program options in 201415. The City also has robust programs related to local solar and energy efficiency already in place. This work plan also includes a list of projects that staff does not recommend analyzing or promoting in the near term. This is either because these measures are clearly not cost- effective at this time or because they are not prudent to promote now given limited staff resources and upcoming changes in the State’s building standards and regulations. 15 PaloAltoGreen Gas Program alternatives analyzed (3/4/2014, Staff Report 4343) concluded that biogas at a cost premium of 50 cents/therm is equivalent to approximately $94/ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) compared to offsets costing less than 10 cents/therm. City of Palo Alto Page 7 For this work plan, each element will be considered in the context of all applicable legal, statutory and regulatory requirements. Such requirements include, for instance, constitutional limitations on the use of ratepayer funds imposed by Californians when they adopted Proposition 26, obligations set forth in the cap-and-trade regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board, and other miscellaneous requirements embedded in the California Public Utilities Code and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules. Description of Work Plan Elements and Estimates of Timeline/Resource Requirements 1. Promote HPWH and HPSH in existing homes a. Provide customers information on options and cost-effectiveness of HPWH and HPSH solutions, including web-based calculator tools. b. Explore funding source for HPWH and HPSH rebates for customers. c. Inform and educate water heater installers about HPWH. d. Explore mechanics and funding sources to incentivize installers to offer HPWH as a default option in Palo Alto. e. Explore the feasibility of implementing a HPWH bulk-buy program (possibly in collaboration with surrounding cities). f. Explore the feasibility and economics of retrofitting multi-family buildings that presently have electric baseboard heating with HPSH appliances. g. Explore the development of an analytic process that would enable staff to predict the life expectancy of older water heaters, based on past building permit data, and use those predictions to target promotion and installation of HPWH before natural gas water heaters reach end of life or fail. h. Time and Resource: This initiative is estimated to take 0.25 FTE and $10k over a 9 to 15 month period to explore various program options discussed above and to implement items 1.a and 1.c. Existing resources could be channeled to undertake this task; no additional budget approvals required by Council. Estimated completion date: December 2016. 2. Provide resources to homeowners to convert existing homes to all-electric homes. a. Compile list of qualified architects, develop case studies, set up communication channels for homeowners to share ideas and host workshops on electrifying existing homes. b. Explore the feasibility of new funding sources to provide incentives to electrify existing homes on a pilot scale. c. Time and Resources: This initiative is estimated to take 0.25 FTE staff time with an additional expense of $15k for public outreach. Existing resources could be channeled to undertake this task; no additional budget approvals required by Council. Staff will evaluate customer incentives if new funding sources can be identified in Task #9. Estimated completion date for Task 2.a is December 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 8 3. Explore the development of retail electric rate schedule for homes that electrify a. Evaluate an all-electric rate schedule for residential customers as part of the upcoming electric cost of service analysis; if feasible, recommend such retail rates for Council consideration and approval. b. Time and Resources: 0.1 FTE and $25k consultant cost to evaluate cost of service and retail rate options. Funds already allocated to this task; no additional budgets required. Estimated completion date: July 2016. 4. Explore additional residential and commercial building code changes for new construction and remodeling projects to expedite electrification a. Study the feasibility of including HPWH installations as part of CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective or pre-requisite criteria16. b. Study feasibility of including heat pump space heating installations as part of CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective or pre-requisite criteria. c. Study the feasibility of requiring sufficient electrical panel capacity and outlets to accommodate the electrification of the house in the future. d. Study and seek permission from the California Energy Commission (CEC) to remove certain requirements that impede electrification (such as case-by-case cost- effectiveness analysis) to permit installation of heat-pump based heating appliances. e. Work with other interested parties to lobby CEC to consider carbon content (in addition to energy efficiency) of building energy systems when updating building energy codes for the January 2017 code update cycle. f. Research and analyze the necessary components for a permitting process and field inspection protocol to support electrification. g. Explore potential scenarios for an expedited permitting program for projects pursuing electrification. h. Time and Resources: This effort is anticipated to take about 0.02 FTE of staff time and $145k of consulting assistance, and would take approximately 12 months to complete. This project has not been incorporated into staff’s existing work plan and will require mid-year budget increase through the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) process. Estimated Completion Date: December 2016. 5. Evaluate utility connection fees and permitting fees associated with electrification projects a. Analyze the cost of providing electricity connection upgrade services to homes. The analysis will be based on estimates of number of future electrification projects. b. Time and Resources: This effort is anticipated to take about 0.1 FTE of staff time and $30k of consulting assistance for cost of service work. The effort related to this project has already been included in staff’s work plan; no additional budget approvals required. 16 Calgreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 is the building code structure used for permitted building projects in Palo Alto under Green Building Ordinance 5324. This structure enables Development Services to streamline the enforcement of local amendments to the Green Building Code. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Analysis (and if feasible implementation) could take 6-18 months with an estimated completion date of Summer 2016. 6. Promote the installation and use of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) for public use and at multi-family homes17 a. Explore ways to overcome the inadequate supply of public charging facilities and hurdles to installing chargers at multi-family dwellings in Palo Alto. b. Explore if low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) credit revenue could be used to finance EV charger installation projects. c. Evaluate pricing policies for public EV charging stations.18 d. Time and Resources: Resources required to set-up the program is estimated at 0.1 FTE at the start and 0.05 FTE for on-going effort. This effort is already included in the staff work plan; no additional budget approvals needed. Funds available through the LCFS program are estimated at $70k per year, but could range between $50k to $200k per year over the next five years depending on the volume of credits and the market price of the credits. Subject to Council approval to spend available LCFS funds to promote such EVSE installations, the design of such incentive based promotion is expected to be in place by Spring of 2016. 7. Explore offering Time-of-Use (TOU) electric rate options; for example, for residential EV charging a. A pilot TOU rates program is currently underway, to reduce EV charging cost at homes. Early results show that the pilot TOU rates reduce costs by about $1/month and enable the utility to claim LCFS credits. Staff is contemplating expanding the 150 customer TOU rate pilot program to an additional 200 customers by July 2016 b. Explore offering TOU rates to all residential customers, including EV customers.. However, billing systems limitations and staff resource limitations may hinder this effort in the short-term. c. Time and Resources: This task may require manual processes in the absence of upgrading the customer billing and smart grid systems. Staff resources of 0.5 FTE allocated at present; no additional consulting help anticipated. TOU-capable electric meters would cost $150 for each customer enrolled, or $30,000 if 200 additional customers are enrolled in to current pilot program. No additional budget approvals anticipated. Expected completion date is Summer 2016. 8. Explore opportunities to electrify existing and new City buildings a. Explore opportunities to utilize HPWH and HPSH at existing City buildings b. Explore opportunities to electrify space and water heating systems for new City buildings 17 Note: Palo Alto building codes require new construction to install EV charging equipment (EVSE). The above mentioned initiative is to encourage EVSEs installation at existing buildings. 18 This clarifying item was added after UAC review. City of Palo Alto Page 10 c. Time and Resources: Staff will develop an inventory of existing water heater locations suitable for replacement with HPWH by September 2015 and would replace gas water heaters with HPWH at suitable locations over a period of time based on the age of the existing water heaters. Replacement cost is estimated at $2,000 per water heater. This will be an ongoing effort; additional staffing resources needed are estimated to be minimal at this time, so no additional mid-year budget requests anticipated. Projects related to HPSH will be evaluated after the initial survey results. 9. Explore new financing sources to expedite electrification a. Identify and evaluate the use of the City’s General Fund resources, voter approved carbon fees/taxes, revenue-neutral fee-bates (such as fees on natural gas used to incentivize reduction in natural gas through electrification projects, to the extent consistent with constitutional mandates) and other financing options for electrification projects and other de-carbonization strategies. b. Timeline and Resources: Resources needed for an initial framing of this effort are already included in the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan development process, estimated at $5k. Additional detailed analysis, legal review, and other efforts will require additional resources and is not recommended until after Council review and adoption of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and associated strategies in late 2015. Initial framing of this effort will be presented to Council in Fall 2015. 10. Analyze, in a high level pre-feasibility study, options for district heating19 for buildings a. Explore the feasibility of district heating options in the downtown area and the Stanford Research Park area, with geothermal heat pumps or other heat-exchanger type technologies, to reduce natural gas use in commercial buildings. b. In the long term, this type of technology/project could assist in reducing natural gas use, but initial analysis suggests it is not cost effective for a mild climate zone like Palo Alto. c. Time and Resources: The effort is anticipated to be undertaken with intern assistance and input from Stanford Energy System Innovation (SESI) program staff. Resources may also be needed including building energy monitoring equipment, staff effort of 0.25 FTE over 2 years and funding of $50k. This task is not in the current work plan and budget, but if approved, resources will be allocated and sought as part of the annual budgeting process in FY 2017. The task is projected to commence in 2017 and be completed by 2019. All tasks outlined above will facilitate electrification in Palo Alto in the long-run, but will have minimal reduction in GHG emissions in the short-term. However, if the community desires to accelerate the adoption of electrification technologies well ahead of state regulations, additional financial resources for customer cash incentives would likely be needed to accomplish such goals. Currently, for example, staff anticipates Task #1 could result in the replacement of approximately 1,000 HPWH in single family homes in Palo Alto by 2020. 19 District heating refers to systems that heat and/or cool a group of adjoining buildings using a central heating/cooling plant. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Similarly, several homes undergoing major remodels are opting to go all-electric, but at the current rate the penetration of such homes are estimated to be well below 1,000 by 2020. If, for example, 1,000 homes in Palo Alto go all-electric, the community’s GHG emissions associated with natural gas use would reduce by approximately 2%.20 Tasks Recommended Deferred Until a Later Time Staff recommends the following tasks be deferred until a later time: A. Evaluate and implement bulk-buying program of EVs for Palo Alto residents: This activity requires a relatively high level of effort and the value to customers is uncertain. Staff recommends that we defer and consider the necessity and value of such a program after 2017 when 200+ mile range automobiles become prevalent in the mass consumer market. B. Facilitate electrification of space heating in existing large commercial buildings: While space heating with heat pumps is common in small/medium commercial buildings (<50,000 square feet), it is burdensome to electrify space heating application for existing larger buildings > 50,000 square feet). C. RECO/CECO Program: Should the community elect to study Residential and Commercial Energy Efficiency Ordinance (RECO/CECO) as an energy efficiency implementation tool at the time of real estate sale, electrification shall be studied as a potential element in such a program. Commission Review and Recommendation The UAC reviewed the proposed work plan at its July 1, 2015 meeting. At the same meeting, staff presented its analysis of the cost-effectiveness of electrification options for appliances for new residential buildings and for EVs. The work plan received universal support from the UAC, but one commissioner noted that work plan item #7 should not refer only to EV charging at night since TOU rates could evolve and the best time to charge EVs could actually be in the middle of the day when solar energy is generating the most renewable energy. After discussion, the UAC voted unanimously to recommend that Council approve the proposed work plan with the insertion of “for example” in work plan item #7 so that it would read: “Explore offering Time-of-Use electric rate options; for example, for residential EV charging.” (5-0 with Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Eglash, Foster and Schwartz voting yes, Commissioner Hall absent). The notes from the UAC’s July 1, 2015 meeting are provided as Attachment C. Resource Impact Staff estimates that accomplishing these ten tasks will require approximately 1.6 FTE of staff resources and $380,000 of consulting/equipment resources over the next two-to-three years. Much of the staffing resources would come from current staffing and approved budgets, except for Task #4 and #10, which will require additional budget approvals. In addition, if the 20 Staff notes that State legislative actions could result in a lack of recognition for the benefits from early action and could have the effect of a higher standard and hurdle being applied to Palo Alto over other gas utilities. City of Palo Alto Page 12 exploration in various tasks (e.g. Task #4, #9, #10) results in a recommendation to actually implement programs, additional resources may be needed and staff would return to Council with a request for additional resources. If Council approves a subset of the recommended ten tasks or varies the scope of tasks, the resources required would change accordingly. Staff will bring Council requests for any additional resources needed to undertake a Council approved work plan part of the annual budgeting process, or when staff seeks mid-year budget amendments. Policy Review This work was coordinated with the S/CAP process and meets the City’s goal of reducing GHG emissions related to City and community activities. Environmental Review Researching and developing a community solar program does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of “project” under California Public Resources Code Sec. 21065, thus no environmental review is required. Attachments: Attachment A: Colleagues Memo Dec 15 2014 (PDF) Attachment B: Staff Work Plan 2/2/15 in Response to Colleagues Memo (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 13 Attachment C: Excerpted Draft UAC Minutes of July 1, 2015 meeting (PDF) Attachment D: Public Letters to Council (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 15, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, and Klein Regarding Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategy to Reduce Use of Natural Gas and Gasoline Through “Fuel Switching” to Carbon-free Electricity Requested Action by Council: Direct the City Manager to prepare a report to the Council, outlining (1) prospective programs and incentives that would result in the use of electrical devices to replace those using natural gas, (2) possible building code changes to require, where feasible, the use of electrical appliances rather than natural gas appliances in the construction and renovation of residential and commercial buildings, (3) possible changes to utility rate structures that would not penalize fuel switching, (4) evaluation of additional strategies to support adoption of electric vehicles. The report should consider and take into account applicable legal requirements, and identify potential legal, code or regulatory barriers that would need to be changed to facilitate fuel-switching. The City Manager will return to the Council by the first meeting in February with an initial report to Council on the timeframe required to research and develop this report, and the staff and related resources that will be necessary, as this initiative would be an important component in the 2015 Work Plan. Discussion: Starting in 2013 Palo Alto is one of the first cities globally to provide 100 percent carbon-neutral electricity to all of our utility customers and at rates 20% below PG&E. This is an important accomplishment, but only addresses approximately 1/5 of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions previously generated in the city. However, our clean electricity resource provides an exceptional opportunity to be Page 2 used as a clean energy foundation to reduce our other major GHG sources, in support of the city’s Climate Action Plan. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its latest report, again emphasized the dire straits we’ll all be in if government at all levels doesn’t take far more significant steps to achieve large reductions in the generation of greenhouse gases. Building on our carbon-free electricity resource, key next steps for Palo Alto are to promote switching from appliances and other devices that presently use natural gas to devices that are powered by our clean electricity, and to support the adoption of electric vehicles and other fossil fuel-free transportation alternatives. Natural gas enjoys good press, but is in fact only marginally better than coal, in part due to the high amounts of “fugitive” emissions which are unintentional releases of harmful non-combusted methane gas that are emitted into the atmosphere during natural gas extraction and delivery processes. Our carbon- neutral electricity is far better for the environment and we therefore believe that Palo Alto should take a series of steps to promote change from gas use to use of electricity. Additionally, we should pursue more steps to support adoption of electric vehicles powered by clean electricity, replacing use of petroleum, our largest source of greenhouse gases. This is a bold and significant initiative and given its “game-changer” potential, warrants a thoughtful assessment of the opportunities and constraints this presents and a clear identification of the resources and time commitment to develop the report. Council recognizes that staff must first return with that initial report on timeline and resource requirements by early February, as a prerequisite to the Council’s direction to proceed with the actual research and report being requested. This report has been reviewed by the City Manager and City Attorney and has incorporated their comments. Page 3 Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk Page 4 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5463) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Staff Work Plan in Response to Colleagues Memo on Fuel Switching Title: Approval of Staff Work Plan Developed in Response to the December 15, 2014 City Council Colleagues Memo on Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategies to Reduce Use of Natural Gas and Gasoline through Fuel Switching to Carbon Free Electricity From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff requests Council approval of its proposed work plan to prepare a report responsive to the December 15, 2014 City Council Colleagues Memo (the “Colleagues Memo”) on measures to encourage utility customers to switch from natural gas and gasoline to electricity where appropriate and to reduce the obstacles to such fuel switching. Executive Summary On December 15, 2014 the City Council directed staff to return by the first meeting in February 2015 with an initial report on the resources and timeframe required to evaluate the four fuel switching related topics outlined in a Colleagues Memo. Staff has already completed or currently plans to undertake significant analysis of the potential for, and the economics of fuel switching in various areas, as described more fully in Attachment B to this Staff Report. Because the City’s major remaining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are related to mobile transportation and the use of natural gas, fuel switching to the City’s carbon neutral electricity supplies will also be a major element of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). Staff is in the process of developing a detailed work plan with two phases to respond to Council’s Colleague’s Memo. The first phase (Phase I) will determine the scope of the analysis and identify any staff and/or consulting resources required to complete it. This phase is already underway. Phase I will contain additional information to inform Council’s decisions about whether to pursue or not pursue those actions related to fuel switching either identified initially in the Colleagues Memo or in the Phase I analysis. Should Council elect to proceed, the second phase (Phase II) will involve detailed analysis of proposed actions and measures identified in the Phase I and the development of an implementation plan. Phase I will be undertaken in City of Palo Alto Page 2 coordination with the S/CAP, and staff is currently planning to deliver it to Council around the same time as the S/CAP in the Spring of 2015. All measures and actions proposed as part of Phase I and Phase II must be specifically analyzed and considered in the context of all applicable legal, statutory and regulatory requirements, including, for instance, constitutional limitations on utility rates and use of ratepayer funds imposed by Californians when they adopted Proposition 26, obligations set forth in the Cap- and-Trade regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board, and other miscellaneous requirements embedded in the California Public Utilities Code. Background The December 15, 2014 Colleagues Memo (Attachment A) directed staff to prepare a report, outlining: 1) prospective programs and incentives that would result in the use of electrical devices to replace those using natural gas; 2) possible building code changes to require, where feasible, the use of electrical appliances in the construction and renovation of residential and commercial buildings; 3) possible changes to utility rate structures that would not penalize fuel switching; and 4) an evaluation of additional strategies to support the addition of electric vehicles. Staff has already completed or commenced several activities related to fuel switching. These are summarized below, and are described in more detail in Attachment B: On February 10, 2014, staff presented an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of replacing residential natural gas fired appliances with electric appliances, given existing technologies and rate structures.1 The analysis also addressed the cost-effectiveness of converting from gasoline-fueled vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs). An update to this analysis is already underway and is currently scheduled to be presented to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) in Spring 2015. Staff is currently doing the preliminary research to begin a cost of service analysis (COSA) for the electric utility, which will evaluate if there are any rate design obstacles to fuel switching. Prior to the conduct of the Electric COSA, the UAC and Council will have an opportunity to discuss the possible rate designs and the issues to be considered when choosing between them. The timeline for this policy discussion is in the spring of 2015. After Council adopted the City’s EV policy2 in December 2011, staff undertook a variety of programs to encourage wider adoption of EVs in Palo Alto, one of which was the adoption of and EV ordinance that requires all new residential and non-residential 1 Staff Report # 4422, dated 2/10/2014: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38922 2 Staff Report 2360, dated December 19, 2011: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/41528 City of Palo Alto Page 3 construction to install new EV chargers and/or needed infrastructure to accommodate future chargers as seen in Municipal Code Section 16.14.370. Discussion The Colleagues Memo suggests consideration of a more comprehensive evaluation of fuel switching in the context of the long-term S/CAP goals to dramatically reduce GHG emissions. Staff’s proposed work plan for this effort is divided into two phases: Phase I, already in progress, is to develop a detailed scope to address each area of focus identified in the Colleagues Memo, including identification of potential measures or strategies that would address requests 1 (outlining prospective programs and incentives), 2 (outlining possible building code changes) and 4 (evaluation of additional strategies to support adoption of electric vehicles) in the Colleagues Memo. In Phase I: Staff intends to use the ideas, work products, and community input from the S/CAP process to help inform its work in Phase I. In turn, the Phase I scoping work will contribute to the analysis of fuel switching for the development of the S/CAP. The deliverable for Phase I will be a report setting forth a project scope and timeline for completion of Phase II (should Council elect to pursue it), including a list of potential programs and incentives, building code changes, gas and electric rate options that may be available, and potential additional strategies to encourage EVs. The Phase I report will identify the tasks and timeline needed to analyze the cost implication to applicants being affected by any mandates, to identify and assess any constraints that may exist (including any imposed by legal, statutory or regulatory requirements) and other items to be determined in the course of Phase I. Staff may provide alternative approaches to Phase II requiring differing levels of effort and expenditure of resources, since the Phase II report could require considerable staff effort. Staff currently anticipates that Phase I will be completed and will roughly coincide with the completion date of the S/CAP in spring 2015. Phase II, should Council elect to proceed with it after considering Phase I, will involve a more detailed cost/benefit analysis along with more comprehensive policy and legal evaluations of the options outlined in Phase I, particularly for request 3 (possible changes to utility rate structures that would not penalize fuel switching) of the Colleagues Memo. In Phase II: Staff will coordinate this effort with the Electric COSA, including analysis of the impact of various rate designs on fuel switching and any legal, regulatory, cost-effectiveness or City of Palo Alto Page 4 other barriers that may impose constraints on using rates as a tool to implement or otherwise incentive fuel switching. The deliverable for Phase II will be a report that can be used as a basis for accepting or rejecting each option. Because there is substantial work needed to develop a timeline and assess required resources to look at the issues raised in the Colleagues’ Memo, staff plans to return to Council in Spring 2015 with the Phase I report (the more detailed scope and timeline) to inform Council’s determination on whether staff should proceed with the Phase II effort. Council should be aware that work activities related to fuel switching will be an integral part of the S/CAP. Resource Impact Completion of the Phase I report will require a total approximately 0.2 FTE per month of staff time over three to four months from the following City departments: Sustainability, Utilities, Development Services, Public Works, Planning and Community Environment and City Attorney. The proposed Phase I scoping report can largely be completed with existing resources. The level of effort, inclulding staffing and calendar time, needed to complete the Phase II work will be identified in the Phase I report. Any additional resources needed, or existing or planned work products that must be delayed to complete Phase II will be identified in the Phase I report as well. Policy Implications This project will be coordinated with the S/CAP process and will provide data to support decision making about possible programs to implement any carbon-reduction goals the Council adopts as part of that process. Environmental Review Approval of staff’s proposed work plan for addressing the Colleague’s Memo on fuel switching does not meet the definition of a project pursuant to section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: Colleagues Memo Dec 15 2014 (PDF) Attachment B: Fuel Switching Work Plan - Colleagues Memo (DOC) CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 15, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, and Klein Regarding Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategy to Reduce Use of Natural Gas and Gasoline Through “Fuel Switching” to Carbon-free Electricity Requested Action by Council: Direct the City Manager to prepare a report to the Council, outlining (1) prospective programs and incentives that would result in the use of electrical devices to replace those using natural gas, (2) possible building code changes to require, where feasible, the use of electrical appliances rather than natural gas appliances in the construction and renovation of residential and commercial buildings, (3) possible changes to utility rate structures that would not penalize fuel switching, (4) evaluation of additional strategies to support adoption of electric vehicles. The report should consider and take into account applicable legal requirements, and identify potential legal, code or regulatory barriers that would need to be changed to facilitate fuel-switching. The City Manager will return to the Council by the first meeting in February with an initial report to Council on the timeframe required to research and develop this report, and the staff and related resources that will be necessary, as this initiative would be an important component in the 2015 Work Plan. Discussion: Starting in 2013 Palo Alto is one of the first cities globally to provide 100 percent carbon-neutral electricity to all of our utility customers and at rates 20% below PG&E. This is an important accomplishment, but only addresses approximately 1/5 of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions previously generated in the city. However, our clean electricity resource provides an exceptional opportunity to be Page 2 used as a clean energy foundation to reduce our other major GHG sources, in support of the city’s Climate Action Plan. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its latest report, again emphasized the dire straits we’ll all be in if government at all levels doesn’t take far more significant steps to achieve large reductions in the generation of greenhouse gases. Building on our carbon-free electricity resource, key next steps for Palo Alto are to promote switching from appliances and other devices that presently use natural gas to devices that are powered by our clean electricity, and to support the adoption of electric vehicles and other fossil fuel-free transportation alternatives. Natural gas enjoys good press, but is in fact only marginally better than coal, in part due to the high amounts of “fugitive” emissions which are unintentional releases of harmful non-combusted methane gas that are emitted into the atmosphere during natural gas extraction and delivery processes. Our carbon- neutral electricity is far better for the environment and we therefore believe that Palo Alto should take a series of steps to promote change from gas use to use of electricity. Additionally, we should pursue more steps to support adoption of electric vehicles powered by clean electricity, replacing use of petroleum, our largest source of greenhouse gases. This is a bold and significant initiative and given its “game-changer” potential, warrants a thoughtful assessment of the opportunities and constraints this presents and a clear identification of the resources and time commitment to develop the report. Council recognizes that staff must first return with that initial report on timeline and resource requirements by early February, as a prerequisite to the Council’s direction to proceed with the actual research and report being requested. This report has been reviewed by the City Manager and City Attorney and has incorporated their comments. Page 3 Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk 1 Attachment B: 5463 - Fuel Switching Work Plan Colleagues Memo Outline of Initiatives Currently Underway to Facilitate Fuel Switching 1) Residential Natural Gas to Electric Fuel Switching Analysis: In February 2014, staff provided Council an evaluation of the cost effectiveness of residential natural gas-to-electric fuel switching options for appliances and vehicles.1 The analysis concluded that residential natural gas-to-electric fuel switching is not cost-effective at prevailing energy prices and the prevailing cost of carbon, but could become cost effective at carbon costs of $130/ton for water heating and $270/ton for space heating applications. The report also concluded that fuel switching for water heating applications for new construction or during major remodels may also prove to be cost effective. The analysis found that purchasing carbon-offsets was the least cost option to neutralize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to natural gas use. This analysis is being updated at present and is expected to be presented to the Utilities Advisory Commission by Spring 2015. With respect to fuel switching from gasoline-fueled automobiles to electric vehicles (EVs), the analysis found that purchasing EVs can be more cost-effective than buying new gasoline vehicles. Leasing EVs may provide additional cost advantages. The analysis did not review natural gas to electricity fuel switching options for commercial buildings nor look at possible changes to building codes to encourage fuel switching. 2) Utilities Cost of Service Studies: Staff is undertaking an electric utility cost-of-service analysis (COSA) in 2015 to evaluate different electric rate making options and has begun the initial preparations for that study. The primary focus of the Electric COSA will be on ensuring that electric rates are equitable and represent the cost of service to customers, but the report will also identify the impact of current and proposed rate structure options on fuel switching, including the impact of tiered rates. Other issues to be considered as part of the Electric COSA include: the impact of current and proposed rate designs on the economics of rooftop solar, the impact of rate designs on low-income customers, the impact on energy efficiency (“conservation pricing”), and the possibility of introducing time-of-use rates. Any proposed rate designs must be specifically analyzed and considered in the context of all applicable legal, statutory and regulatory requirements and guidance, including, for instance, constitutional limitations on utility rates imposed by Californians when they adopted Proposition 26, obligations set forth in the Cap-and-Trade regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board, and other miscellaneous requirements embedded in the California Public Utilities Code 1 Staff Report 4422 dated 2/10/2014. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38922 2 A Gas COSA was completed two years ago and no changes to gas rate structures are planned at this time. Starting in 2015, the City’s gas utility must participate in the State’s GHG cap-and-trade program. On January 20, 2015, the Council adopted changes to the City’s gas rates to include the cost of GHG allowances the City must purchase for the gas utility in the State’s cap-and-trade auction (Staff Report 5397). Therefore, gas customers will be paying for GHG emissions associated with their gas usage through their gas rates. 3) Encouraging Electric Vehicle Adoption: In December 2011 Council adopted an EV policy2, which identified goals and projects. Since then, staff has undertaken a variety of programs to encourage wider adoption of electric vehicles in Palo Alto, and is working on additional programs. EV charging stations have been installed in three City-owned garages as well as other City buildings. Utilities implemented the CustomerConnect program, an advanced meter pilot program that was open to EV owners to test time-of-use electric rates to encourage owners to charge their EVs in the less costly “off-peak” hours. Utilities also applied to the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) to receive credits through CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program. The LCFS program is expected to provide credits to Palo Alto worth $50,000 in 2015 to $100,000 in 2020. Staff is developing a recommendation on how to spend the LCFS credits, which must be spent in a way to benefit EV owners. Ideas include reducing the cost of electrical service upgrade fees (if the upgrade is triggered by the need to install an EV charger at a home), subsidized permit fees for EV charges, streamlining the EV permitting process from paper to web-based, etc. Development Services has coordinated an EV Task Force which has worked to advance EV readiness in the City, develop ordinances, streamline the EV permitting process, and will be modifying code requirements to reduce barriers to entry. In addition, Council adopted an “EV readiness” requirement in July 2014 for all new residential and non-residential construction that requires the installation of EV chargers and/or infrastructure to accommodate future chargers, as seen in Municipal Code Section 16.14.380. Staff is also developing protocols for systematically shifting the City fleet to EVs where appropriate, and is exploring third-party providers of EV charging infrastructure, as a potential way to expand that infrastructure at minimal cost to the City. 4) Fuel Switching for New Residential Homes: As part of the S/CAP, staff will work with consultants to identify a roadmap with steps that would need to be taken to accommodate fuel switching for new residential development. Once it has been determined when, and to what extent, if any, the City wants to undertake fuel switching, then staff would be required to take the necessary steps to ensure that the proposed direction complies with the requirements of Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. Such steps may include, among other steps, (a) development of cost effectiveness studies and analysis, (b) filing with the California Energy Commission, (c) adoption of findings (if possible) that 2 Staff Report 2360: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/41528 3 demonstrate that fuel switching will not contradict the Energy Code prior to adoption of local amendments, and (d) ultimately adoption of local amendments and modifications to the Building Code that could legally accommodate the pace and direction the City would prefer to pursue. 5) Electrification of the wCity’s Fleet: Staff is developing a system to assess the suitability of EVs, for each vehicle or vehicle type in the City fleet, and is exploring other fuel switching strategies and options as part of the S/CAP, ranging from incentives and/or mandates for specified technologies and building types to internal carbon trading for City operations and other financial innovations to minimize climate impacts of heating spaces and water in Palo Alto. EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE JULY 1, 2015 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING ITEM 2: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that Council Review and Approve the Proposed Work Plan to Evaluate and Implement Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies by Reducing Natural Gas and Gasoline Use Through Electrification Chief Sustainability Officer Gil Friend said that his report is a comprehensive report addressing social, economic, and environmental aspects of electrification. He noted that the December 2014 Council Colleagues Memo directed staff to identify the resources required to evaluated electrification issues. In February 2015, staff provided a work plan to respond to the Colleagues Memo and this is the Phase I work plan. Friend stated that the proposed work plan evaluates fuel switching options, but doesn't necessarily recommend implementation at this time. Commissioner Schwartz said she was delighted to see Utilities working with the Sustainability Office, but she saw that the plan includes boundaries that do not necessarily make sense, for example, advanced meters may be beneficial for more than just EV owners. Friend responded that the overall effort may be broad, but what's referred to in this work plan is for electrification only. Vice Chair Cook stated that the action is to provide a recommendation for what staff is proposing to explore. This does not mean that a direction has been selected, but only to explore the various areas. This does not limit flexibility and choice. He advised that the points made in the last item merit consideration as the exploration is done. Friend agreed that flexibility is very important. Vice Chair Cook stated that the TOU rates will likely evolve so that we shouldn't refer to EV charging at night since the best time to charge may change as more renewables come onto the grid. He recommended that work plan item #7 should remove "for residential EV charging" to make the item more broad. Commissioner Eglash supports the proposed work plan. He commented that the tasks were largely using existing staff so this effort will not require additional staff. Commissioner Danaher said that the City is only carbon neutral for electricity in the short term due to the purchase of offsets. Director Fong noted that by 2017, the City will be carbon neutral with long- term renewables plus large hydroelectric resources. Director Fong stated that who pays and who benefits must be considered. Chair Foster noted that natural gas is one of the remaining two sources of the City’s GHG emissions. Friend confirmed that about 61% is from mobile transportation and use of natural gas is about 31%. Chair Foster asked if electrification reduces GHG emissions in the grand scheme of things. Friend confirmed that it is important. ATTACHMENT D Public Comment Walt Hays urges that the UAC recommend that the Council adopt the proposed work plan. Bruce Hodge stated that Carbon Free Palo Alto had a large part in writing the Council Colleagues Memo and that it has been a long time coming. He said that the proposed plan is reasonable and supportable. He advised that the City become active in many EV-related events. He said that TOU rates can be useful as devices can be grid-interactive and add value from that capability. Commissioner Danaher asked if the timeline could be sped up. Director Fong said that the plan was developed in consideration of the existing staff resources available for the work. ACTION: Vice Chair Cook moved to recommend that Council approve the proposed work plan with the insertion of “for example” in work plan item #7 so that it would read: “Explore offering Time-of-Use electric rate options; for example, for residential EV charging.” Commissioner Eglash seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0 with Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Eglash, Foster and Schwartz voting yes, Commissioner Hall absent). Carnahan, David From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2015 4:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Fong, Valerie Subject:Conversion to All Electric Dear Council Members and staff, I want to state early on that we will not under any circumstances be converting to all electric service as long as we Iive in this house. Over the years since 1962, we have spent over $200,000 converting this original small but well built cottage into the ten room, 2200 square foot handsome residence it now is. Along the way, we have upgraded with each remodel to the most current building codes. This includes increasing insulation, energy efficient windows throughout, solar heated water system still in use and energy efficient appliances as the need for new equipment arose. In addition, we have modified the landscape to be conserving of water, eliminating all lawns and installing semi permeable brick patios and driveway. No water leaves this property when it rains! My point is that I believe my wife and I have been good citizens when it comes to energy conservation. I have done some calculations of the prospective cost of making your suggested conversion: 1. Conversion from 110 service to 220 $ 2,000 2. Rewiring to bring service to appliance areas $ 3,000 3. Cost of new appliances, medium grade + install. $ 8,000 4. Miscellaneous refinishing of surface areas $ 1,000 Project subtotal cost $14,000 5. Contingency for the unexpected - 10% $ 1,400 Total Project cost budget $15,400 I daresay the city will not be including in its plans any substantial subsidy or rebates to assist retired seniors like ourselves be able to make such a conversion. Moreover, if I were to go forward with your plan, the cost be damned, I would be un-installing current late model appliances that haven't begun to reach their expected life span. I do have other concerns: Gas cooking is exceedingly superior to electric cooking in our experience (based on usage in other members of our families households - two of whom are gourmet cooks); when the power goes out, as it does from time to time, we can still cook on the cook top which allows for this contingency by by-passing the electronic ignition (We do lose heat, the oven and the clothes dryer as these appliances have electronic ignition) Finally, where do you folks think all the electricity comes from? At present, it is my understanding that most is generated by either gas or coal, in spite that the city claims all of its electricity is "green". Not one to not offer a doable alternative (in the past councils have ignored this suggestion.):Require all the large corporate consumers in town, both at Stanford and the Stanford Research Park, as well as well as other commercial sites about town, to install solar panels on their roofs, and esp. on trellises erected over their acres of parking lots. (see the Googleplex in Mt. View for how this is done.) Every new commercial building and every new house should be required to install the maximum solar panels as part of the initial construction. (Have I done solar on my roof, you might legitimately ask. The answer is no, since my roof if 90% shaded by two massive California Live Oaks rated heritage oaks by the city.) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Thanks for taking the time to read this missive. Sincerely, Richard C. Placone Chimalus Drive Barron Park/Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From:Stephen Madsen <s8madsen@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page To members of Palo Alto City Council, I am responding to a recent article in the Palo Alto Weekly about urging utility customers to switch from natural gas to clean electricity because the city declared its electric portfolio "carbon neutral." Clean carbon neutral electricity is good; however, before users are encouraged to switch from natural gas to electricity, there needs to be sufficient supply to meet the demand. At the present, there is not enough supply to meet the demand, and we have flex alerts that ask us to reduce our electricity consumption, yet the city of Palo Alto wants us to use more electricity. The first priority should be to provide sufficient supply to meet the current and projected demand. So, I recommend that you start by generating more electricity. Regards, Stephen H. Madsen City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2015 1:01 PM To:UAC; Council, City Cc:Editor Weekly Subject:switch from gas to electricity Switching all appliances from gas to electricity, even in new homes, could be a catastrophe. Electrical outages happen frequently and can be long-term, especially if there is a disaster such as an earthquake. With gas, one can have heat in winter, hot water and hot meals. And how is electricity generated; not all of it comes from hydropower. The rest comes from gas and coal plants. Natalie Fisher Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:45 PM Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 02, 2015 5:44 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James Subject:US Energy Sources, By Type and Percentage Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cc: James Keene Subject: US Energy Sources, By Type and Percentage Elected Officials: The following is for your information, and consideration. Please not the total percentage of energy generated/consumed by the US that originates from fossil fuels: 66%. Also, please notice that wind and solar contribute only about 5% to the total energy budget of our country. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014: * Coal = 39% * Natural gas = 27% * Nuclear = 19% * Hydropower = 6% * Other renewables = 7% * Biomass = 1.7% * Geothermal = 0.4% * Solar = 0.4% * Wind = 4.4% * Petroleum = 1% * Other gases < 1% It stands to reason that government officials at all levels of government should be aware of this important information. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA www.youtube.com/wmartin46 <http://www.youtube.com/wmartin46> www.twitter.com/wmartin46 <http://www.twitter.com/wmartin46> CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 17, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action Minutes and a Verbatim Transcript of all Council and Council Standing Committee Meetings, and Delete the Requirement for Sense Minutes Recommendation Adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.160 - City Council Minutes to require action minutes and a verbatim transcript of all Council and Council Standing Committee meetings, and delete the requirement for sense minutes. Background and Discussion On May 6, 2015 the City Council discussed the recommendation from the Policy and Services Committee to move to action minutes and the video of Council and Council Standing Committee meetings as the official record of those meetings. The Council endorsed the recommendation and added an additional requirement that verbatim minutes be prepared and made digitally available to the public, with hardcopies provided on request. The action minutes are approved by Council during the meeting, as these are done on the wall as Council makes their motions, and adopts or rejects those motions. At the May 6, 2015 meeting, Council directed staff to return to Council on consent with an ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.160 reflecting these changes. Since the May meeting, the Clerk’s Office has been preparing verbatim transcriptions. In reviewing the length of time it takes to prepare the transcripts, verbatim minutes are averaging 4 hours of transcription time per each hour of meeting. Sense minutes were averaging 3 hours transcription time per each hour of meeting. This has increased costs by $33.00 per hour, or for a 5 hour meeting we are spending an additional $165.00. As an example, the June 15, 2015 Council meeting lasted for 7 hours and 52 minutes, there are 144 pages of verbatim transcription and the cost to transcribe that meeting is $1,043.00. Staff continues to do a cursory review of the transcriptions to insure that names are spelled correctly, acronyms are correct, and any formatting issues are addressed. In addition, where the transcriptionist states that something was “inaudible”, the Clerk’s Office staff listens to the tape to see if we can capture what was being said. Attached you will find the May 6, 2015 City Clerk report (Attachment B) to the Council, and the minutes (Attachment C) excerpt from the meeting. Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.060 (City Council Minutes) (PDF) Attachment B: May 4, 2015 Council Report (DOC) Attachment C: 05-06-15 Minutes Item (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 NOT YET APPROVED 150805 sh 0140136 1 ORDINANCE NO. ________ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action Minutes and a Verbatim Transcript of all Council and Council Standing Committee Meetings, and Delete the Requirement for Sense Minutes 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. On May 6, 2015 the City Council discussed the recommendation from the Policy and Services Committee to move to action minutes and the video of Council and Council Standing Committee meetings as the official record of those meetings. The purpose of this change is to increase the accuracy and decrease the time and cost of preparing the Council’s official record of action. The Council endorsed the Committee’s recommendation and added an additional requirement that verbatim minutes be prepared and made digitally available to the public, with hardcopies provided on request. B. Action minutes are to be approved by Council in “real time” during the meeting, as Council motions are transcribed, projected for viewing by the Council and the public, and adopted, rejected or amended by Council. SECTION 2. Section 2.04.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.04.160 City council minutes. (a) The minutes of the council shall be kept by the city clerk. The minutes shall be neatly typewritten or printed in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each particular type of business transacted set off in paragraphs, with proper subheadings. (b) The minutes shall include a record of all business discussed and all actions taken at regular or special meetings of the council. The minutes shall be sense action minutes. and need not be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Sense minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of the remarks of such council members, staff and members of the public as speak upon a particular matter under discussion. A record shall be made of the names and addresses of persons addressing the council, together with a brief summary of their remarks indicating whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter. Nothing in this section shall be construed to compel registration as a condition to attendance at a meeting. NOT YET APPROVED 150805 sh 0140136 2 (c) A verbatim transcript of the proceedings shall also be prepared. As soon as possible after each council meeting the city clerk shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each council member, the city manager, other officers and department heads of the city, all newspapers of general circulation within the city, and be made available to the public at the front counter in the city clerk's office, the table and bulletin board in the council chambers, and all city libraries, except the Children's Librarythe verbatim transcript shall be made publicly available digitally and hard copies available upon request. (d) At the meeting following publication, council minutes shall be agendized by the city clerk for the council's approval. Corrections to the minutes shall be made at the meeting. Council members may submit their corrections in writing or orally to the city clerk's office before the time of the meeting. The city clerk shall distribute a written copy of all corrections received during regular business hours to all council members at the meeting. SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 150805 sh 0140136 3 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 4, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation Regarding Changes to City Council and Standing Committee Minutes Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council discuss and affirm Policy and Service Committee recommendation to move to Action minutes to record the proceedings of the Council and Standing Committee meetings, to include retaining DVD’s of the meetings as a source of minutes. Staff is looking for guidance whether to also produce Verbatim minutes, or Verbatim minutes for specific agenda items when needed. Executive Summary On December 16, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee voted 3-1, Schmid no, to immediately move to Action minutes and to retain the video as the formal record of the City Council and Standing Committee meetings, and that the City Council was to determine whether verbatim minutes were necessary. Currently, the City Clerk’s Office produces Sense Minutes of City Council and Council Standing Committee meetings, as directed by Municipal Code Section 2.04.160 (Attachment A). Sense Minutes include all actions taken and a short synopsis of the remarks by Council Members, Staff and members of the public as they speak regarding a particular matter under discussion. Council and some Standing Committee meeting minutes are typed by a contracted transcription service; the remainder are typed by Clerk Staff. In the event Council affirms the change to Action minutes, Staff will have to bring back an Ordinance, on Consent, changing the Municipal Code. Background During a Council meeting, City Clerk Staff begins the Action Minutes (Attachment B) by typing the names of all speakers and the motions. The second Staff member types the motions (Attachment C) so they appear on the screen for Council and the public to view. Within one week, Staff produces the final Action Minutes, which consists of just the motions. The Action minutes are then sent off to the transcriptionist to type the Sense Minutes. Depending on the length of the meeting and how many other sets of minutes they are working on, the minutes could take two or more weeks to return to us. A final review of the completed minutes is done by the City Clerk, and the minutes are placed on the agenda for Council’s approval. This whole process may take up to a month to complete. Last year a question was submitted to the City Clerks ListServe inquiring what types of Page 2 minutes were completed by cities. Of the 72 agencies that responded, 35 use Action Minutes and relied on the meeting video as the official record of the meeting. Thirty cities use Sense/Summary minutes and the remaining seven used detailed summary minutes. No agency used verbatim minutes. The Midpeninsula Media Center records all of our meetings and places them, via YouTube on their website. We are in the process of putting the link to these videos in a table that will include links to the agendas and minutes for each meeting. We are working to make it easier for the public to have all information regarding a meeting in one location. Resource Impact In the event Council chooses to affirm the use of Action minutes and the video to be the official record of their meetings, the City Clerk’s Office will save approximately $20,000 in contract transciription fees. In the event that Sense or Verbatim minutes are needed for a specific agenda item, these can be completed by either Clerk Staff or the outstide transcription service. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Municipal Code Section (DOCX) Attachment B: 03-16-15 CCM Draft Action (DOC) Attachment C: 04-06-15 CCM Motions (DOC) Attachment D: 12-16-14 P&S EXCERPT 2 (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT MINUTES Page 1 of 11 Special Meeting May 6, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt arrived at 6:49 P.M., DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff arrived at 7:10 P.M., Schmid, Wolbach arrived at 6:13 P.M. Absent: Historic Resources Board Present: Bernstein, Bower, Bunnenberg, Chair Kohler, Vice Chair Makinen, Wimmer Absent: DiCicco Action Items 2a. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation Regarding Changes to City Council and Standing Committee Minutes. Beth Minor, City Clerk: Good evening, Mayor Holman and Council Members. Beth Minor, City Clerk. I have a very short presentation for you, but no PowerPoint. On December 16th, Policy and Services Committee met to discuss meeting minutes. They voted 3 to 1 with Vice Mayor Schmid voting no to recommend that the City Council immediately move to action minutes and the DVD as the formal record of meetings. They further recommended that the full Council discuss whether to have only action minutes or to have sense or verbatim minutes completed also. The Municipal Code currently states that we are to take sense minutes of all meetings of Standing Committee and Council. Whatever your final decision is tonight, I will bring back to Council on Consent Calendar an updated Ordinance for adoption. As stated in the report, there were 72 agencies that responded to a listserv question about the types of minutes that agencies take. Thirty-five of those use action minutes and the DVD as the formal record. Last week I had a meeting with the Menlo Park City Clerk and the Saratoga City Clerk who also advised us that they only use action minutes and the DVD. They were not DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 part of the listserv survey that was done. Those are two additional agencies local. The questions tonight are: Are we going to do away with sense minutes altogether? Do we move to verbatim minutes for all minutes as a backup to the action and video? Do we have the verbatim minutes as part of the official record? If so, would we continue to bring those minutes to Council for approval, even though they're verbatim and we wouldn't be doing any checking on them? Another option would be to do verbatim minutes when requested on certain items. Say a planning item, you may want verbatim minutes from Finance or Policy and Services. There might be other issues. If verbatim minutes are the choice, this would save my office hours of reviewing the sense minutes. This past weekend, I sprained my ankle and spent four hours reading the minutes to ensure they were correct. That was sense minutes. In the event you do choose action minutes and the video, we could potentially save up to $25,000 annually in our transcription contract. If we choose verbatim for certain items, I would choose to keep about $5,000 or so on a contract for an outside transcriptionist to do those minutes. That's the end of my presentation. I'm waiting to hear from you. Mayor Holman: I was trying to discern, I couldn't quite tell, who the Chair of Policy and Services was last year. I don't remember, and I couldn't quite tell. Council Member Scharff: (inaudible) Mayor Holman: I'm thinking it was. Council Member Scharff: I made the motion, so I'd be happy to give the presentation of what we were thinking. Mayor Holman: Feel free. Council Member Scharff: The City Clerk did a fairly good job of setting forth what we talked about. The one thing I would correct a little bit is that we actually did not suggest at all that we go to sense minutes. There was no sense that we would want the Council to go in that direction. There are several issues that occur here. This came out a little bit with the City Attorney talking about there was an issue where sense minutes were done in one of the labor disputes where we had that. It turned out the sense minutes were actually incorrect and hurt us in a legal case. There was some downside in terms of doing sense minutes. We felt as a Committee that the important thing to do was to have the action minutes and the video as the formal record. When the City Attorney went to that hearing, what happened is she pointed out that the video contradicted the actual sense minutes. The judge said, "That doesn't matter. You adopted the sense minutes as the formal record, so the video is not the formal record." If we have the video DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 and the action minutes, that's the formal record. That's the best. Mostly led by Vice Mayor Schmid, there's the issue of when you look at the video, it takes a lot of time and it's much easier to have verbatim minutes. Myself and Vice Mayor Schmid believe that we should do both, that the formal record be the action minutes and the video, but we should also have for the Council to read the verbatim minutes and everyone else could look at. That would not be a formal record. The City Clerk's Office wouldn't have to go through them, for instance, to make sure they were correct. We wouldn't have to vote on them to make sure they're correct. Any of that kind of stuff. They would be there. If there was any discrepancy, someone could go check the video which would be the formal record. That was the view of myself and Council Member Schmid. Council Members Klein and Price thought it was a waste of money and thought we should not have the verbatim minutes. That was what we left to the Council. Vice Mayor Schmid, if you disagree with what I said in terms of your perspective, I know you voted against it, you can obviously jump in. That was my understanding of where the Committee was. Vice Mayor Schmid: That's a good summary. My feeling, and it might be personal and I'm willing to accept the majority of the Council on this, is that verbatim minutes are valuable. I find, as a Council Member, when I look at what the Planning Commission does, what Parks and Rec does, to be able to look at the verbatim minutes, I can do that at a ratio of four to five times as fast as trying to get the same information on the video. Just from a practical, efficiency point of view, I find I go more often to the verbatim minutes, because they are easy to get information from. I use the video less. I notice on packet page 868 there are draft action minutes of various things that take place. 870, there was an action item and a discussion and you have listed everybody who talked to the action item. I assume if we go to video, there will be this list of people who talked and a place on the video where you could go and find so-and-so speaking. Is that right? Ms. Minor: Not specifically, no. The video, just as it is right now with the Media Center, would go to that item but not to the specific speaker. Vice Mayor Schmid: I would be more sympathetic if you had something like this and maybe Granicus does this, but every time a Council Member, for example, speaks, you have a location on the video that you can go to immediately. You're still left with the fact that watching a video takes three times as long as reading a transcript. You're still spending more time. If you had that kind of fine tuning, I would be more sympathetic to using that as an official record. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 Ms. Minor: I'm not aware of any, not even Granicus or MinuteTraq does that. When you want to mark a place in a meeting, you have to have somebody who goes in on the computer and marks when it starts, marks when it stops. Every time somebody speaks, you would have to do that. There is not a program that automatically does that. Vice Mayor Schmid: Then I'm less sympathetic. You say for $20,000 we can get verbatim minutes. Even if only a few Council Members are using them, a few members of the public, it seems a worthwhile investment. Council Member Filseth: The discussion that we've had with Council Member Scharff and Schmid makes lots and lots of sense to me. I find that on controversial issues I absolutely go back and read the minutes. If the DVD is the official record, that sounds great. Not having access to either the sense or the verbatim minutes, I'm probably indifferent to which one, would be a big loss for us. Council Member DuBois: For me, sense minutes have been a valuable tool. I haven't seen a problem with them. They seem to be a great summary, much quicker to read than verbatim minutes. The video is always there, but it takes a long time to watch a video. There's the legal aspect of the official record, but the minutes are also a tool for new Council Members, new Committee Members, for the public to know what's happening. It's important for transparency that we continue to have a written record that captures these meetings beyond the action minutes. There's two things: the legal side and the transparency side. On one hand, could we just say that the video trumps the sense minutes and just leave things as they are? From a legal perspective, the video is the record. I'm looking at the Ordinance. Section C says the minutes are sent to heads of the City, to the newspapers, posted in the libraries. Whatever we make the legal minutes, I would still want either the sense or verbatim minutes to be the public minutes that are posted on the website and distributed to the public. Ms. Minor: We can do that. If you choose to go to verbatim minutes, on the website we can put a link to the verbatim minutes. Council Member DuBois: It sounds like you're favoring verbatim from a workload perspective. Ms. Minor: From a workload perspective, yes, verbatim would be easier, because we would not go back and review them at all for sentence structure or anything else. They are verbatim; they're word for word and we would not have to review them. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 Council Member DuBois: I'm just curious. Not to get into too many details, but there's a lot of machine-based transcription these days. Is machine- based summary available? Ms. Minor: I'm not aware of any. Council Member Kniss: By the way, I still like sense minutes. How long has Palo Alto done sense minutes? Ms. Minor: I believe at least from 2001. That's when this Ordinance was ... Council Member Kniss: They did them all through the '90s. Ms. Minor: I know they changed it back at one point. Then back in, I think, 2001 is when they updated the Ordinance. Council Member Kniss: I don't know where we're going to go on this. Sense minutes are far easier for the public. Reading through verbatim minutes, if any of you have done that recently, takes a long time. You've really got to go carefully through them. They've got to be produced, and there's tons of paper involved and so forth, unless we do something like a reference to it. It sounds as though, except for maybe a short period of time, for at least 30 years Palo Alto has used sense minutes. I'm guessing. Ms. Minor: I don't know the exact length. Council Member Kniss: You can only go back to 2001. Herb Borock: I urge you to adopt either the verbatim minutes or the sense minutes as the official record, rather than a video or just the action minutes. In terms of workload, preparing sense minutes requires the person preparing them to make good judgment about what should be in it. The person reviewing it also makes a judgment about whether the first person's judgment was correct. The quality of minutes varies depending upon who's doing them. The Planning Commission, in my history, used to have a contractor who attended the meetings and was capable of spelling everyone's name correctly, was capable of preparing verbatim minutes with proper grammar and didn't leave blanks in the minutes when they said they couldn't hear what something was. Who is doing it and how they're doing it, whether they're listening to a tape of a meeting they never attended and whether they're capable of doing it is going to make a difference. In terms of the cost, I was trying to think of how much money, $20,000 or $25,000, is. I believe it's less than the annual housing cost for one Assistant City Manager, just to give a comparison of money. There was a time when the previous City Manager got the Council, at least for Standing Committees, to DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 try and go to action minutes and said, "You'd have the videotape to look at." He neglected to tell the Council that those videotapes were only kept for a year and then were written over. It was only when someone from the public went to the Media Center and explained that to them that the Media Center started preserving the video record. We can't depend upon some other organization to be keeping the City's records, because they're not the City's records. They're the video records of the Media Center. Those are easier to alter or destroy than people having their own copies of the verbatim or the sense minutes. There were two types of sense minutes. I would guess it was in the 1980s when Gloria Young was the Clerk that she was encouraged to find some cost cutting. She decided that one way to do that would be have sense minutes that were not as extensive as the previous sense minutes. Some people tend to think that those minutes from the '80s were verbatim minutes, because of how extensive they were compared to more recent sense minutes. They were both sense minutes. Verbatim minutes are the better ones. Those of you who have been on the Planning Commission or those who attend Commission meetings and follow issues notice that it's possible to prepare verbatim minutes and for the Commissioners to make a decision of whether or not those minutes are accurate. It's better for the members of the legislative body who are here when those meetings were held to make a judgment that they have accurate minutes rather than having them produced 10 or 20 years later because someone wants to look at an item and there's no way of knowing if it's accurate or that's what occurred at the meeting. I would encourage you to spend the money, which I don't think is a large amount compared to other amounts. I understand what Council Member Kniss said about the difference of the ability to read sense versus verbatim minutes, but that has a qualification, that is, the quality of who is preparing those sense minutes in the first place. Thank you. Council Member Scharff: I agree with Herb that reading verbatim minutes, I don't think it's that difficult. It's the quality of the people that make up the sense minutes, and that varies dramatically of who you get. I don't know about any of you, but it's too much work to look at the sense minutes, go through the video and compare, unless something seems really off. What you often get in those is something that's slightly off in the sense minutes. Whereas, I can easily scan the verbatim minutes. We should definitely produce the verbatim minutes. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to move to action minutes and a video as the official record of City Council Meetings. Verbatim minutes will also be prepared. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 Vice Mayor Schmid: The important point is that sense minutes are an interpretation and they take some work to go through. At the extreme, you have the minutes that come out of the UAC in which a 2 1/2 hour meeting is turned into two pages. It is not helpful. Verbatim minutes give it to the reader to decide how to read, how much time, how useful it is. There are enough Council Members who find it valuable to go ahead. Mayor Holman: Can I ask a clarifying question before going to Council Member Filseth, who has hit his light? There's reference in the Staff Report to DVDs and the Media Center. I'm not comfortable with relying on, maybe this was just a for instance, a physical medium, because they go away, they corrupt, readers go away. I'm not sure what the long-term sustainability is of that. I was wondering if the intention is or is not to have the video record be what's on the Media Center's site. Also, can we take Media Center video and put it in the cloud as well? Ms. Minor: Mayor Holman, the video goes on the Media Center's website. It also goes on our MinuteTraq IQM2 website. When we move to the new way I want to have our website for the agendas and minutes, it will also be linked there. We are keeping the hard copy of the DVD. It will be in numerous locations. Mayor Holman: I feel better about that. Council Member Scharff: My intention on this is that if it's the official record, the City has a duty to keep its official records safe and available. I wouldn't say how to do it. I would expect the latest IT to make sure that our official records do not get lost. Council Member Kniss: Are the verbatim minutes in the packet? We get verbatim minutes every time. Yes, no? Ms. Minor: When we send minutes out now, they come back sense. That's what you get in the packet to review. Council Member Kniss: I don't think it's answering the question. The verbatim minutes take pages and pages. Are they attached the way our minutes would be now? Ms. Minor: If you want them attached that way, they can be attached that way. Council Member Kniss: If not? DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 Ms. Minor: Then the verbatim minutes would be kept on our S drive or some other safe location. A copy of the minutes would be put on our website and available. Council Member Kniss: I would find that doubly troubling then. I'm not supporting it. Council Member Filseth: I assume there's no reason, if we get out a couple of months and we all hate the verbatim minutes, we can't go back to sense minutes. Ms. Minor: That's correct. Council Member Wolbach: Just to be really clear, we're talking about four different things here: action minutes, sense minutes, verbatim minutes and video recording. Correct? Great. What we're talking about is eliminating the production of sense minutes. Correct? Ms. Minor: That's correct. Council Member Wolbach: Just relying on action minutes and the video as the official recording, and then verbatim or transcript minutes would also be prepared. Because they are not the official record, the verbatim minutes would not have to be printed out. We would not have to get reams of paper, they would not have to come to us for approval. We're not going to kill more trees than we already do. It would probably save a lot of paper. It would save work for City Clerk Minor. I will be supporting this. It is important that we have the action minutes for quick reference. If we can continue moving forward to improve the linkability of our action minutes to the video, that would be great. If there's an opportunity at some point without too much Staff time or contract cost to have the verbatim minutes, even though they aren't official, link straight to the video, you could click on something in the verbatim minutes in the future and it would link to the spot on the video where you can watch that, that would be great. That's not in the motion right now, but that's something we can work towards. I like the motion; I'll support it. I hope that Council Member Kniss will reconsider. Council Member DuBois: I don't find this motion clear in terms of what happens to the Ordinance. I would propose an amendment that Section C of the Ordinance would read, "As soon as possible after each Council meeting, the verbatim minutes would be distributed publicly." We're producing verbatim minutes, but it's not clear what is happening to them. Council Member Kniss: I didn't hear that, but that's good that that happens. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 Council Member Scharff: That's acceptable. Mayor Holman: You're saying produced. Do you mean publicly available? Council Member Scharff: The way I see this working is we give this broad direction. You clarified something that's important. The City Attorney comes back with an Ordinance. We see the Ordinance. We vote on the Ordinance. If we're unhappy with it, we can make changes. Council Member DuBois: The Ordinance would come back on Consent though Council Member Scharff: That's true. Council Member Burt: I wanted to get clarification on what this means, that verbatim minutes would be publicly produced. Rather than produced, you're talking about provided to the public. Right? Council Member DuBois: I'm specifically referring to Clause C of the Ordinance which is fairly detailed. Council Member Burt: What does that mean? Council Member DuBois: It says that copies will be made available to every Council Member, City Manager, Department heads, newspapers, be made available to the public on the front counter in the Clerk's Office ... Council Member Burt: Are these all hard copies? Council Member DuBois: ... the table and bulletin board in Council Chambers and City libraries except the Children's Library. Council Member Burt: You're talking about hard copies? Council Member DuBois: Yes. Council Member Burt: Of all these verbatim minutes. Do we have any idea how many pages this might be? Ms. Minor: Our minutes at this time are around 40 pages or plus. Council Member Burt: Of verbatim minutes. Ms. Minor: Of sense minutes. Verbatim would probably be longer than that. Council Member Burt: Much longer. I've got a problem; that's a lot of printing. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 10 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 Council Member Scharff: I agree with Council Member Burt. That's too much printing. Council Member DuBois: All the public will see is our votes in all these records. Council Member Burt: Most of the public has access to computers these days. If we as part of the action minutes also put on that hard copy clarity as to how to access the verbatim minutes, anybody can go and access them. I don't think we have to print 100-plus pages for all these different locations, to every Council Member. That seems like a waste to me. Ms. Minor: Mayor Holman, if somebody wants a copy of the minutes, they can also contact us. A lot of our public records that we're doing now, we will send them electronically to somebody. If they want a copy, we can print a copy for them rather than printing all these other copies. Council Member Burt: I would propose a change in wording to this, "Verbatim minutes would be made available digitally to the public and hard copies available upon request." That could be available to Council Members upon request too. Council Member Scharff: That's acceptable to me. Vice Mayor Schmid: Yes. As long as it's clear that it's the option of each Council Member how to receive a packet of verbatim minutes from the Council and from the Commissions and Boards, if they so want. Council Member Burt: This doesn't speak to Boards and Commissions. Mayor Holman: To go to Council Member DuBois' point, it does say in the Ordinance now that a copy will be forwarded to all these different entities. I don't want to send paper to all these entities either. Right now, I guess the public could be broadly interpreted. "Digitally to the public" as opposed to "publicly available." I don't know if that makes any difference. "Publicly available" means everybody can access it. "Digitally to the public" sounds like we're talking about people out there as opposed to internally. I'm suggesting to the maker of the motion that instead of "available digitally to the public," "be made publicly available." Council Member Scharff: "Publicly available digitally." That's fine. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO direct Staff to return with an Ordinance updating Municipal Code Section C to read "As soon as possible after each DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 11 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action minutes: 5/6/15 Council meeting, verbatim minutes would be made publicly available digitally and hard copies available upon request." MOTION PASSED: 7-2 DuBois, Kniss no Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5922) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Utility Trench & Substructure Installation Title: Approval and Authorization of the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Lewis & Tibbetts, Inc. and Purchase Related Materials In The Amount of $4,250,000 for Trenching and Substructure Installation and 10 Percent Contingency of $425,000 for Related but Unforeseen Work, for a Total Authorized Amount of $4,675,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a three-year contract with Lewis & Tibbitts, Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount of $3,708,225 to provide utility trenching and substructure installation labor and equipment for a period of thirty-six (36) months. 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to purchase materials in the amount of $541,775 related to the utility trenching and substructure installation to be performed by Lewis & Tibbits, Inc. 3. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Lewis and Tibbitts, Inc. for related, but unforeseen work which may develop during the contract term, the total value of which shall not exceed $425,000. Staff is requesting an authorized amount of $4,675,000 to cover the three-year contract term and related purchase of materials in the amount of $4,250,000 plus a 10% contingency amount of $425,000. Background Staff establishes a multi-year contract with a general contractor to provide trenching and excavation services, and to install electric utility substructures such as conduits, boxes, and vaults. The trenching and substructures are for a variety of customer service installations, City of Palo Alto Page 2 replacement of existing underground electric system equipment, and for fiber optic, street light, and communication services. Each job is individually quoted, with a scope and price agreed upon, and payment made upon completion of the work and approval by the City. Project completion retention is not held for these projects as they typically have a limited scope of work and tracking and billing would pose an administrative challenge. Discussion The City does not possess the staff resources to provide electric substructure installation and trenching services. Electric substructure and trenching services have been contracted out by the City for over 22 years. Award of the contract is necessary to complete capital improvement projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. These services are also occasionally used for maintenance work included in the Operating Budget. Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number 2015-2018 Utility Trench & Substructure Installation/IFB 158409 Proposed Length of Project 36 months Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 18 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 11 Total Days to Respond to Bid 28 Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 6 Number of Bids Received: 3* Bid Price Range From a low of $3,708,225 to a high of $5,907,100. *Bid summary provided in Attachment B. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $3,708,225 submitted by Lewis and Tibbitts, Inc. be accepted and that Lewis and Tibbitts, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 12 percent over the staff/engineer's estimate of $3,300,000. The difference of $541,775 between the contract amount of $4,250,000 and the bid amount of $3,708,225 is for materials that will be required for the trenching and substructure services. The bid items were for labor and equipment costs only. Materials were not included in the bid since they will be supplied by either the City of Palo Alto or the Contractor, depending on the type of material required. The estimated cost of contractor materials is based on prior year’s actuals. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found no significant complaints. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Resource Impact Funding for this contract will be appropriated over the next three fiscal years based on Council approval of the Electric and Fiber Optic Capital Budgets. Funds are available in the FY 2016 Capital Budget, and $1,773,136 of the total contract amount will be allocated to the following: Electric Customer Connections (EL-89028, 40%); Electric System Improvement (EL-98003, 40%); Fiber Optic Customer Connections (FO-10000, 10%) and Fiber Optic System Improvement (FO- 10001, 10%). Continued work under this contract for FY 2017 and FY 2018 will be subject to satisfactory performance by the contractor and appropriation of required funds in the respective fiscal years. Description FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total Labor and Equipment $1,195,105.50 $1,235,593.50 $1,277,526.50 $3,708,225.50 Materials $153,030.50 $179,949.50 $208,794.50 $541,774.50 Contingency $425,000.00 $425,000.00 Total $1,773,136.00 $1,415,543.00 $1,486,321.00 $4,675,000.00 Projects Split FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total EL-89028 40% $709,254.40 $566,217.20 $594,528.40 $1,870,000.00 EL-98003 40% $709,254.40 $566,217.20 $594.528.40 $1,870,000.00 FO-10000 10% $177,313.60 $141,554.30 $148,632.10 $467,500.00 FO-10001 10% $177,313.60 $141,554.30 $148,632.10 $467,500.00 Total $1,773.136.00 $1,415,543.00 $1,486,321.00 $4,675,000.00 Policy Implications The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies, including the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key Strategy No. 1: Operate distribution system in a cost effective manner and; Strategy No. 2: Invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: Contract C16158409 (PDF) Attachment B: IFB158409 - Bid Summary (PDF) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C16158409 City of Palo Alto “2015-2018 Utility Trench and Substructure Installation” Project Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ATTACHMENT A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST RANSFERS………………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on August 17, 2015 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and LEWIS & TIBBITTS, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a California corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 281666, DIR #1000001181. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On May 5, 2015, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the “2015-2018 Utility Trench and Substructure Installation” (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the “2015-2018 Utility Trench and Substructure Installation” Project, located in Palo Alto, CA. ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than August 16, 2018. . By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of Five Hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Four Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($4,250,000). 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: OR Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Jim Thompson In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Lewis & Tibbitts, Inc. Attn: Buster Segura, President 1470 Industrial Avenue San Jose, CA 95112 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records at the end of each week during the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney LEWIS & TIBBITTS, INC. By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BID SUMMARY Invitation for Bid: 2015‐2018 Utility Trench Substructure Installation Date: May 26,2015 CITY OF PALO ALTO Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 001 Foreman $145,395.00 $149,745.00 $154,245.00 $216,525.00 $224,100.00 $231,945.00 $247,500.00 $255,000.00 $262,500.00 002 Laborer $304,515.00 $313,650.00 $323,055.00 $509,265.00 $527,085.00 $545,535.00 $549,000.00 $585,000.00 $603,000.00 003 Equipment Operator $89,080.00 $91,750.00 $94,500.00 $141,860.00 $146,830.00 $151,970.00 $166,000.00 $170,000.00 $175,000.00 004 Truck Driver $132,750.00 $136,725.00 $140,825.00 $305,500.00 $316,200.00 $327,275.00 $337,500.00 $347,500.00 $357,500.00 005 Qualified journeyman worker ‐ energized $4,846.50 $4,991.50 $5,141.50 $7,217.50 $7,470.00 $7,731.50 $3,750.00 $3,850.00 $3,950.00 006 Concrete Finisher $39,080.00 $40,255.00 $41,460.00 $61,115.00 $63,255.00 $65,465.00 $68,000.00 $70,000.00 $72,000.00 007 Core Driller with Operator $9,245.00 $9,569.00 $9,904.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $19,200.00 $19,800.00 $20,400.00 008 Concrete Saw with Operator $14,040.00 $14,531.00 $15,040.00 $16,500.00 $16,500.00 $16,500.00 $12,100.00 $12,500.00 $12,900.00 009 Foreman's Truck $25,380.00 $26,380.00 $27,440.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $62,000.00 $64,000.00 $66,000.00 010 Crew Truck, with Hand Tools, and Gas Powered Cutoff Saw $61,950.00 $64,435.00 $66,990.00 $43,750.00 $43,750.00 $43,750.00 $126,000.00 $129,500.00 $133,000.00 011 Compressor and Jackhammer $16,520.00 $17,180.00 $17,870.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19,000.00 $20,000.00 $21,000.00 012 Backhoe $17,700.00 $18,410.00 $19,145.00 $13,750.00 $13,750.00 $13,750.00 $19,000.00 $19,500.00 $20,000.00 013 Ramhoe $35,400.00 $36,815.00 $38,290.00 $13,750.00 $13,750.00 $13,750.00 $19,000.00 $19,500.00 $20,000.00 014 Bobtail Truck $29,500.00 $30,680.00 $31,910.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $34,500.00 $36,000.00 $37,000.00 015 End‐Dump Truck $8,260.00 $8,590.00 $8,934.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $8,300.00 $8,500.00 $8,800.00 016 10‐wheel Dump Truck $141,600.00 $147,260.00 $153,160.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $80,000.00 $82,000.00 $84,000.00 017 Boom Truck with Flatbed $5,310.00 $5,522.00 $5,743.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,600.00 $4,700.00 018 Directional Boring Rig $45,312.00 $47,124.00 $49,009.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $19,400.00 $20,000.00 $20,600.00 019 Arrow Board $12,690.00 $13,190.00 $13,720.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,000.00 $26,000.00 $27,000.00 020 Vac Trailer ‐ 800 Gallons $4,130.00 $4,295.00 $4,467.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,900.00 $4,000.00 $4,100.00 021 Mini Excavator $31,270.00 $32,520.00 $33,820.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $43,000.00 $44,000.00 $45,000.00 022 Bobcat Skid‐Steer $11,800.00 $12,270.00 $12,765.00 $6,250.00 $6,250.00 $6,250.00 $21,500.00 $22,000.00 $22,500.00 023 Equipment Trailer $6,990.00 $7,270.00 $7,560.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 024 A/C Roller $2,342.00 $2,436.00 $2,533.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,450.00 $4,600.00 $4,700.00 Totals $1,195,105.50 $1,235,593.50 $1,277,526.50 $1,462,482.50 $1,505,940.00 $1,550,921.50 $1,899,600.00 $1,974,850.00 $2,032,650.00 3 Year Totals $3,708,225.50 $4,519,344.00 $5,907,100.00 Lewis & Tibbitts Daleo Golden State Utility ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto (ID # 6032) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Clerical Updates to Ordinance 5326 Title: Adoption of Clerical Changes to Ordinance 5326, Amending Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Energy Code From: City Manager Lead Department: Development Services Department Executive Summary and Recommendation On May 11, 2015, the City Council met for a regular meeting and adopted on second reading an ordinance amending Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to adopt local amendments to the 2013 California Energy Code (Ordinance No. 5236; CMR # 5667). As required by State law, staff submitted the adopted ordinance to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for approval prior to codification and enforcement. The CEC has requested non-substantive, clerical changes to the Ordinance No. 5326 to clarify the Council’s intent to adopt requirements more stringent than the statewide California Energy Code standard (Cal. Code of Regs. Title 24, Part 6). As reflected in the attached ordinance (Attachment A), staff has added language clarifying that “exceeding” the TDV Energy of the standard design means reducing energy usage by the specified percent savings. In addition, staff has corrected a typographical error in one of the tables contained in the ordinance, at section 16.17.050: Non-Residential Cool Roofs (Alterations Only) Steep Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.34 Steep Slopes - Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.34 Low Slopes ≤- Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.7 Low Slopes - Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.7 Finally, the CEC has also requested that staff clarify several aspects of the City’s application. These clarifications do not require Council action, but are noted here for the Council’s information. First, the CEC has requested confirmation that the City will continue to enforce all aspects of the not amended by the City’s Energy Reach Code Ordinance 5326. Second, the CEC has requested minor clerical fixes to the Cost Effectiveness Study accompanying Ordinance 5236, which are reflected in Attachment B. Specifically, the CEC has requested changes to the City of Palo Alto Page 2 narrative paragraphs describing the results in Tables 14 and 15 on page 28 of the study. Third, the CEC has requested confirmation that any references to “exceeding” minimum State energy code requirements in CMR No. 5667 mean that the adopted ordinance requires lower energy use than the Title 24 standards. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance Amending and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Energy Code (DOCX) Attachment B: Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness v5.2_redlined (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings and Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.17 and adopting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows: 16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 16.17.010 2013 California Energy Code adopted. The California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2008, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 Ordinance No. 5064 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. One copy of the California Energy Code, 2013 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.17.020 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.17.030 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) NOT YET APPROVED 2 building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. 16.17.040 Local Amendments. The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.17.050 Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code is added to read: (a) For all new single-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential construction: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (b) For all single-family residential, multi-family residential, and nonresidential tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations, one of the following must be satisfied: (1) Performance Path: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building exceeds the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, 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 NOT YET APPROVED 3 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 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 Steep Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.34 Low Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.7 Indoor Lighting (Additions and Alterations) 15% below Title 24 Standard Lighting Energy Usage 16.17.060 Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings. Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements for Solar Ready Buildings is amended as follows: (a) Subsection 110.10(a)1 is amended to read: 1. Single-family residences. New single family residences shall comply with the requirements of Sections 110.10(b) through 110.10(e). (b) Subsection 110.10(b)1A is amended to read: A. Single Family Residences. The solar zone shall be located on the roof or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. EXCEPTION 1 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed solar electric system having a nameplate DC power rating, measured under Standard Test Conditions, of no less than 1000 watts. EXCEPTION 2 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed domestic solar water-heating system meeting the installation criteria specified in the Reference Residential Appendix RA4 and with a minimum solar savings fraction of 0.50. EXCEPTION 3 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with three stories NOT YET APPROVED 4 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. 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. NOT YET APPROVED 5 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. 16.17.070 Infeasibility Exemption. (a) Exemption. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes that circumstances exist that makes it infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the Applicant to show infeasibility. (b) Application. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes such circumstances exist, the applicant may apply for an exemption at the time of application submittal in accordance with the Development Services administrative guidelines. The applicant shall indicate the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the covered project and the circumstances that make is infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following: (1) There is conflict with the compatibility of the currently adopted green building ordinance and/or California Building Standards Code; NOT YET APPROVED 6 (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. 16.17.080 Appeal. (a) Any aggrieved Applicant may appeal the determination of the Director regarding the granting or denial of an exemption pursuant to 16.17.070. (b) Any appeal must be filed in writing with the Development Services Department not later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the determination by the Director. The appeal shall state the alleged error or reason for the appeal. (c) The appeal shall be processed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 2. Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. NOT YET APPROVED 7 SECTION 3. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid. SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty- first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 8 NOT YET APPROVED 9 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2013 EDITION Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings. Code: Cal Green Section Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below for keys) 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code C & E 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings C NOT YET APPROVED 10 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 11 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 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Final Report (3/24/2015) 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# S15155961 2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................6 2. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................7 2.1 Life Cycle Cost and Time Dependent Valuation .......................................................... 7 2.2 Package Development ................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Residential Prototypes ..................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Nonresidential Prototypes ............................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures .......................................................................... 10 2.3 Cost Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Energy Savings .............................................................................................. 10 2.3.2 Costs .............................................................................................................. 13 3. MEASURE DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ........................................................14 3.1 Residential Measures .................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 High Performance Attics (HPA) .................................................................... 14 3.1.2 High Performance Walls (HPW) ................................................................... 16 3.1.3 Cool Roofs ..................................................................................................... 17 3.1.4 Instantaneous Water Heaters (IWH) ............................................................. 18 3.1.5 Solar Ready .................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Nonresidential Measures ............................................................................................. 20 3.2.1 Outdoor Lighting Power Allowance (LPA) ................................................... 21 3.2.2 Indoor Lighting .............................................................................................. 21 3.2.3 Cool Roofs ..................................................................................................... 24 3.2.4 Roof Insulation ............................................................................................... 25 3.2.5 HVAC Efficiency ............................................................................................ 26 4. ENERGY SAVINGS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS ..............................28 4.1 Residential Packages ................................................................................................... 28 4.1.1 Single Family ................................................................................................. 28 4.1.2 Multifamily ..................................................................................................... 29 4.2 Nonresidential Packages ............................................................................................. 29 4.3 Reach Code Recommendation .................................................................................... 30 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 3 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Savings ............................................................................................ 31 5. APPENDIX A – CURRENT REACH CODE LANGUAGE .....................................33 6. APPENDIX B – ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS ANALYSIS ............................36 6.1 Residential Measures .................................................................................................. 36 6.1.1 Relevance ....................................................................................................... 36 6.1.2 Cost Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 37 6.1.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................ 38 6.2 Nonresidential Measures ............................................................................................. 39 6.2.1 Relevance ....................................................................................................... 39 6.2.2 Cost Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 41 6.2.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................ 42 7. APPENDIX C – COST DETAILS ....................................................................43 8. APPENDIX D – SPREADSHEET ANALYSIS ENERGY SAVINGS ..........................47 8.1 Outdoor LPA............................................................................................................... 47 8.2 Open Office Occupancy Sensors ................................................................................ 48 9. APPENDIX E – REACH CODE PRESCRIPTIVE WALLS PATH .............................50 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto requires cost effectiveness analysis be completed to renew the Reach Code in Section 16.18.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Reach Code requires that residential and nonresidential new construction use 15% less energy than a building minimally compliant with Title 24 (T24) Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The California Energy Commission’s 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 four residential cost effective packages (10% and 15% above T24 for single family and multifamily buildings), as well as two cost effective nonresidential packages (10% and 15% above T24). The measures in these packages represent one possible set of measures shown to attain the Reach Code requirements cost effectively, rather than prescriptive measures adopted into the Palo Alto Municipal Code. TRC simulated residential prototypes in CBECC-Res, and nonresidential prototypes in CBECC- Com, though some measures required spreadsheet analysis to determine savings. The first measures investigated were those that had been studied for the 2016 Title 24 Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) process. These studies contain energy savings, market research, and cost estimates for measures that exceed 2013 T24. Cost effectiveness for the packages of measures is indicated by the benefit to cost ratio. A ratio greater than 1 indicates that the added cost of the measure is more than offset by the discounted (present value) energy cost savings, and the measure is deemed to be cost effective. The 10% and 15% packages are shown highlighted in yellow for all building types in Table 1. For each package, measures are added sequentially, indicated by a ‘+’ sign, meaning that all energy and costs impacts are cumulative. Because all of the packages proved cost effective for prototypes in the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Municipal Code should renew the Reach Code ordinance requiring that single family, multifamily, and nonresidential buildings exceed the Title 24 Standards by at least 15%. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 5 Table 1. Summary of Cost Effective Packages Single Family Residential 10% and 15% Packages Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 31 0% $0 $0 - + High Performance Attic 27 12% $1,986 $1,477 1.3 + Instantaneous Water Heaters 24 22% $3,438 $1,128 3.0 + Solar Ready 24 22% $3,438 $2,120 1.6 Multifamily Residential 10% Package Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 44 0% $0 $0 - + High Performance Attic 42 6% $3,311 $3,049 1.1 + High Performance Walls 40 9% $4,804 $4,620 1.0 + Cool Roofs 40 10% $5,491 $4,886 1.1 Multifamily Residential 15% Package Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 44 0% $0 $0 - + Instantaneous Water Heaters 34 23% $12,053 -$2,792 No costs Nonresidential 10% and 15% Packages Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 152 0% $0 $0 - + Outdoor LPA 147 3% $13,007 $0 No costs + Indoor Lighting 139 9% $35,209 $3,832 9.2 + Cool Roof + Roof Insulation 137 10% $38,017 $9,650 3.9 + HVAC Efficiency Measures 128 16% $55,035 $34,463 1.6 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 6 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto, California, plans to enact a Reach Code for the 2013 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 15% less energy than a building exactly compliant with the T24 Standards. Palo Alto has enacted this Reach Code since the 2005 T24 Standards by investigating measures that allow a building to perform 15% 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 2008 T24 Standards, located in Section 16.18.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This code is partially reproduced below: “In addition to the requirements of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the following general compliance requirements shall apply to all building permit applications subject to this chapter: (a) Nonresidential construction. (1) New construction greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet, including additions to existing buildings. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV energy of the standard design.” … “(2) New construction between 500 square feet and 5,000 square feet, including additions to existing buildings. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed building is at least 15.0% less than the TDV energy of the standard design.” Similar requirements apply to low rise residential buildings, including single family and multifamily buildings. The section of code is provided in full in Appendix A – Current Reach Code Language. This code has not been enforced since the enactment of the 2013 T24 Standards on July 1, 2014, because a cost effectiveness study has not been completed comparing the requirements to the 2013 T24 Standards. Palo Alto engaged TRC to provide a cost effectiveness study to support building Reach Code requirements 10% and 15% above 2013 T24 Standards minimum requirements for single family residential, multifamily residential, and nonresidential 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# S15155961 7 2. METHODOLOGY TRC assessed the cost effectiveness of Palo Alto’s 2013 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. 2.2 Package Development TRC developed four cost effective residential packages (10% and 15% above T24 for single family and multifamily buildings), as well as two cost effective nonresidential packages (10% and 15% above T24). The measures in these packages represent one possible set of measures shown to attain the Reach Code requirements cost effectively, rather than prescriptive measures adopted into the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 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 (February 2011) Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards. California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/general_cec_documents/Title24_20 13_TDV_Methodology_Report_23Feb2011.pdf 3 kBTUs = thousands of British Thermal Units. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 8 When applicable, residential prototypes were simulated in CBECC-Res version 3b and nonresidential prototypes in CBECC-Com version 3a.4 TRC simulated all prototypes in Climate Zone 4 (CZ4), and initialized them to be perfectly compliant with the minimum 2013 T24 requirements (0% compliance margin). The TDV of energy savings for the energy efficiency measures were derived by revising default values in CBECC, 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.5 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 4,050 ft2 single family two-story home, including a basement 6,960 ft2 low-rise multifamily residential building, with two stories and eight dwelling units The single family two-story home represents the 2,700 ft2 prototype with the addition of a basement, at the request of the City of Palo Alto. TRC determined the area of the basement floor, 1,350 ft2, by using the same floor area as each of the two above-grade floors. TRC created basement below-grade walls with the same geometry as the above grade walls, and with prescriptive U-factors and construction assemblies. A Palo Alto building official described that basements are typically provided with windows and light wells. Thus, TRC added windows to the basement with the same window-to-floor area ratio as the other floors of the prototype. Further prototype details are provided in Table 2. Detailed requirements for the compliant building prototypes are provided in the CEC Residential Alternative Calculation Method reference manual. 4 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 5 2013 Residential Alternative Calculation Method, California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-400-2013-003/CEC-400-2013-003-CMF-REV.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 9 Table 2. Residential Prototypes Summary Building Type One-Story Two-Story Low-Rise Multifamily Area 2,100 4,050 6,960 Roof Area 2,520 1,740 4,176 # of floors 1 3* 2 Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 15% Attic/Roof Assembly Tile Roof, Wood Sheathing, No Insulation, 0.40 U-factor, 2x4 @ 24” OC SR = 0.10, TE = 0.85 Above Grade Wall Assembly R-15 Cavity Insulation, R4 Synthetic Stucco, 0.065 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 Water Heater Natural Gas, Small Storage, 50 Gallon Tank, EF = 0.6, 40 MBH Input Rating *The two-story prototype actually has three stories because of the added basement. 2.2.2 Nonresidential Prototypes The nonresidential prototypes were developed according to the Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method reference manual.6 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 3, and detailed requirements for the compliant building prototypes are provided in the CEC Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method reference manual. 6 2013 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method, California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-400-2013-004/CEC-400-2013-004-CMF.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 10 Table 3. Nonresidential Prototypes Summary Building Type Medium Office Small Office Floor Area 53,628 5,502 # of floors 3 1 Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 26% 23% Roof Construction 1/16” Metal Standing Seam, R-25 Insulation SR = 0.63, TE = 0.85 Cooling System Direct Expansion, 11 EER, Economizer Direct Expansion, 13 SEER, No Economizer Heating System Boiler, 90% Thermal Efficiency Furnace, 78% AFUE HVAC Distribution System 3 Packaged VAVs (1 per story) with Hot Water Reheat 5 Packaged Single Zone Systems Thermal Zones 18 (3 unconditioned) 6 (1 unconditioned) 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. These studies contain detailed energy savings, market research, and cost estimates for measures that exceed 2013 Title 24 and serve as comprehensive data sources for the Reach Code analysis. 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. Total incremental costs represent the incremental initial construction and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2013 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 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 2013 T24 Standards. CBECC-Com uses TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 11 EnergyPlus v8.1 as the simulation engine to perform the analysis. Measure specific modeling parameters are described in Section 3. TDV energy savings are calculated and presented 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 NPV factor.7 TRC used a straight average to blend the energy savings of the two single family prototypes, as well as the two office prototypes. TRC simulated multiple measures together to capture potential interactive or overlapping effects of the measures. For example, adding insulation to the walls and roof may each individually produce a 10% compliance margin, but both of these measures combined may only produce a 15% compliance margin (rather than 20%). For measures that could not be simulated in software, we calculated energy savings estimates through spreadsheet analysis as described in Appendix D – Spreadsheet Analysis Energy Savings. 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. In developing the Reach Code measures, TRC has focused on these regulated loads so that building designers can show compliance easily. The CBECC-Res output, shown in Figure 1, shows that the unregulated loads (including lighting, appliance and cooking, plug, and exterior loads) are excluded from the compliance total. Figure 1. CBECC-Res Output Screenshot 7 The NPV factor is 0.173 for residential measures and 0.089 for nonresidential measures. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 12 The CBECC-Com outputs, shown in Figure 2, shows that the unregulated receptacle, process, and process lighting loads are excluded from the compliance total. Figure 2. CBECC-Com Output Screenshot CBECC-Com does not currently model exterior lighting even though it is a T24 regulated load. TRC analyzed an outdoor lighting measure as part of the nonresidential package, thus requiring that outdoor lighting energy usage be added to the Standard Design whole building energy usage. The adjusted standard design TDV energy usage would serve as the point of comparison when calculating compliance for all measures in the nonresidential package. The derivation of the standard outdoor lighting energy usage is described in more detail in Appendix D – Spreadsheet Analysis Energy Savings. The energy consumption of the nonresidential prototypes is summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Nonresidential Prototype TDV Energy Consumption Prototypes Small Office Medium Office Building Area (ft2) 5,502 53,628 Modeled Standard Design TDV (kBtu/ft2-yr) 179 106 Outdoor Lighting Only Standard TDV (kBtu/ft2-yr) 9.8 Adjusted Standard Design TDV (kBtu/ft2-yr) 188.9 115.8 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 13 2.3.2 Costs For the majority of measures, CASE studies provided relevant costs for the measures. TRC conducted further cost research for the Cool Roofs and HVAC Efficiency measures. 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# S15155961 14 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 each of the following four measures into the residential packages: High Performance Attics High Performance Walls Cool Roofs Instantaneous Water Heaters Solar Ready 3.1.1 High Performance Attics (HPA) This measure draws from the findings of the 2016 Residential Ducts in Conditioned Space / High Performance Attics CASE Report.8 The measure improves the building thermal envelope and reduces heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) distribution losses in residential buildings. Components of this measure defined in the single family prototypes include: R-38 insulation at the ceiling below attic, from R-30 prescriptive insulation R-13 below deck (cavity) insulation, from no prescriptive insulation Duct lower leakage target of 5%, from 8% prescriptive leakage R-8 duct insulation, from R-6 prescriptive insulation Two additional building products are needed for the HPA measure. First, draped netting is necessary for the below deck loose-fill insulation. Second, the prescriptive requirement for radiant barrier is unnecessary with insulation below the roof deck because it not practical to install a radiant barrier below the below-deck insulation. The multifamily prototype is modeled with the same measures, except that the multifamily prototype has ducts located entirely in conditioned space by default. Thus, the duct insulation measure by itself does not save energy in the multifamily model, due to the assumption that all 8 TRC Energy Services (October 2014) Residential Ducts in Conditioned Space / High Performance Attics 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_Title_24_Final_CASE_Report_HPA-DCS-Oct2014.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 15 ducts are already in conditioned space. Duct leakage however, does have an energy impact by itself. To allow the user to change the duct leakage and duct insulation values, the duct location in CBECC-Res must be changed to “multiple places,” and then ducts must be specified to be located to the thermal zones. The following excerpt from the CASE report provides a market overview HPA strategies: “HPA strategies are not widely implemented in the California residential market which is dominated by ducts installed above the ceiling insulation in vented attics. But the numbers are increasing in the high performance homes market due to tighter energy budgets and greater difficulty in achieving the ‘above code targets’ for incentive programs. [HPA will require] adjustments to attic insulation placement and possibly insulation type. There are different options and combinations of insulation that can be used which are widely available from manufacturers, distributors and retailers. […] If installed properly and according to best design guidelines, these measures will be low maintenance and persist for the life of the measure.” The incremental costs of going from the base case to the proposed HPA measure are derived from the CASE report and summarized in Table 5. CASE authors determined the costs during the CASE study development, from sources such as online retailers such as Home Depot and Lowes, RSMeans, and quotes from builders participating in research projects. The costing methodology was reviewed and revised by representatives of the California Building Industry Association (CBIA). The average cost of the measure in single family prototypes for CZ4 is $1,477, which is the value used in the cost effectiveness analysis. Table 5. Residential HPA Incremental Costs Summary Component/Material Base Case Proposed Update 1-story 2-story Multifamily Below Deck Insulation none R-13 $806 $557 $1,336 Ceiling Insulation R-30 R-38 $294 $203 $487 Duct Insulation R-6 R-8 $143 $183 $474 Duct Leakage 8% 5% $0 $0 $0 Netting None Present $806 $557 $1,336 Radiant Barrier Present None -$353 -$244 -$585 Total Incremental Costs $1,697 $1,256 $3,049 Average Incremental Costs $1,477 - Further details on costs for this measure are included in Appendix C – Cost Details. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 16 3.1.2 High Performance Walls (HPW) This measure draws from the findings of the 2016 Residential High Performance Walls and QII CASE Report.9,10 The measure reduces the amount of heat transfer through walls and thus reduces HVAC loads. In the CASE report High Performance Walls are defined as having an overall assembly U-factor of 0.048.11 While this U-factor may be achieved using a variety of cavity and exterior insulation combinations, TRC assumed the following components based on the lowest cost option presented in the CASE report: R-19 wall cavity insulation, from R-15 prescriptive insulation R-6 exterior sheathing insulation, from R-4 prescriptive insulation 2x6 at 16” on-center framing, from 2x4 at 16” on-center prescriptive framing Another possible 2x6 assembly meeting a U-factor of 0.048 would be R-24 cavity insulation (2 inches of spray foam combined with R-13 batt) plus R-4 exterior sheathing insulation (this assembly is more costly and was not studied). For a diagram of wall assemblies and associated U-factors, please refer to the CEC’s 2013 Joint Appendices, section JA4.3 – Walls (reproduced in Appendix E – Reach Code Prescriptive Walls Path). Additional sill flashing at windows and doors is needed to accommodate the extra thickness of the exterior insulation. The following excerpt from the CASE report provides a market overview HPW strategies: “There are several components involved in constructing a high performance wall, and each was investigated for market structure, availability and useful life, persistence and maintenance […]: Exterior rigid and cavity insulations: a variety of insulation types are available that provide varying levels of insulation per unit depth, and can meet the proposed requirement using either 2x4 or 2x6 studs. No additional maintenance is expected for these products if installed properly. Framing: The use of 2x6 studs in the California residential market has increased in advanced homes since the 2013 CASE analysis, and is expected to further increase with the 2013 Standards going into effect. A market shift towards greater use of 2x6 studs will only have a minor impact on the timber industry and negligible impact on lumber use due 9 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 10 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 BtC 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. 11 While this U-factor is used to calculate cost effectiveness for the 15% compliance package, it is not used as a prescriptive U-factor. Please see Appendix E – Reach Code Prescriptive Walls Path for details. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 17 to optimal lumber sawing practices. Framing requirements are expected to have no additional maintenance if installed properly. External finish: Stucco is the predominant finishing for California residential new construction. It is expected that there will be labor and material increases when applying stucco over rigid insulation at depths greater than 1” due to the need for longer nails and wider door and window frames. Window frames and flashing: Window frames are directly affected by the thickness of the external finish; meaning adjustments must be made in the installation of windows when using thicker rigid exterior insulation.” The incremental costs of going from the base case to the proposed HPW measure are derived from the CASE report and summarized in Table 6. CASE authors determined the costs during the CASE study development, from sources including online retailers such as Home Depot and Lowes, RSMeans, quotes from builders participating in research projects, and confirmed through conversations with CBIA energy analysts. Based on this information, the average cost for the single family prototypes in Palo Alto is approximately $661, which is the value used in the cost effectiveness analysis. Table 6. Residential HPW Incremental Costs Summary Component/Material Base Case Proposed Update 1-story 2-story Multifamily Batt Insulation R-15 R-19 -$245 -$413 -$715 Rigid Insulation R-4 R-6 $214 $399 $790 Wood Framing 2x4 2x6 $476 $752 $1,427 Sill Flashing (additional) 1" 1.5" $69 $69 $69 Total Incremental Costs $514 $808 $1,571 Average Incremental Costs $661 - Further details on costs for this measure are included in Appendix C – Cost Details. 3.1.3 Cool Roofs The T24 Standards currently do not have any cool roof requirements for new low rise residential buildings in CZ4. For buildings without certified cool roofs, the modeling software assumes a default 3-year aged solar reflectance (SR) of 0.10 and thermal emittance (TE) of 0.85. This measure increases the cool roof characteristics to SR = 0.28 and maintains a TE = 0.85. TRC conducted interviews regarding steep slope roof products with several roofers and roof supply distributors in the San Francisco Bay Area. Multiple roofers stated that there is no additional labor to install cool roof products. Additionally, several distributors reported that the product prices are relatively constant for a given region (i.e. the Bay Area in general will have consistent pricing for a particular product). 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. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 18 The incremental costs of going from the base case to a cool roof are summarized in Table 7. The cost of a cool roof for a multifamily building constructed with asphalt shingles is $543, while there is no incremental cost for a multifamily building constructed with a tile roof. Assuming that half of the construction in Palo Alto is asphalt, and the other half tile, the average cost of a cool roof for a multifamily prototypes is $271. With the same assumptions, the average cost of a single family cool roof is $138. Table 7. Residential Cool Roof Incremental Costs Summary Material Base Case Proposed Update 1-Story 2-Story Multifamily Steep Slope Asphalt Shingles ASR=0.10, TE=0.85 ASR=0.28, TE=0.85 $328 $226 $543 Steep Slope Tile ASR=0.10, TE=0.85 ASR=0.28, TE=0.85 $0 $0 $0 Average $138 $271 3.1.4 Instantaneous Water Heaters (IWH) This measure draws from the findings of the 2016 Residential High Performance Walls and QII CASE Report.12 The measure requires that if gas is available, an applicant can comply with the prescriptive standards by installing a gas instantaneous water heater (IWH), a high efficiency gas storage water heater, or a less efficient storage water heater in conjunction with a solar thermal system. The IWH measure requires installing a water heater defined as follows, in accordance with the CASE report: Small instantaneous tank type Tank volume of 0 gallons Energy factor of 0.82 Input rating of 190,000 Btu/h The following excerpts from the CASE report provides a market and cost analysis: “The proposed code change is justified given the current and future residential water heating market, as high-efficiency water heaters (including gas IWHs) have widespread availability in California. The incremental cost of high-efficiency water heaters relative to their less efficient counterparts are recovered over time by way of lower utility bills (i.e. higher energy efficiency 12 Energy Solutions (September 2014) Residential Instantaneous Water Heaters 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_Title_24_Final_CASE_Report_Res_IWH-Sep2014.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 19 reduces energy use and thus lowers utility costs to homeowners) and because IWH have longer lifespans than storage water heaters and will need to be replaced less frequently.” The CASE report describes that the incremental cost of an IWH is $494 more than the prescriptive small storage water heater (including the drain kit and installation), but that the maintenance cost of the IWH is $843 less than the maintenance cost for a storage water heater over the 30-year period of analysis. Therefore there are actually cost savings for an IWH compared to a small (50 gallon) storage tank water heater, as summarized in Table 8. Table 8. Residential IWH Incremental Costs Summary Single Family Multifamily Component Base Case Proposed Update Initial Cost Maint. Cost Inc. Cost Units/ Bldg Cost/ Bldg Units/ Bldg Cost/ Bldg Water Heater Storage Instant- aneous $494 -$843 -$349 1 -$349 8 -$2,792 3.1.5 Solar Ready This measure draws from the development of the 2013 Solar Ready Homes and Solar Oriented Development CASE report.13 The CASE report proposed measures for new construction homes that include: Roof area be reserved for solar equipment A pathway for piping and/or conduit be indicated on plans Roof structural design loads be shown on plans Adequate electrical capacity be provided Spare electric breaker space be provided In addition to the CASE proposed measures, the City of Palo Alto requested that TRC analyze requiring conduit to be provided to support the installation of future solar requirements. Costs obtained from the CASE development are summarized in Table 9 below. The costs for reserving roof area, reserving a pathway for piping/conduit, and structural design load calculations are entirely design costs, which are not included in the CEC’s LCC methodology (though realizing these measures will require additional attention from architects and designers). The costs for the electrical capacity and spare electrical breaker space are taken from the CASE report. 13 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# S15155961 20 To determine costs for requiring conduit, TRC reviewed costs obtained by the CASE team and stakeholder feedback provided during the CASE stakeholder engagement process in 2010-11.14 Cost values include material and labor costs for installing wiring and conduit, as well as stubbing out the attic interior to the roof to allow future accessibility of these pre-installed wires and conduit. The costs for providing conduit are unnecessarily conservative (high) because the costs found were aggregated with wiring costs. Table 9. Solar Ready Incremental Costs Summary Component Costs/Home Design requirements $0 Provide adequate electrical capacity $144 Provide adequate electrical breaker space $38 Conduit and Wiring $810 Total $992 Because the solar ready measure is an enabling measure, rather than a requirement to install a solar system, there are no associated direct energy savings. The 2013 CASE Report researched the magnitude of savings assuming that building owners would voluntarily install solar systems. While there may be savings associated with voluntary installations, the rate of voluntary installations is not well documented and are not applicable to calculating cost-effectiveness on a per-home basis. 3.2 Nonresidential Measures TRC investigated and included each of the following five measures into the nonresidential packages: Outdoor Lighting Power Allowance Indoor Lighting, which is comprised of: • Indoor Lighting Power Densities • Partial-ON Occupancy Sensors • Open Office Occupancy Sensors • Daylight Dimming-Plus-Off Cool Roofs 14 Pre-installing conduit in new construction homes was discussed and eliminated based on stakeholder feedback. The primary concern with pre-installing conduit and wiring was compatibility with evolving technology and electrical code requirements. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 21 Roof Insulation HVAC Efficiency 3.2.1 Outdoor Lighting Power Allowance (LPA) This measure draws from the findings of the 2016 Nonresidential Outdoor Lighting Power Allowance CASE Report.15 This measure replaces Pulse Start Metal Halide (PSMH) light sources with Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) as the basis for the calculation of Lighting Power Allowances (LPA) for all exterior applications where it is technically feasible to do so. The energy usage and savings associated with outdoor lighting 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 D – Spreadsheet Analysis Energy Savings. The following excerpt from the CASE report provides a market analysis: “The industry as a whole is participating in the change to LED light sources. Manufacturers are actively funding R&D efforts for the LED market, putting most of their R&D funds into LED product development. As a result, manufacturers are already supporting this change and are working to be well positioned for this market shift.” The following excerpt from the CASE report provides a cost analysis, which describes that there are no costs associated with this measure because the initial cost and the maintenance cost of LEDs are both lower than PSMHs: “[B]y 2017, many of the proposed lighting systems are likely to cost less than the incumbent PSMH lighting systems. This is considering cost forecasts for LED products, which estimate an approximate 30% reduction in luminaire costs by 2017. […] For the sake of the calculations, luminaire maintenance is not being considered in the comparative analysis. The incumbent systems all have higher maintenance costs compared to LED, and the very long life of LED makes them effectively last for the full duration of the 15 year life cycle without requiring maintenance.” 3.2.2 Indoor Lighting There are four components to this measure as described below. 15 TRC Energy Services and Clanton & Associates (December 2014) Nonresidential Outdoor Lighting Power Allowance Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-06- 24_workshop/final_case_reports/2016_T24_CASE_Report-Outdoor_LPA-Dec_2014-V3.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 22 Indoor LPDs This measure draws from the findings of the 2016 Nonresidential Lighting: Indoor LPDs CASE Report.16 The measure reduces the lighting power allowances, measured in Watts/ft2 of spaces common to office buildings, such as conference rooms, mechanical rooms, lobbies, and other areas. This measure does not challenge the quality or nature of the lighting equipment employed to establish the allowances, thus there is no anticipation that the changes will trigger any additional costs. TRC assessed the energy performance of this measure in coordination with the Partial-ON Occupancy Sensors measure, described in the next section. Partial-ON Occupancy Sensors This measures draws from the findings of the 2016 Nonresidential Lighting Controls: Partial-ON Occupancy Sensors CASE Report.17 This measure is focused on spaces that are required to have an occupancy sensor currently (for offices these spaces are private offices, conference rooms, and multipurpose rooms), and meet the requirement to have multilevel lighting in the existing code. The measure requires that these sensors operate as either a partial-ON sensor, or as a vacancy sensor, saving approximately 20 percent of the baseline energy in those spaces. This control strategy does not reduce connected load, but will reduce the hours of operation and the actual load of the lighting when in a dimmed state, resulting in energy savings. This measure does not incur any incremental costs because the baseline controls infrastructure requires the same equipment with different programming. Therefore, there are no additional costs associated with this measure. Each of the Indoor LPDs and Partial-ON Occupancy Sensor CASE reports provide a weighted average LPD reduction for various impacted building spaces. These weighted LPD reductions represent the energy impacts of each measure. TRC input the LPD reductions for impacted office spaces into CBECC-Com to model the two measures. However, the LPD reductions cannot simply be summed, as part of the savings from each measure overlap. In coordination with the lead author for both CASE reports, the default LPDs for the spaces were reduced from 0.75 W/ft2 in each prototype to 0.682 W/ft2 in the medium office building and 0.685 W/ft2 for the small office building. 18 These LPD reductions represent the energy impacts of both CASE measures, and 16 TRC Energy Services and Clanton & Associates (October 2014) Nonresidential Lighting: Indoor LPDs Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-06- 24_workshop/final_case_reports/2016_T24_CASE_Report-NonresLightingLPD-Oct2014-V2.pdf 17 TRC Energy Services (September 2014) Nonresidential Lighting Controls: Partial-ON Occupancy Sensors Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-06- 24_workshop/final_case_reports/2016_Title_24_Final_CASE_Report-Nonresidential_Lighting_Controls_Partial- ON_Ocupancy_Sensors.pdf 18 Communication with Michael Mutmansky of TRC Energy Services, January 2015. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 23 consider that the original Partial-ON savings were calculated using the baseline LPDs in the 2013 T24 Standards. TRC accounted for the overlap of savings between these measures by using the LPDs proposed in the 2016 Indoor LPDs CASE report as the baseline LPD for the Partial-ON savings calculation. Open Office Occupancy Sensors This measure draws from the findings of the 2013 Indoor Lighting Controls CASE Report.19 This CASE report investigates the use of occupancy controls in open office spaces at various control group sizes. The measure proposed in this study is for 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 D – 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 10 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 increase market adoption. Table 10. Nonresidential Indoor Lighting Incremental Costs Summary Component Base Case Proposed Update Small Office Medium Office 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 19 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# S15155961 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.20 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 daylighted 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. 3.2.3 Cool Roofs The 2013 T24 Standards have prescriptive requirements for nonresidential buildings in CZ4, proposed by the 2013 Case Report for Nonresidential Cool Roofs.21 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 = 0.34 for steep slopes, compared to current SR = 0.20 prescriptive requirements SR = 0.7 for low slopes, compared to current SR = 0.63 prescriptive requirements The medium office prototype has a low slope roof, while the small office prototype has a steep slope roof. Both roof slope types have modeling defaults of 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 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 slope 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: 20 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 21 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# S15155961 25 “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 11. The cost of a steep slope cool roof for a building constructed with asphalt shingles is $1,869, 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 $934. Then, assuming the half of office roof construction is low slope, and the other half steep slope, the average cost becomes $467. Table 11. 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=0.34, TE=0.85 $0.29 ft2 roof 6,444 $1,869 - - Steep Slope Tile ASR=0.20, TE=0.75 ASR=0.34, TE=0.85 $0.00 ft2 roof 6,444 $0 - - Low Slope products ASR=0.63, TE=0.75 ASR=0.70, TE=0.85 $0.00 ft2 roof - - 17,876 $0 Average - $934 $0 3.2.4 Roof Insulation This measure draws from the findings of the 2016 Nonresidential Opaque Envelope CASE Report.22 The measure improves the cavity insulation from R-25 to R-30 for nonresidential wood framed roofs. The CASE report describes that this requirement does “not require any change in construction techniques or practices, and can be readily achieved with insulation products 22 Noresco (December 2014) Nonresidential Opaque Envelope Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-06- 12_workshop/final_case_reports/2016_Title_24_CASE_Report-NR_Opaque_Envelope-Dec2014-V3.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 26 currently in use.” The incremental cost of going from R-25 to R-30 is $0.44/ft2 of roof area (from Table 24 of the CASE report) and summarized in Table 12. Table 12. Nonresidential Roof Insulation Incremental Costs Summary Small Office Medium Office Material Base Case Proposed Update Inc. $/Unit Unit Units/ Bldg $/Bldg Units/ Bldg $/Bldg Insulation for Wood-Framed Roof R-25 R-30 $0.44 ft2 roof 6,444 $2,835 17,876 $7,865 Average Incremental Cost $5,350 3.2.5 HVAC Efficiency This measure improves the efficiency of the heating and cooling systems. The two prototypes have different HVAC systems: the small office has five single-zone packaged air conditioners (SZACs) with direct expansion cooling and furnace heating; the medium office has three air handling units (AHUs) serving variable air volume systems, with direct expansion cooling, economizers, and two boilers supplying hot water. Thus, different improvements were defined for each system. The small office SZACs measures included: • Economizers, with integrated controls using a fixed dry bulb control method, and with high and low dry bulb temperature lockouts of 75°F and 50°F, respectively. • 14 SEER cooling efficiency, from 13 SEER mandatory requirements • 90% AFUE heating efficiency, from 78% AFUE mandatory requirements The medium office measures included: • 11 EER cooling efficiency, from 9.8 EER mandatory requirements • 90% boiler thermal efficiency, from 80% thermal efficiency mandatory requirements TRC contacted manufacturer representatives to attain incremental cost data for these systems, using the average size of the systems in the CZ4 prototypes. These costs, summarized in Table 13, include an additional 10% for taxes and 25% contractor markup. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 27 A variety of HVAC system combinations are possible depending on the size and function of a given building. TRC attempted to capture the potential variability in costs and savings by blending the results from the small office and medium office measures. Table 13. Nonresidential HVAC Measures Incremental Costs Summary Component/ Material Base Case Proposed Update Small Office Medium Office Five SZACs 2.5 Tons Cooling Capacity 38 MBH Heating Capacity No Economizer 13 SEER 78% AFUE Economizer 14 SEER 90% AFUE $7,219 - Three AHUs 40 Tons Cooling Capacity 9.8 EER 11 EER - $27,500 Two Boilers 400 MBH Heating Capacity 80% TE 90% TE - $14,908 Total Incremental Cost $7,219 $42,408 Average Incremental Cost $24,813 Further details on costs for this measure are included in Appendix C – Cost Details. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 28 4. ENERGY SAVINGS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS The results for each of the six packages are presented below, including TDV energy savings, percent compliance, the present value of energy savings, measure costs, and benefit to cost (B/C) ratio. 4.1 Residential Packages 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. 4.1.1 Single Family “The single family 10% package can be met with two individual measures: high performance attics, or instantaneous water heaters, as shown in Table 14.”The single family 10% package can be met with the high performance attics measure as shown in Table 14. Table 14. Single Family 10% Package Cost Effectiveness Single Family Residential 10% Package Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 31 0% $0 $0 - + High Performance Attic 27 12% $1,986 $1,477 1.3 “The single family 15% package adds the high performance walls measure to the instantaneous water heater measure, as shown in Table 15”. The single family 15% package adds the instantaneous water heater and solar ready measures to the high performance attics measure, as shown in Table 15. Table 15. Single Family 15% Package Cost Effectiveness Single Family Residential 15% Package Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Single Family 10% Package 27 12% $1,986 $1,477 1.3 + Instantaneous Water Heaters 24 22% $3,438 $1,128 3.0 + Solar Ready 24 22% $3,438 $2,120 1.6 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 29 4.1.2 Multifamily The multifamily 10% package is a combination of the High Performance Attics, High Performance Walls, and Cool Roofs measures, as shown in Table 16. Table 16. Multifamily 10% Package Cost Effectiveness Multifamily Residential 10% Package Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 44 0% $0 $0 - + High Performance Attic 42 6% $3,311 $3,049 1.1 + High Performance Walls 40 9% $4,804 $4,620 1.0 + Cool Roofs 40 10% $5,491 $4,886 1.1 Simulation results in Table 17 show that the Instantaneous Water Heater measure alone would exceed Title 24 2013 by 23%. The reason that the IWH measure performs better in the multifamily prototype than the single family prototypes is due to the multiple water heaters. Water heating also represents about 60% of the energy usage in the multifamily prototype, as opposed to about 36% in the single family prototype, therefore the IWH measure has a larger energy savings impact. Table 17. Multifamily 15% Package Cost Effectiveness Multifamily Residential 15% Package Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 44 0% $0 $0 - + Instantaneous Water Heaters 34 23% $12,053 -$2,792 No costs 4.2 Nonresidential Packages The nonresidential 10% package is achieved largely through low or no incremental cost lighting measures, which by themselves show a B/C ratio of 9.2, as shown in Table 18. In combination with the roof measures and HVAC efficiency measures, the B/C ratios reduce to 3.9 for the 10% package and 1.9 for the 15% package, but remain cost effective. Table 18. Nonresidential 10% Package Cost Effectiveness Nonresidential 10% Package Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 152 0% $0 $0 - TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 30 + Outdoor LPA 147 3% $13,007 $0 No costs + Indoor Lighting 139 9% $35,209 $3,832 9.2 + Cool Roof + Roof Insulation 137 10% $38,017 $9,650 3.9 The nonresidential 15% package adds the HVAC efficiency measure to the nonresidential 10% package, as shown in Table 19. Table 19. Nonresidential 15% Package Cost Effectiveness Nonresidential 15% Package Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Nonresidential 10% Package 137 10% $38,017 $9,650 3.9 + HVAC Efficiency Measures 128 16% $55,035 $34,463 1.6 4.3 Reach Code Recommendation Because all of the packages proved cost effective for prototypes in the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Municipal Code should renew the Reach Code ordinance requiring that single family, multifamily, and nonresidential buildings exceed the Title 24 Standards by at least 15%. The single family and multifamily packages cost effectively exceeded T24 by 22% and 23%, respectively, giving room for Palo Alto to extend the Reach Code requirements for these building types beyond 15%. The single family 15% package can include solar ready requirements and remain cost effective. 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. However, for simulation software that cannot model the nonresidential Outdoor LPA and Open Office Occupancy Sensors (like CBECC-Com), the lighting designer will show compliance on ancillary CEC compliance forms. To comply with the Outdoor LPA measure, lighting designers will need show that the outdoor lighting power densities are at least 40% below the 2013 T24 Standards outdoor lighting power allowances. This installed wattage reduction would roughly provide the TDV savings estimated by the Outdoor LPA CASE report. To comply with the open office occupancy sensor measure, building designers will need to apply for the Power Adjustment Factor (PAF) in T24 Standards Table 140.6-A, Occupant Sensing Controls in Large Open Plan Offices, using compliance form NRCC-LTI- 02-E. 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 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 31 building model. The indoor lighting energy should not exceed the prescriptive T24 requirements without the PAF credit applied. 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Savings New construction complying with the 15% Reach Code will result in greenhouse gas (GHG) savings. Because the City of Palo Alto Utilities have a carbon neutral electricity supply composed of hydroelectric and renewable sources, avoided greenhouse gas emissions are solely due to reduced natural gas usage. The natural gas usage in therms are estimated in CBECC simulations for each prototype building. These savings are multiplied by a factor of 11.7 lbs of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per therm, as per Environmental Protection Agency research.23 As shown in Table 21: 20% GHG savings are achieved for each newly constructed single family building 32% GHG savings are achieved for each newly constructed multifamily building 8% GHG savings are achieved for each newly constructed nonresidential building These GHG reduction estimates are based on complying with the 15% compliance package using the measures analyzed in this study. Compliance with the 15% Reach Code may be achieved through a variety of measures, each of which will have varying natural gas and GHG savings. 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 2013 Calendar year, provided by the Palo Alto planning department. GHG savings are expressed in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). 23 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. “Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/emission-factors.pdf. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 32 Table 20. Greenhouse Gas Savings Summary Single Family 15% Package Measure Gas Therms / Home lbs CO2e lbs CO2e Avoided GHG Savings Homes Affected / Year MTCO2e Avoided / Year Code Compliant Building 401 4,687 0 0% 117 0 Single Family 15% Package 320 3,744 943 20% 110,318 Multifamily 15% Package Measure Gas Therms / Home lbs CO2e lbs CO2e Avoided GHG Savings Buildings Affected / Year MTCO2e Avoided / Year Code Compliant Building 1356 15,848 0 0% 5 0 Multifamily 15% Package 922 10,782 5,067 32% 25,335 Nonresidential 15% Package Measure Gas Therms / Home lbs CO2e lbs CO2e Avoided GHG Savings Buildings Affected / Year MTCO2e Avoided / Year Code Compliant Building 2259 26,410 0 0% 16 0 Nonresidential 15% Package 2067 24,166 2,245 8% 35,915 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 33 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 18 – Local Energy Efficiency Standards Covered for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by the California Energy Code, 2008 Edition. “16.18.050 – General compliance requirements. In addition to the requirements of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the following general compliance requirements shall apply to all building permit applications subject to this chapter: (a) Nonresidential construction. (1) New construction greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet, including additions to existing buildings. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV energy of the standard design. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of LEED's minimum energy prerequisite as described in Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation." (2) New construction between 500 square feet and 5,000 square feet, including additions to existing buildings. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed building is at least 15.0% less than the TDV energy of the standard design. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of LEED's minimum energy LEED prerequisite as described in Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation." (3) Tenant improvements, renovation or alterations greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. Energy efficiency beyond 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standard minimums is not required for projects covered by this section. (4) Tenant improvements, renovations or alternations greater than or equal to 500 square feet with greater than $100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit, that are not otherwise covered under Section 3 of Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction." The applicant shall attain an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Building Energy Performance Rating prior to the issuance of a building permit, although achievement of a particular rating is not required. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of the building energy performance rating described in Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation." (b) Residential construction. (1) Multi-family residential new construction of three or more attached units. The building permit applicant must determine whether the building is low-rise or high-rise as defined by the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and then use the appropriate approach as described below: (A) Low rise (three stories or less). The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed building is at least 15.0% less than the TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 34 TDV energy of the standard design. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "multi-family residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". (B) High rise (four stories or more). The applicant shall model the building envelope and mechanical system of the proposed design consistent with the 2008 Title 24 performance method rules. The applicant shall demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is less than the TDV energy of the standard design by the percentage required for minimum energy performance specified in the 2009 GreenPoint Rated new "multi-family residential" construction guidelines. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite required for new "multi-family residential" construction as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation." (2) Multi-family renovations or alterations greater than or equal to 50% of the existing unit square footage that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. The building permit applicant shall determine whether the building is low-rise or high-rise as defined by the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and then use the appropriate approach as described below: (A) Low rise (three stories or less). The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV energy of the standard design. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "multi-family residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". (B) High rise (four stories or more). The applicant shall model the building envelope and mechanical system of the proposed design consistent with the 2008 Title 24 performance method rules. The applicant shall demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is less than the TDV energy of the standard design by the percentage required for minimum energy performance specified in the current GreenPoint Rated new "multi-family residential" construction guidelines. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite required for new "multi-family residential" construction as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation." (3) Multi-family renovations, alterations, additions, and/or rebuilds to individual units greater than or equal to 250 square feet with a building permit valuation greater than or equal to $100,000 in a single unit. The applicant shall attain a HERS II rating prior to issuance of the building permit, although achievement of a particular rating is not required. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of the HERS rating requirement as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". Compliance with this section is not required until January 1, 2011. (4) Single-family or two-family residential new construction greater than or equal to 1,250 square feet. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV energy of the standard design. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "single- TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 35 family and two-family residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". (5) Single-family or two-family residential additions or rebuilds greater than or equal to 1,250 square feet. The performance approach specified in Section 151 of the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV energy of the standard design. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "single-family and two-family residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". (6) Single-family or two-family renovations, rebuilds and/or additions that are between 250 square feet and 1,250 square feet, and that have greater than $100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit. The applicant shall attain a HERS II rating prior to issuance of the building permit, although achievement of a specific HERS II rating is not required. Compliance with this section shall constitute achievement of the minimum energy requirement as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation". This section has an effective date of January 1, 2011. (Ord. 5070 § 2, 2010: Ord. 5024 § 2, 2008)” TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 36 6. APPENDIX B – ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS ANALYSIS Some of the energy efficiency measures that TRC analyzed for new construction may also be applicable to additions and alterations of buildings. The City of Palo may also choose to require Reach Codes for these types of permit applications. TRC assessed the relevance of each measure to additions and alterations, followed by a Reach Code recommendation. 6.1 Residential Measures The T24 Standards sections relevant to residential additions and alterations are: 150.0: Low Rise Residential Building – Mandatory Features and Devices 150.1: Low Rise Residential Buildings – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Newly Constructed Residential Buildings 150.2: Low Rise Residential Buildings – Additions and Alterations in Existing Low Rise Residential Buildings 6.1.1 Relevance The current language in Section 16.18.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the following: Low rise multifamily alterations ≥ 50% of the existing floor area that include replacement or alteration of at least two systems (HVAC, envelope, domestic hot water, or lighting), must use the performance approach to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is ≤ 15% the TDV energy of the standard design. Single family additions or rebuilds ≥ 1,250 ft2 must use the performance approach to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is ≤ 15% the TDV energy of the standard design. Single family renovations, rebuilds, or additions ≥ 250 ft2 and ≤ 1,250 ft2 must achieve a HERS II Rating. The current Palo Alto Municipal Code require the use of the performance approach for low rise multifamily alterations and single family additions that exceed a floor area threshold. Single family alterations do not require a T24-based calculation. Additions: The performance approach for additions and alterations uses the prescriptive requirements in Section 150.1 to establish the performance budget for Section 150.2. TRC’s new construction costs and energy savings analysis compared measures relative to the T24 prescriptive requirements, therefore the new construction findings hold true for all additions. Alterations: For alterations, the relevance of the new construction analysis completed for each residential measure is discussed below in Table 21. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 37 Table 21. Residential Measures Relevance to Alterations Measure Relevant? Justification High Performance Attics No TRC’s analysis included adding above-deck insulation and duct improvements, which would not normally be triggered during an insulation alteration. The cost of improving duct leakage and adding duct insulation to existing ducts, and adding roof deck insulation, is not included in TRC’s new construction analysis. High Performance Walls No TRC’s analysis calculates cost effectiveness for installing 2x6 studs, while most wall insulation alterations likely contain 2x4 studs. The cost of wall insulation assemblies other than R19 + R6, or replacing 2x4 studs with 2x6 studs, is not included in TRC’s new construction analysis. Cool Roofs Yes TRC’s new construction analysis includes the cost of adding a cool roof beyond the prescriptive minimum solar reflectance, which are the only costs relevant to an alteration of a roof. Instantaneous Water Heaters Yes TRC’s new construction analysis includes the cost of adding the new instantaneous water heater compared to the prescriptive storage tank water heater, but does not include alteration costs. TRC reviewed the 2013 CASE Report “High-Efficiency Water Heater Ready” for estimates on costs for alterations.24 The costs for a new venting system, electrical connection, condensate disposal, and upgraded gas supply line (1/2” to 3/4" diameter) are estimated to be $1,357 for retrofits in the CASE report. These costs are added to the incremental cost of -$349 per dwelling, from Table 8, to result in a net cost of $1,008 per dwelling. Solar Ready No Palo Alto did not request TRC to apply this measure to alterations. The costs and savings related to the Cool Roof and Instantaneous Water Heaters measures are relevant to single family and multifamily alterations. 6.1.2 Cost Effectiveness As described earlier, TRC’s new construction cost effectiveness analysis is relevant to additions. 24 California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team. (October 2011) High-efficiency Water Heater Ready Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Reports/Residential/Water_ Heating/2013_CASE_WH2.WH5_WaterHeaterReady-10.28.2011.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 38 The single family alterations package is cost-effective by over 10% when applying the instantaneous water heater and cool roof new construction analysis results, as shown in Table 22. Table 22. Single Family Alterations Cost Effective Package Single Family Residential Alterations Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 30.9 0% $0 $0 - + Instantaneous Water Heaters 27.9 9.6% $1,452 $1,008 1.4 + Cool Roof 27.5 11.0% $1,738 $1,146 1.5 The multifamily alterations package is cost-effective by over 20% when applying only the instantaneous water heater analysis, as shown in Table 23. Table 23. Multifamily Alterations Cost Effective Package Multifamily Residential Alterations Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 44 0% $0 $0 - + Instantaneous Water Heaters 34 23% $12,041 $10,856 1.1 6.1.3 Recommendation When considering these recommendations for alterations, please note the analysis findings are derived from a specific set of measures that do not apply to all alterations. Applying these findings to all alteration scenarios is an aggressive Reach Code requirement. Furthermore, not all alterations building permit applicants would be completing a performance approach, and requiring them to do so may be unnecessarily burdensome. This is a contrast to new construction, where all building systems are designed and built as one unit and the performance approach is used by the majority of applicants. With this in consideration, TRC recommends that Palo Alto require the following Reach Code measures for residential additions and alterations. The underlined sections emphasize the changes from the original language. Low rise multifamily alterations, additions, or rebuilds ≥ 50% of the existing floor area that include replacement or alteration of at least two systems (HVAC, envelope, domestic hot water, or lighting), must use the performance approach to demonstrate TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 39 that the TDV energy of the proposed design is 15% below the TDV energy of the standard design. Single family additions, or rebuilds ≥ 1,250 ft2 must use the performance approach to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is 15% below the TDV energy of the standard design. Single family alterations or renovations ≥ 1,250 ft2 that include alteration, replacement, or installation of at least two systems (HVAC, envelope, domestic hot water, or lighting) must use the performance approach to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is 10% below the TDV energy of the standard design. Water heater change-outs present a unique situation for residential alterations and renovations. Our analysis showed that instantaneous water heaters (IWH) (or the solar- assist equivalent) were cost effective for both multi-family and single family new construction, saving 23% and almost 10% (9.6%) of the whole building energy use, respectively.25 However, the new construction analysis allows the applicant to use the performance approach to model other DHW systems, such as “standard” tank-style gas water heaters. In the case of water heater change-out only alterations it is unlikely that the applicant would use the whole building performance approach, and less likely that the otherwise unaltered existing building would meet the current Title 24 code requirements. The City may want to include IWH, or the solar-assist equivalent, to the residential Reach Code requirements, but should recognize that this requirement would limit home-owner choices, with few alternatives. An exception to this requirement is an existing permanently installed domestic solar water-heating system. 6.2 Nonresidential Measures The T24 Standards sections relevant to nonresidential additions and alterations are: 120.0 – 130.5: Nonresidential Mandatory Requirements 140.0 – 140.9: Nonresidential Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Achieving Energy Efficiency 141.0: Additions, Alterations, and Repairs to Existing Buildings that Will be Nonresidential Occupancies and to Existing Outdoor Lighting for these Occupancies 6.2.1 Relevance The current language in Section 16.18.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the following: Nonresidential additions meet the new construction Reach Code. 25 The solar fraction proposed in the Instantaneous Water Heating CASE report is 0.55. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 40 Nonresidential tenant improvements, alterations, or renovations ≥ 5,000 ft2 that include replacement or alteration of at least two systems (HVAC, envelope, hot water, or lighting) meet the T24 Standards. (There is no Reach Code). TRC assumes that building permit applicants will use the performance approach for additions or alterations ≥ 5,000 ft2 that include multiple systems. The performance approach for additions and alterations of nonresidential buildings, as defined in T24 Section 141.0(a)2 and 141.0(b)3, requires the added and altered components meet the mandatory requirements in T24 Sections 120.0-130.5, as well as the energy budget for a prescriptive building defined in Sections 140.2- 140.9. Additions: Because the standard energy budget for additions is the same as for prescriptive buildings, and TRC’s analysis compared costs and energy savings compared to the T24 prescriptive requirements, the costs and energy savings in TRC’s analysis remain relevant to additions. Alterations: For alterations, the relevance of the new construction analysis completed for each nonresidential measure is described below in Table 24. Table 24. Nonresidential Measures Relevance to Alterations Measure Relevant? Justification Outdoor LPA No The lighting power allowance required by this measure may not be achievable without major renovations to existing outdoor lighting systems (e.g., digging into hardscape and moving wiring). TRC’s new construction analysis does not include the costs of these renovations. Indoor Lighting – Indoor LPDs Yes The lighting power density required by this measure is achievable for renovations to existing indoor lighting systems. Generally for large lighting renovations, T24 would require contractors to install multilevel dimming ballasts and efficient fixtures, which are capable of achieving the LPDs required in this measure. TRC’s new construction analysis does not anticipate costs for going beyond the T24 minimum, which are relevant alterations. Indoor Lighting – Partial-ON Occupancy Sensors Yes This measure may be achieved through simple control changes in equipment. Generally, large lighting renovations to achieve the 2013 T24 minimum would require contractors to install and/or reconfigure occupancy sensor controls where needed. Thus, this measure does not result in costs beyond what is required in the T24 minimum for alterations, which was also the assumption for TRC’s new construction analysis. Indoor Lighting – Open Office Occupancy Sensors Yes This measure requires additional occupancy sensors. The costs of the materials and labor beyond the current T24 minimum requirement were included in TRC’s new construction analysis for this measure. Indoor Lighting – Daylight Dimming-Plus- Yes This measure may be achieved through simple control changes in existing equipment. Generally, large lighting renovations to achieve the 2013 T24 minimum would require contractors to install or TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 41 Off reconfigure daylight sensor controls where needed. Thus, this measure does not result in costs beyond what is required in the T24 minimum for alterations, which was also the assumption for TRC’s new construction analysis. Cool Roof Yes TRC’s analysis includes the cost of adding a cool roof beyond the prescriptive T24 minimum aged solar reflectance (SR=0.63), which is the same solar reflectance required for roofing alterations. Roof Insulation No TRC’s analysis calculates the incremental cost of going from R-25 insulation to R-30 insulation. R-values lower than R-25 are required for roof insulation alterations, and would result in different incremental costs than those provided in TRC’s analysis. HVAC Efficiency No TRC’s analysis calculates the incremental cost of replacing HVAC equipment with higher efficiency units. HVAC systems have varying lifetimes, and alterations of existing HVAC systems may not happen simultaneously. Many owners choose to alter components of systems rather than replacing systems to improve efficiency. TRC’s analysis does not include the variation in alteration scenarios for the types of HVAC systems studied. 6.2.2 Cost Effectiveness As described earlier, TRC’s new construction cost effectiveness analysis is relevant to additions. The nonresidential alterations package is cost-effective by over 5% when applying the Indoor Lighting and Cool Roof measures, as shown in Table 25. Table 25. Nonresidential Alterations Cost Effective Package Nonresidential Alterations Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Code Compliant Building 152.3 0% $0 $0 - + Indoor Lighting 144.1 5% $22,201 $3,832 5.8 + Cool Roof 143.5 6% $22,709 $4,299 5.3 Additionally, the energy impact of the lighting improvements alone exceed the standard lighting design TDV budget by 21%, as shown in Table 26. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 42 Table 26. Nonresidential Lighting Alterations Cost Effective Package Nonresidential Indoor Lighting Alterations Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Lighting for Code Compliant Building 35 0% $0 $0 - + Indoor Lighting 27 22% $20,170 $3,832 5.3 6.2.3 Recommendation When considering these recommendations for alterations, please note the analysis findings are derived from a specific set of measures applied to an office building prototype model that do not apply to all alterations. Applying these findings to all alteration scenarios is an aggressive Reach Code requirement. Furthermore, not all alterations building permit applicants would be completing a performance approach, and requiring them to do so may be unnecessarily burdensome. With this in consideration, TRC recommends that Palo Alto require the following for nonresidential additions and alterations. The underlined sections emphasize the changes from the original language. Nonresidential additions meet the new construction Reach Code. Tenant improvements, alterations, or renovations ≥ 5,000 ft2 that include replacement or alteration of at least two systems (HVAC, envelope, hot water, or lighting) must use the performance approach to demonstrate that the TDV energy of the proposed design is ≤ 5% the TDV energy of the standard design. Nonresidential lighting alterations alone must demonstrate that the proposed lighting design is 15% below the standard lighting energy allowance. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 43 7. APPENDIX C – COST DETAILS Table 27. Residential HPA 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 Below Deck Insulation none R-13 $0.32 ft2 roof area 2520 $806 1740 $557 4176 $1,336 Ceiling Insulation R-30 R-38 $0.14 ft2 ceiling area 2100 $294 1450 $203 3480 $487 Duct Insulation R-6 R-8 $0.66 Linear ft ducts 217 $143 278 $183 718 $474 Duct Leakage 8% 5% (Proper care during field installation can achieve 5% duct leakage without adding a low leakage air handler or other additional costs) Netting None Present $0.32 ft2 roof area 2520 $806 1740 $557 4176 $1,336 Radiant Barrier Present None -$0.14 ft2 ceiling area 2100 -$353 1450 -$244 3480 -$585 Totals - $1,697 - $1,256 - $3,049 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 44 Table 28. Residential HPW 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 Batt Insulation R-15 R-19 -$0.19 ft2 wall area 1288 -$245 2172 -$413 3762 -$715 Rigid Insulation R-4 R-6 $0.21 ft2 exterior wall area 1018 $214 1902 $399 3762 $790 Wood Framing 2x4 2x6 $0.29 linear board ft of framing 1642 $476 2594 $752 4919 $1,427 Sill Flashing (additional) 1" 1.5" $2.16 ft2 sill flashing area 32 $69 32 $69 32 $69 Totals - $514 - $808 - $1,571 Table 29. Residential Cool Roof Detailed Costs Single Story Two Story Multifamily Material Base Case Proposed Update Incremental $/Unit Unit Units/ Home $/Home Units/ Home $/Home Units/ Building $/ Building Steep Slope Asphalt Shingles ASR=0.10, TE=0.85 ASR=0.28, TE=0.85 $0.13 ft2 roof area 2520 $328 1740 $226 4176 $543 Steep Slope Tile ASR=0.10, TE=0.85 ASR=0.28, TE=0.85 $0.00 ft2 roof area 2520 $0 1740 $0 4176 $0 Average - $164 - $113 - $271 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 45 Table 30. 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 Table 31. Nonresidential HVAC Efficiency - 40-Ton AHU Costs Source Cost for 9.8 EER Cost for 11 EER Incremental $/unit Average Inc. $/unit + 25% Contractor Markup and 10% Taxes Trane #1 $38,000 $48,000 $10,000 $6,667 $9,167 Trane #2 $48,000 $53,000 $5,000 Norman S Wright $38,000 $43,000 $5,000 Table 32. Nonresidential HVAC Efficiency – 400 MBH Boiler Costs Source Efficiency Price Average $/unit Online - Burnham Series 8H steam boiler 80-84% $4,678 $5,407 Online - Burnham 5007B Nonresidential Atmospheric Gas-Fired Steam Boiler $6,309 Online - AO Smith HW-399 Conservationist Burkay $5,531 Online - AO Smith HW-399 Conservationist Burkay $5,110 Online - Lochinvar Knight XL Boiler > 90% $10,819 $10,828 Online - Lochinvar Knight Kbn400 High Efficiency $9,665 Clyde Equipment - MLX EXT 481 $12,000 Incremental $/unit $5,421 + 25% Contractor Markup and 10% Taxes $7,454 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 46 Table 33. Nonresidential HVAC Efficiency Detailed Costs Small Office Medium Office Component Base Case Proposed Update Incremental $/Unit Units Units/ Building $/ Building Units/ Building $/ Building Five SZACs 2.5 Tons Cooling Capacity 38 MBH Heating Capacity No Economizer 13 SEER 78% AFUE Economizer 14 SEER 90% AFUE $1,444 SZAC 5 $7,219 - - Three AHUs 40 Tons Cooling Capacity 9.8 EER 11 EER $9,167 AHU - - 3 $27,500 Two Boilers 400 MBH Heating Capacity 80% TE 90% TE $7,454 Boiler - - 2 $14,908 Totals - $7,219 - $42,408 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 47 8. APPENDIX D – SPREADSHEET ANALYSIS ENERGY SAVINGS The energy impact of the Outdoor LPA measure, described in Section 3.2.1, and the Proximity Sensors measure, described in Section 3.2.2, could not be calculated using CBECC-Com. TRC estimated the energy impact using spreadsheet analysis using information from the respective CASE reports. 8.1 Outdoor LPA To determine the potential energy savings associated with this measure, TRC calculated the area of general hardscape relevant to each prototype. Using Figures 39 and 40 in the Outdoor LPA CASE report, TRC determined that there is 1 ft2 of general hardscape for each 1 ft2 of office conditioned floor area. 26 Since the measure applies to several lighting zones, all of which could be included in the City of Palo Alto, Table 15 from the CASE report was used to estimate the likely construction activity within the respective lighting zones. Tables 24 and 25 from the CASE report provide the effective lighting power density impacts and energy impacts per square foot of general hardscape. The 15-year factor of 0.089 was used to convert from TDV dollars to TDV kBtu. All of this information was used to arrive at the estimates provided in Table 34, and validated by the lead author of the Outdoor LPA CASE report.27 For simplicity, not all of the steps necessary to determine the standard and proposed TDV savings are presented. It is important to note the highlighted cell containing the weighted average 9.8 TDV kBtu/ft2-yr is the value used in Table 4 to determine the TDV energy usage of the prototypes, including outdoor lighting. 26 TRC Energy Services and Clanton & Associates (December 2014) Nonresidential Outdoor Lighting Power Allowance Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-06- 24_workshop/final_case_reports/2016_T24_CASE_Report-Outdoor_LPA-Dec_2014-V3.pdf 27 Communication with Michael Mutmansky (TRC Energy Services). January 2015. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 48 Table 34. Nonresidential Outdoor Lighting TDV Energy Savings Source Item 1 2 3 4 Total Table 15 of CASE report % Construction 0.1% 10% 90% 0.0% Table 24 of CASE report 2013 LPA (W/ft2) 0.056 0.080 0.139 0.183 2016 LPA (W/ft2) 0.037 0.053 0.068 0.089 Calculation Power Reduction (W/ft2) 0.019 0.026 0.072 0.094 % Reduction 34% 33% 52% 51% Weighted % Reduction 0% 3% 47% 0% 50% Table 25 of CASE report TDV $/ft2 Savings 0.130 0.170 0.470 0.620 Calculation Weighted Standard TDV kBtu/ft2-yr 0.0043 0.5819 9.1759 0.0000 9.8 Weighted Proposed TDV kBtu/ft2-yr 0.0028 0.3928 4.4229 0.0000 4.8 Weighted Savings TDV kBtu/ft2-yr 0.0015 0.1891 4.7530 0.0000 4.9 8.2 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 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-daylighted 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%. The summary of findings is provided in Table 35. 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 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 49 Table 35. 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* $1,732* $14,596* TDV kBtu Savings* 19,458* 164,004* Percent Savings 1.9% 2.6% * Accounting for overlap with potential daylight sensor savings. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 50 9. APPENDIX E – REACH CODE PRESCRIPTIVE WALLS PATH During the drafting of this study, the Reach Code ordinance included the residential walls measure as a prescriptive path (as an alternative to the performance path). The CEC’s proposed revisions to the 2016 Title 24 code, released in early March 2015, includes a wall U-factor of 0.051 in climate zone 4.29 TRC recommends that Palo Alto’s prescriptive U-factor requirement for walls be 0.051 in order to align with the CEC’s revisions, rather than 0.048 as per the measure included in the compliance packages. Aligning the 2013 Reach Code with the 2016 Standards will serve to better prepare the Palo Alto regional building industry of future statewide changes. (This change would have no bearing on the results and recommendations from the 15% residential package in the body of the report, as that package was shown to be cost effective). The primary difference between a U-0.051 wall assembly and a U-0.048 wall assembly described in the body of the report is that the exterior insulation can be R-5 rather than R-6. R-5 insulation is slightly less expensive than R-6 insulation, and is also manufactured in 1” thickness, which negates the incremental costs necessary for additional sill flashing at wall openings. These two changes are reflected in the incremental costs for a U-0.051 wall presented in Table 36. Table 36. Incremental Costs of U-0.051 Residential Walls Component/Material Base Case Proposed Update 1-story 2-story Multifamily Batt Insulation R-15 R-19 -$245 -$413 -$715 Rigid Insulation R-4 R-5 $153 $285 $564 Wood Framing 2x4 2x6 $476 $752 $1,427 Sill Flashing 1" 1" $0 $0 $0 Total Incremental Costs $384 $625 $1,276 Average Incremental Costs $505 - Table 37 shows that U-0.051 residential walls are cost effective as a standalone measure for both single family and multifamily new construction buildings, and acceptable to pursue as a prescriptive measure in the Reach Code. Table 37. Cost Effectiveness of U-0.051 Residential Walls Residential U-0.051 Walls Measure TDV kBTU/ft2 % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio 29 Proposed Revisions to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. 45-Day Language. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/express_terms/01_2016%20T24%20Sta ndards%20Parts%201%20and%206%20-%2045%20Day%20Language.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S15155961 51 Single Family 30 4.5% $726 $505 1.4 Multifamily 43 2.5% $1,349 $1,276 1.1 For a diagram of wall assemblies and associated U-factors, please refer to the CEC’s 2013 Joint Appendices, section JA4.3 – Walls, reproduced in Figure 3. Figure 3. JA4 – U-factors of Wood Framed Walls (courtesy of CEC) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5966) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: TEFRA Hearing for Colorado Park Apartments Title: TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Colorado Park Apartments Project Located at 1141 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Multifamily Rental Housing Facility From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing under the requirements of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1983 (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code); and 2) Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the issuance of the bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Colorado Park, LP (Borrower). BACKGROUND: The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, requested that the CMFA serve as the municipal issuer of bonds for the Colorado Park Apartments project for an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000 of tax exempt revenue bonds. Proceeds from the issuance of the bonds will be used to: (1) finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 60 unit multifamily rental housing facility for low income families located at 1141 Colorado Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, known as Colorado Park Apartments; and (2) pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. The facility to be financed is to be owned by Colorado Park, LP, a California limited partnership. The facility will be managed by the Borrower or another entity selected by the Borrower. All or a portion of the rental units in the facility will be rented to households of low or very low income. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the sponsor and developer of Colorado Park Apts. A limited partnership, Colorado Park L.P. was formed to serve as the ownership entity of the development. Colorado Park Housing Corp, a nonprofit affiliate of PAHC will serve as the managing general partner and PAHC shall serve as the initial limited partner until a tax credit City of Palo Alto Page 2 investor enters the partnership. The project will basically be used in perpetuity for low income housing. When doing a tax exempt 4% tax credit project such as this, there is a low income restriction that lasts 55 years. In order for all or a portion of the bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Palo Alto must conduct a public hearing (TEFRA Hearing), providing the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the project. Prior to the hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the proposed project must provide its approval of the issuance of the bonds for the financing of the project. DISCUSSION: Since the facilities to be financed with the proceeds of the CMFA’s debt are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto, the City has been asked to conduct a TEFRA hearing and to adopt a resolution (Attachment A) that approves both the issuance of bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of Colorado Park, LP. As cited in the published notice of June 19, 2015, the public hearing is simply an opportunity for all interested persons to speak or to submit written comments concerning the proposal to issue the debt and the nature or location of the facility to be financed; however there is no formal obligation on the part of the borrower or the Council to respond to any specific comments made during the hearing or submitted in writing. The bonds are intended to finance the acquisition, and rehabilitation of a multifamily rental housing facility located at 1141 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, California. The CMFA is a joint exercise of powers authority that the City became a member of on April 14, 2008. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that the CMFA is a public entity, separate and apart from each member executing such agreement. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the CMFA do not constitute debts, liabilities or obligations of the members executing such agreement. The bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the project will be the sole responsibility of the borrower, and the City of Palo Alto will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the project or the repayment of the bonds for the financing of the project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the bonds are not obligations of the City of Palo Alto or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the borrower. The City will in no way become exposed to any financial liability by reason of its membership in the CMFA. In addition, participation by the City in the CMFA does not impact the City’s appropriations limits and will not constitute any type of indebtedness by the City. Outside of holding the TEFRA hearing, adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the bonds will be required. Based City of Palo Alto Page 3 on the benefits of the project to the Palo Alto community and the lack of any financial obligations on the part of the City, staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution. RESOURCE IMPACT: As stated, the City will incur no financial obligation from approval of the recommendations. Palo Alto Housing Corporation is requesting authority to issue up to $25 million in bonds through the CMFA. The City will receive a fee for its services when the bonds are issued. The City would receive approximately $11,250 if the par amount of the bonds issued is the expected $18 million. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Actions recommended in this report are consistent with Council’s prior actions in supporting non-profit financings under the TEFRA (e.g., approving tax-exempt financing through the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Stevenson House project, CMR: 184:08). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Action on this item does not constitute a project under Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 150608 JB 0131452 1 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Issuance of California Municipal Finance Authority Revenue Bonds in an Aggregate Principal Amount not to Exceed $25,000,000 for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Improvement and Equipping of an Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing Facility and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto R E C I T A L S A. Colorado Park, L.P., a California limited partnership, or another entity to be created by Palo Alto Housing Corporation (the “Borrower”), has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) participate in the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000 (the “Bonds”) for the acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of a 60-unit affordable multifamily rental housing facility located at 1141 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, California. B. Pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City. C. The City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code. D. The Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City. E. Pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement. 150608 JB 0131452 2 SECTION 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby. SECTION 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager or Designee Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 5951) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution to Adopt Drought Surcharges and a 4% Water Rate Increase Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: Finance Committee Recommendation that the City Council Adopt two Resolutions: 1) Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master- Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non- Residential Irrigation Water Service) to Increase Rates 4% and Add Drought Surcharges Effective September 1, 2015; and 2) Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20% Level Effective September 1, 2015 in Response to Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and the Finance Committee recommend that Council: 1) Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) amending rate schedules (Attachment A, Exhibit 1): W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non- Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to increase rates 4% and add drought surcharges effective September 1, 2015; and 2) Adopt a resolution (Attachment B) activating the drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level effective September 1, 2015. Executive Summary The City Council approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Water Financial Plan, which included a 12% water rate increase in FY 2016. However, as a result of an update to the water cost of service analysis that was completed subsequent to the Financial Plan, Council adopted an 8% water rate increase effective July 1, 2015 with the expectation that an additional 4% water rate increase, which is necessary to cover increasing costs in the Water Fund, would be City of Palo Alto Page 2 implemented when the proper customer notification was complete. Meanwhile, on May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board mandated that Palo Alto reduce water use by 24%. This state mandate and the continuing drought prompted staff to propose that the Council impose drought surcharges to be added to the City’s water rates effective September 1, 2015. These surcharges would not apply in a normal year, but could be imposed by action of the City Council in the event of a drought, water shortage or other local water use restriction. The primary purpose of the surcharges is to recover some or all of the largely fixed costs of providing water service that will be lost due to water consumption reductions. They are not intended to be the primary tool for achieving conservation goals during a drought. The 4% water rate increase and the addition of drought surcharges to the rate schedules are proposed to be effective September 1, 2015. In summary, staff, the UAC, and the Finance Committee recommend that the Council adopt the two attached resolutions to accomplish three objectives: 1. Complete the 12% rate increase in the Council-approved Water Financial Plan. On June 15, Council approved an 8% increase effective July 1, 2015. This action implements the remaining 4% increase effective September 1, 2015; 2. Add drought surcharges to the water rate schedules. These surcharges cannot become active unless Council activates them by resolution; and 3. Activate the drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level, effective September 1, 2015. The effect of the 4% rate increase is an increase of $2.89 per month for the median residential customer using 9 CCF/month. The impact of the imposition of the drought surcharges will depend on whether a customer reduces water use. A full discussion of these rate proposals is included in June 16, 2015 report to the Finance Committee (Staff Report 5825), which is provided as Attachment C. Impact of 4% Water Rate Increase on Customer Bills Table 1 shows the impact of the proposed September 1, 2015 rate changes (excluding any drought surcharges) on the median residential bill. This comparison assumes that customers do not reduce their consumption. Historically, however, customers have looked for ways to conserve after their bills have increased, so not all customers will experience the same bill increase. The average increase is roughly 4% compared to the July 1, 2015 proposed rates, and roughly 12% compared to the current rates. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Table 1: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Residential Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Existing Rates Bill under Proposed 7/1/15 Rates Bill under Proposed 9/1/15 Rates Change from July 2015 (Proposed) $/mo % 4 34.63 38.34 39.75 1.41 4% (Winter median) 7 52.19 57.82 59.99 2.17 4% (Annual median) 9 67.35 73.98 76.75 2.77 4% (Summer median) 14 105.25 114.38 118.65 4.27 4% 25 188.63 203.26 210.83 7.57 4% Table 2 shows the impact of the proposed September 1, 2015 rate changes (excluding any drought surcharges) on various representative commercial customer bills. As with residents, this comparison assumes that customers do not decrease consumption. Table 2: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Commercial Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Existing Rates Bill under Proposed 7/1/15 Rates Bill under Proposed 9/1/15 Rates Change from July 2015 (Proposed) $/mo % Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters) (Annual median) 12 88.47 95.46 99.07 3.61 4% (Annual average) 64 408.27 441.78 458.91 17.13 4% Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters) (Winter median) 9 121 130 134 4 3% (Summer median) 37 332 354 367 13 4% (Winter average) 56 474 506 524 18 4% (Summer average) 199 1,550 1,648 1710 62 4% Impact of Drought Surcharge on Customer Bills Tables 3 and 4 show the impact the proposed surcharges, if activated at the 20% reduction level, would have on various sample customer bills. Customers who conserve1 would see a lower bill compared to a normal year, while customers who do not conserve would see an increased bill. High use customers see greater savings when they conserve and higher costs when they do not. This is because higher users are expected to reduce consumption more than lower users, an expectation that is factored into the consumption projections underpinning the rate design. Additional tables are included in Attachment E showing the bill impacts for other reduction scenarios. Customers who are already conserving may see increases to their bills as a result of the surcharges. Some customers may perceive this as “being punished for conserving,” even though they will still save money relative to a normal year. Staff intends to communicate the reason for 1 Bills shown in Tables 3 & 4 assume that conserving customers use 10% less water under the drought surcharges. City of Palo Alto Page 4 the surcharges (that the utility’s cost to deliver water is mainly fixed), and that the impact of the surcharges will be felt more dearly by those customers who are not reducing consumption.2 Table 3: Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges (20% Reduction Level) on Residential Bills for both Conserving and Non-Conserving Customers Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates* Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo % $/mo 4 39.75 39.03 -2% -0.72 41.31 4% 1.56 (Winter median) 7 59.99 58.15 -3% -1.84 63.47 6% 3.48 (Annual median) 9 76.75 73.39 -4% -3.36 82.51 8% 5.76 (Summer median) 14 118.65 111.47 -6% -7.18 130.11 10% 11.46 25 210.83 186.20 -12% -24.63 234.83 11% 24.00 * Proposed rates effective September 1, 2015 Table 4: Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges (20% Reduction Level) on Non-Residential Bills for both Conserving and Non-Conserving Customers Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates* Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo % $/mo Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters) (Annual median) 12 99.07 96.95 -2% -2.12 104.95 6% 5.88 (Annual average) 64 458.91 447.59 -2% -11.32 490.27 7% 31.36 Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters) (Winter median) 9 134 124 -8% -11 145 8% 11 (Summer median) 37 367 323 -12% -44 410 12% 43 (Winter average) 56 524 458 -13% -66 590 13% 66 (Summer average) 199 1710 1473 -14% -236 1944 14% 234 * Proposed rates effective September 1, 2015 Commission and Committee Review and Recommendations The UAC reviewed this proposal at its June 3, 2015 meeting. After a brief discussion as to why the rate increase had to be broken into two separate rate increases, the UAC passed the proposal unanimously (4-0 with Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Foster, and Schwartz voting yes and Commissioners Eglash, Hall and Van Dusen absent). Excerpted minutes of the UAC meeting are provided as Attachment D. 2 These bill calculations assume the SFPUC does not raise rates to recover lost revenue. This assumption may hold in the short term, but in an extended drought the SFPUC will increase rates as needed. In this event, the City would adjust rates to pass the cost through to customers. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The Finance Committee reviewed the proposal at its June 16, 2015 meeting. Committee members had questions as to a recent California Court of Appeal decision3 and its impact, if any, on Palo Alto’s rates. Staff and the City Attorney discussed how the decision clarified rate setting practices and why it prompted a review of the 12% rate proposal. Based on the review, splitting the rate increase into separate 8% and 4% increases was deemed the best course. At the same time, the consultant’s study of drought rates had been completed, and actions taken by the Governor and State Water Resources Control Board merited their inclusion. Committee members commented that the drought surcharges were potentially confusing, and that effective communications with customers is critical. Committee members also asked about the overall effect on reserves, and staff said that the Operations reserve would remain above minimum guideline levels. The Finance Committee recommended that Council approve the proposal unanimously (3-0 with Council Member Scharf absent). The excerpted draft minutes of the Finance Committee meeting are included as Attachment E. Resource Impact The attached rate schedules include a 4% increase over the rates that were adopted for July 1, 2015. The additional 4% increase will generate an additional $1.5 million per year, though it will generate less in FY 2016 (about $1.1 million) since the proposed effective date is September 1, 2015. In addition, since sales volumes are lower due to drought restrictions, the actual revenue increase will be less. The revenue increase for both the 8% increase effective July 1, 2015 and the proposed 4% increase effective September 1, 2015 will be offset by an increase in wholesale water supply costs, as discussed in the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan (Staff Report 5881). In addition to the 4% rate increase, the attached rate schedules include the addition of drought surcharges that could be imposed by Council as needed. Table 5 shows the estimated revenue that would be recovered by the attached drought surcharges under various drought scenarios, if they were kept in place for an entire fiscal year. Note that this revenue is not extra revenue above the utility’s cost of operation. It only replaces revenue lost due to decreased sales associated with the drought. Activation of the drought surcharges at the 20% level effective September 1, 2015 would result in revenue recovery of $2.7 million per year. 3 On April 20, 2015, the 4th District Court of Appeal invalidated the City of San Juan Capistrano's tiered water rates for being in violation of Proposition 218’s cost of service requirements. While tiered rates are still generally permissible, the Court noted that rates must still correspond to the actual cost of providing service at a given level of usage. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Table 5 Revenue Recovered by Drought Surcharges Reduction in Available Supply from SFPUC Estimated Annual Lost Revenue Recovered by Drought Surcharges 10/15% $1.3 million 20% $2.7 million 25% $4.1 million The FY 2016 Proposed Budget assumes a rate increase of 12% consistent with the approved Water Utility Financial Plan. Due to the two-step process to achieve a 12% rate increase to cover the utilities costs and the uncertainty of water usage due to the drought and drought rates, staff anticipates returning to the City Council as part of the FY 2016 Midyear Budget review report with a recommendation to adjust the water fund’s revenues and align it with actual experience during the first six months of FY 2016. Reserves for the Water fund are projected to remain above minimum guideline levels. In addition, should it be needed, the CIP Reserve has additional $4 million that could be utilized in the case of emergency, as discussed in the FY 2016 Water Financial Plan. Policy Implications As discussed above, the proposed drought surcharges and underlying rates are consistent with the Design Guidelines for the 2014 Water Utility Drought Rate Cost of Service Study and Appendix G of the Urban Water Management Plan. In addition, they are consistent with Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218) in that they reflect only the cost to serve customers. Environmental Review Adoption of these rate changes is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8), (adoption of rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies, meet reserve needs and obtain capital improvement funds), thus no environmental review is required. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Adopting Water Rate Changes Including a 4% Rate Increase and the Addition of Drought Surcharges (PDF) Attachment A, Exhibit 1: Proposed Water Rate Schedules to be Effective September 1, 2015 (in redline/strikeout text) (PDF) Attachment B: Resolution Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20% Reduction Level Effective September 1, 2015 (PDF) Attachment C: Finance Committee Staff Report 5825 Resolutions to Adopt Drought Surcharges and 4% Water Rate Increase and Impose Drought Surcharges at the 20% Reduction Level (PDF) Attachment D: Draft UAC Minutes of June 3, 2015 Meeting (PDF) Attachment E: Draft minutes of the June 16, 2015 Finance Committee meeting (TXT) Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 052615 sdl 6053336 1 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master- Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to Increase Water Rates 4% and Add Drought Surcharges R E C I T A L S A. On January 17, 2014 the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency due to severe drought conditions. On April 1, 2015 the Governor issued Executive Order proclaiming that severe drought conditions continue to exist, and ordering the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt regulations imposing mandatory water use restrictions on water suppliers to achieve a 20% reduction in statewide potable water use through February 28, 2016. B. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations imposing upon Palo Alto a mandatory 24% reduction in potable water consumption from June 1, 2015 through February 28, 2016, compared to 2013 consumption levels. C. The City's costs of distributing water and managing its operations are mostly fixed, and will not decrease despite decreases in water consumption during a drought. Customer response to this call for mandatory reductions will result in reductions in water sales revenue. D. The City, on June 15, adopted the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan (Staff Report 5881), which determined an additional 12% increase in revenue was needed for FY 2016 due to increased water supply costs. On June 15 the City adopted an 8% increase to its water rates effective July 1, 2015 (Staff Report 5814). E. Based on an analysis conducted by an independent water rate consultant, staff has determined that an additional 4% increase to normal year water rates is necessary to achieve adequate revenue to fund operations for FY 2016. Staff has also recommended that a structure of drought surcharges be adopted that can be activated by a Council determination of the existence of a drought, water shortage, or other restriction on local water use. F. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges. G. On August 17, 2015, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding the proposed rate increase and drought surcharge and considered all protests against the proposals. H. As required by Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution and applicable law, notice of the August 17, 2015 public hearing was mailed to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customers by July 1, 2015. Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 052615 sdl 6053336 2 I. The City Clerk has tabulated the written protests received and it is determined that a majority protest does not exist against the proposal. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-1, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-2, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-3, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-4, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-7, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 6. The revenue derived from the adoption of this resolution shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 7. The City Council finds as follows: a. Revenues derived from the water rates approved by this resolution do not exceed the funds required to provide water service. b. Revenues derived from the water rates approved by this resolution will not be used for any purpose other than providing water service. c. The amount of the water rates imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the water service attributable to the parcel. SECTION 8. Each of the rate schedules adopted by this resolution includes a structure of drought surcharges that correspond to different levels of water use reduction in the City. In order to charge the lowest drought surcharge possible, the City Council has adopted not only the surcharge Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 052615 sdl 6053336 3 required to meet the 25% reduction level, but also surcharges reflecting two lower levels of water use reduction. At any time, no more than one of these three surcharges will be applicable. A drought surcharge will be collected if, by resolution, the City Council determines that a drought, period of water shortage or restriction on local water use exists, necessitating or causing the existence of citywide water reduction efforts at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level. The collection of the surcharge at any of the levels approved by this resolution does not, in itself, constitute an “increase” of water charges above the rates approved by this resolution and considered at the August 17, 2015 public hearing. SECTION 9. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge: Per Month For 5/8-inch meter ..................................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03 For 3/4 inch meter ..................................................................................................... 20.8821.50 For 1 inch meter ........................................................................................................ 31.5832.45 For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................................. 58.3259.83 For 2-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 90.4092.67 For 3-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 192.01196.70 For 4-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 341.74350.00 For 6-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 700.04716.82 For 8-inch meter ........................................................................................................1,288.281,319.07 For 10-inch meter ......................................................................................................2,036.962,085.57 For 12-inch meter .......................................................................................................2,678.682,742.56 Commodity Rate: (To be added to Service Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................$5.705.93 Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1) ........................................................................8.088.38 ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-2 Drought Surcharges: A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate for Tier 1 and Tier 2 water usage when the City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in Section D.3. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet (ccf). Water Usage Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%) Tier 1 0.19 0.39 0.59 Tier 2 0.55 1.14 1.76 Temporary unmetered service to residential subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2. Calculation of Usage Tiers Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11. GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-1-3 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-3 3. Drought Surcharge During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may, by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption. {End} WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-2-1 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all water taken from fire hydrants for construction, maintenance, and other uses in conformance with provisions of a Hydrant Meter Permit. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: 1. Monthly Service Charge. METER SIZE 5/8 inch ........................................................................................................................... 50.00 3 inch ........................................................................................................................... 125.00 2. Commodity Rate: (per hundred cubic feet) ................................................................ $6.666.92 3. Drought Surcharges: A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in Section D.5. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet (ccf). Water Usage Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%) Surcharge 0.24 0.49 0.72 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Monthly charges shall include the applicable monthly service charge in addition to usage billed at the commodity rate. 2. Any applicant using a hydrant without obtaining a Hydrant Meter Permit or any permittee using a hydrant without a Hydrant Meter Permit shall pay a fee of $50.00 for each day of such use in WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-2-2 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-2 addition to all other costs and fees provided in this schedule. A hydrant permit may be denied or revoked for failure to pay such fee. 3. A meter deposit of $750.00 may be charged any applicant for a Hydrant Meter Permit as a prerequisite to the issuance of a permit and meter(s). A charge of $50.00 per day will be added for delinquent return of hydrant meters. A fee will be charged for any meter returned with missing or damaged parts. 4. Any person or company using a fire hydrant improperly or without a permit, or who draws water from a hydrant without a meter installed and properly recording usage shall, in addition to all other applicable charges be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 5. During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may, by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption. {End} FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 Effective 7-1-2015 dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-3-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: 1. Monthly Service Charges Public Fire Hydrant .................................................................................................... $5.00 Private Fire Service: 2-inch connection .......................................................................................................$3.383.43 4-inch connection .......................................................................................................20.9421.22 6-inch connection ....................................................................................................... 60.8261.63 8-inch connection .......................................................................................................129.61131.34 10-inch connection .....................................................................................................233.09236.20 12-inch connection .....................................................................................................376.51381.52 2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or testing purposes.) Per Hundred Cubic Feet All water usage........................................................................................................... $10.00 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other than fire extinguishing or testing and repairing the fire extinguishing facilities. Using hydrants and fire services for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the commodity charge as noted above, fines, and criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 2. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply. FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 Effective 7-1-2015 dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-3-2 3. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire Services. 4. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer. {End} RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master meter. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge Per Month For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03 For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 20.8821.50 For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 31.5832.45 For 1 ½-inch meter .................................................................................... 58.3259.83 For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 90.4092.67 For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 192.01196.70 For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 341.74350.00 For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 700.04716.82 For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,288.281,319.07 For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,036.962,085.57 For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,678.682,742.56 Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 6.666.92 RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-2 Drought Surcharges: A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in Section D.2. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet (ccf). Water Usage Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%) Surcharge 0.24 0.49 0.72 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2. Drought Surcharge During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may, by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption. {End} NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 Effective 7-1-2015 dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-7-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution area. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge Per Month For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03 For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 20.8821.50 For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 31.5832.45 For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................... 58.3259.83 For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 90.4092.67 For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 192.01196.70 For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 341.74350.00 For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 700.04716.82 For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,288.281,319.07 For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,036.962,085.57 For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,678.682,742.56 Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 8.088.29 Drought Surcharges: A drought surcharge will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate when the City Council has determined that a water reduction level is in effect for the City as described in Section D.2. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet (ccf). NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 Effective 7-1-2015 dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-7-2 Water Usage Reduction level Level 1 (10/15%) Level 2 (20%) Level 3 (25%) Surcharge 0.51 1.18 1.93 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2. Drought Surcharge During period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may, by resolution, declare the need for citywide water conservation at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level. While such a resolution is in effect, a drought surcharge will apply. The purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption. {End} Attachment B NOT YET APPROVED 150526 sdl 6053575 1 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20% Reduction Level in Response to Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board R E C I T A L S A. The state of California is experiencing record dry conditions. On January 17, 2014 the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency due to severe drought conditions. On April 1, 2015 the Governor issued an Executive Order proclaiming that severe drought conditions continue to exist, and ordering the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt regulations imposing mandatory water use restrictions on water suppliers to achieve a 20% reduction in statewide potable water use through February 28, 2016. B. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations imposing upon Palo Alto a mandatory 24% reduction in potable water consumption from June 1, 2015 through February 28, 2016, compared to 2013 consumption levels. C. Mandated reductions in water use will result in reductions in the City’s water sales revenue. Because the City’s costs of distributing water and managing its operations are mostly fixed, these reductions in revenue will not be fully offset by reductions in operating costs. D. On August 17, 2015 following a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council adopted a water rate schedules that included a framework of drought surcharges. E. Collection of these surcharges is triggered by a Council determination that a period of drought, water shortage or restriction on local water use exists, necessitating or causing the existence of citywide water reduction efforts at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level. F. As a consequence of the state water conservation mandate, the City Council desires to makes such a determination. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby determines that a period of water shortage or restrictions on local water use exists, necessitating or causing the existence of citywide water reduction efforts at the 20% level. Consequently, the Level 2 (20%) drought surcharges set forth on the City’s schedule of water rates will be collected on all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customer bills as of September 1, 2015. SECTION 2. The declaration made by this resolution shall continue in effect until rescinded or modified by the City Council. Attachment B NOT YET APPROVED 150526 sdl 6053575 2 SECTION 3. This resolution activates water rates previously adopted by resolution of the City Council and does not constitute an “increase” of the City’s water rates. The City Council declares that even if the adoption of this resolution does constitute an increase, it would have imposed the water surcharge at the Level 2 (20%) rate based upon testimony at the August 17, 2015 public hearing regarding water rates. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 5825) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/16/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution to Adopt Drought Surcharges and 4% Water Rate Increase Title: Staff Recommendation that the City Council Adopt two Resolutions Effective September 1, 2015: 1) Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non- Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to Increase Rates 4% and Add Drought Surcharges; and 2) Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20% Level in Response to Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that Council: 1)Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) amending rate schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to add drought surcharges and increase rates 4% effective September 1, 2015; and 2)Adopt a resolution (Attachment C) activating the drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level effective September 1, 2015. Executive Summary The Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Water Financial Plan recommended for Council approval by the Finance Committee on April 7, 2015 concluded that a 12% water rate increase was necessary in FY 2016. However, as a result of an update to the water cost of service analysis that was completed subsequent to the Financial Plan, Council is only able to adopt an 8% water rate increase effective July 1, 2015 (see Staff Report #5814 on the June 8, 2014 Council agenda). An ATTACHMENT C City of Palo Alto Page 2 additional 4% water rate increase, which is necessary to cover increasing costs in the Water Fund, is proposed for implementation on September 1, 2015. At the same time, staff proposes that the Council amend the rate schedules to add drought surcharges. These surcharges would not apply in a normal year, but could be imposed by action of the City Council in the event of a drought or other local water shortage situation. The primary purpose of the surcharges is to recover some or all of the revenue lost due to water consumption reductions. They are not intended to be the primary tool for achieving conservation goals during a drought. Given the 24% water use reduction mandate established for Palo Alto by the State Water Resources Control Board, staff expects that customers will reduce their water use, requiring a rate increase to recover the largely fixed costs of providing water service. Staff recommends activating the new drought surcharges on September 1, 2015, the same day that the proposed 4% rate increase would be effective. In summary, the two attached resolutions are intended to accomplish three objectives: 1. Complete the 12% rate increase recommended to Council by the Finance Committee on April 7, 2015. Staff has recommended to Council that this 12% increase be broken into two parts, with an 8% increase effective July 1, 2015 and the remaining 4% increase effective September 1, 2015. The 8% increase will be considered by the Council during the water rate hearings on June 8 and continuing if needed to June 15. The first resolution (Attachment A) implements the remaining 4% increase. 2. Add drought surcharges to the water rate schedules. These surcharges cannot become active unless Council activates them by resolution. Three levels of surcharge are included, one for the 10/15% reduction level, one for a 20% reduction level, and one for a 25% reduction level. The first resolution (Attachment A) includes all three potential surcharges as part of the proposed rate schedule amendments, but does not seek Council authorization to apply them. 3. Activate the drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level, effective September 1, 2015. The second resolution (Attachment C) implements this action by activating the drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level. The increase to the underlying rate schedules (12% total, 8% on July 1, 2015 and 4% on September 1, 2015) is intended to generate additional revenue required to fund daily operations. The drought surcharges are only intended to be used temporarily under drought conditions or other water shortage situations to recover revenue lost due to temporarily low sales volumes. The effect of the 4% rate increase is an increase of $2.89 per month for the median residential customer using 9 CCF/month. Note that the changes will take effect on September 1, after the City of Palo Alto Page 3 summer irrigation season, when water usage is normally reduced. The impact of the imposition of the drought surcharges will depend on whether a customer reduces water use. Background Last year, in response to the ongoing drought, staff began the process of developing drought surcharges. The City’s current rate setting methodology is based on the 2012 Palo Alto Water Cost of Service and Rate Study by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) (Staff Report 2676). Prior to updating the 2012 Water Utility Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) to include additional rates or surcharges for use in an extended drought, staff sought policy direction in the form of guidelines for the COSA. The guidelines (Attachment D) were approved by Council on November 10, 2014 (Staff Report 5171) and state that: Surcharges should be based on the cost to serve customers. This was the overriding principle for the analysis. The demand targets and indoor and outdoor use reductions underlying the rate design should be consistent with the water shortage response plan evaluation criteria in Appendix G of the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Staff should evaluate the feasibility of adding a third tier to the residential rate (W-1) and a second tier to the general non-residential rate (W-4). Water purchase costs should be passed through directly on the bill as a separate rate component. Variances should be evaluated for customers needing additional water for medical necessity, health and safety, and other critical needs. At the same time that staff was completing the COSA for the drought surcharges, the annual budgeting and financial forecasting process was in progress. The FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan projected the need for a 12% rate increase on July 1, 2015. The primary driver for this increase is wholesale water rate increases. On March 4, 2015 the Utilities Advisory Commission recommended that the Council approve the 12% rate increase, and on April 7, 2015 the Finance Committee also unanimously recommended approval (Staff Report 5591). Staff mailed notices of the rate increase to all water utility customers, as required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution (added by Proposition 218 in 1996). Shortly after the City mailed the notices, the California Court of Appeal published a decision providing additional guidance on constitutionally compliant water rate design. Staff asked RFC to review the City’s water rate methodology and structure to ensure that they continued to equitably recover the City’s costs to provide water service. RFC examined and validated both the City’s methodology and rate structure as fundamentally sound, and recommended minor adjustments to ensure that peaking costs are equitably allocated to each customer class and residential rate tier. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Since Council may not adopt rates higher than those in the Proposition 218 notice that was sent to customers, staff recommended that Council approve an 8% rate increase effective July 1, 2015, the maximum rate increase that both aligned with the updated COSA and was within the notice requirements. Council will consider the recommendation for the 8% rate increase at its budget hearings on June 8, 2015 and June 15, 2015 meetings (Staff Report 5814). The remaining 4% rate increase needed can be adopted along with the drought surcharges. This increase is included in the attached rate schedules, and a Prop 218 notice of the 4% increase and the range of potential drought surcharges Council may activate will be sent to customers in July. Discussion Overview of 4% Rate Increase As discussed earlier, the attached rate schedules include a 4% rate increase, effective September 1, 2015. The rates are summarized in Tables 1 through 3, below. The tables show the existing rates, the rates proposed for July 1, 2015 (an 8% increase from existing rates), the rates proposed for September 1, 2015 (a 4% increase), and the change in rates. Note that the proposed rates for July 1, 2015 shown in Tables 1 through 3 are an 8% overall rate increase, not the 12% rate increase proposed at the March 3, 2015 UAC meeting. The 4% rate increase effective September 1, 2015, when combined with the 8% increase effective July 1, 2015, will result in an overall 12% rate increase, in line with the proposal in the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan. All rate increases are based on the cost of service methodology established in the 2012 “Palo Alto Water Cost of Service and Rate Study” by Raftelis Financial Consultants as modified by the attached memo titled “Proposed Water Rates” by Raftelis Financial Consultants (Attachment F). Table 1: Water Commodity Charges (Current and Proposed) Current Rates (7/1/13) Proposed Rates (7/1/15)1 Proposed Rates (9/1/15) Change from July 2015 (Proposed) Rates $/CCF % W-1 (Residential) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF) Tier 1 Rates 4.99 5.70 5.93 0.23 4% Tier 2 Rates 7.58 8.08 8.38 0.30 4% W-2 (Construction) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF) Uniform Rate 6.15 6.66 6.92 0.26 4% W-4 (Commercial) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF) Uniform Rate 6.15 6.66 6.92 0.26 4% W-7 (Irrigation) Volumetric Rates ($/CCF) Uniform Rate 7.52 7.99 8.29 0.30 4% 1 The July 1, 2015 proposed rates shown in Tables 1 through 3 are for the 8% overall rate increase, that staff recommends be effective on July 1, 2015, instead of the 12% rate increase proposed earlier. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Table 2: Current and Proposed Monthly Water Service Charge Meter Size Monthly Service Charge ($/month based on meter size) Change from July 2015 (Proposed) Rates Current (7/1/13) Proposed (7/1/15)1 Proposed (9/1/15) $/mo % 5/8” 14.67 15.54 16.03 0.49 3% 3/4” 19.51 20.88 21.50 0.62 3% 1” 29.18 31.58 32.45 0.87 3% 1 ½” 53.37 58.32 59.83 1.51 3% 2” 82.39 90.40 92.67 2.27 3% 3” 174.29 192.01 196.70 4.69 2% 4” 309.72 341.74 350.00 8.26 2% 6” 633.80 700.04 716.82 16.78 2% 8” 1,165.86 1,288.28 1,319.07 30.79 2% 10” 1,843.02 2,036.96 2,085.57 48.61 2% 12” 2,423.45 2,678.68 2,742.56 63.88 2% Table 3: Current and Proposed Monthly Fire Service Charges Meter Size Monthly Fire Service Charge ($/month based on meter size) Change from July 2015 (Proposed) Rates Current (7/1/13) Proposed (7/1/15)1 Proposed (9/1/15) $/mo % 2” 3.03 3.38 3.43 0.05 1% 4” 18.78 20.94 21.22 0.28 1% 6” 54.55 60.82 61.63 0.81 1% 8” 116.24 129.61 131.34 1.73 1% 10” 209.03 233.09 236.20 3.11 1% 12” 337.65 376.51 381.52 5.01 1% Table 4 shows the impact of the proposed September 1, 2015 rate changes (excluding any drought surcharges) on the median residential bill. This comparison assumes that customers do not reduce their consumption. Historically, however, customers have looked for ways to conserve after their bills have increased, so not all customers will experience the same bill increase. The average increase is roughly 4% compared to the July 1, 2015 proposed rates and roughly 12% compared to the current rates, but residential customers with lower usage will see higher percentage increases, due to the adjustment to peaking factors in the proposed July 1, 2015 rate schedules. Table 4: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Residential Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Existing Rates Bill under Proposed 7/1/15 Rates Bill under Proposed 9/1/15 Rates Change from July 2015 (Proposed) $/mo % City of Palo Alto Page 6 4 34.63 38.34 39.75 1.41 4% (Winter median) 7 52.19 57.82 59.99 2.17 4% (Annual median) 9 67.35 73.98 76.75 2.77 4% (Summer median) 14 105.25 114.38 118.65 4.27 4% 25 188.63 203.26 210.83 7.57 4% Table 5 shows the impact of the proposed September 1, 2015 rate changes (excluding any drought surcharges) on various representative commercial customer bills. As with residents, this comparison assumes that customers do not decrease consumption. Table 5: Impact of Proposed Water Rate Changes on Commercial Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Existing Rates Bill under Proposed 7/1/15 Rates Bill under Proposed 9/1/15 Rates Change from July 2015 (Proposed) $/mo % Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters) (Annual median) 12 88.47 95.46 99.07 3.61 4% (Annual average) 64 408.27 441.78 458.91 17.13 4% Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters) (Winter median) 9 121 130 134 4 3% (Summer median) 37 332 354 367 13 4% (Winter average) 56 474 506 524 18 4% (Summer average) 199 1,550 1,648 1710 62 4% Overview of the Drought Surcharge Proposal The proposed drought surcharges for each rate schedule are shown in Table 6. The drought surcharges are based on the cost of service methodology established in the 2012 “Palo Alto Water Cost of Service and Rate Study” by Raftelis Financial Consultants as modified by the attached memo titled “Proposed Drought Surcharges” by Raftelis Financial Consultants (Attachment G). Table 6: Recommended Drought Surcharges ($/CCF) Rate Class 10%/15%2 Reduction 20% Reduction 25% Reduction W-1 Residential (Tier 1) 0.19 0.39 0.59 W-1 Residential (Tier 2) 0.55 1.14 1.76 W-4 (Non-residential and Master Metered Multi-Family, General Use) 0.24 0.49 0.72 W-7 (Non-residential and Master Metered Multi-Family, Irrigation) 0.51 1.18 1.93 2 Water use reduction targets for the 10% and 15% reduction targets are identical because of CPAU’s supply guarantee under its 2009 Water Supply Agreement with the SFPUC. The supply guarantee, which is higher than CPAU’s normal year demand, is a factor in the water use reduction targets. City of Palo Alto Page 7 As set forth in the attached rate schedules, these surcharges may be activated by Council’s adoption of a resolution. The Council may opt to activate the surcharge at a lower level than necessary to fully recover all lost revenue. For example, if the City’s water supplier imposed a mandatory reduction of 20% on Palo Alto, the City Council could adopt surcharges at a 10/15% level or a 20% level. This gives the Council the freedom to adopt a lower surcharge to make up part of the lost revenue, and offset any remaining revenue shortfall by making temporary cost reductions or drawing down reserves. Once adopted, the surcharges will remain in effect until Council takes action to remove or amend them. Since the State has imposed a 24% mandatory reduction on Palo Alto effective June 1, 2015 staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution activating the drought surcharges. In the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan, staff projected a continuation of SFPUC’s request for a 10% voluntary water use reduction, but no mandatory reductions. The financial plan anticipated that the revenue loss associated with the 10% reduction in water sales would be offset by drawing down reserves, with no activation of drought surcharges. Now that Palo Alto is subject to a 24% mandatory water use reduction, staff recommends activating the drought surcharges at the 20% reduction level. Because they will take effect at the end of the summer irrigation season, the surcharges are only estimated to recover roughly 80% of the projected $2.8 million in lost revenue for FY 2016. The remaining lost revenue will be offset by drawing down reserves. Impact on Customer Bills Tables 7 and 8 show the impact the proposed surcharges, if activated at the 20% reduction level, would have on various sample customer bills. Customers who conserve3 would see a lower bill compared to a normal year, while customers who do not conserve would see an increased bill. High use customers see greater savings when they conserve and higher costs when they do not. This is because higher users are expected to reduce consumption more than lower users, an expectation that is factored into the consumption projections underpinning the rate design. Additional tables are included in Attachment E showing the bill impacts for other reduction scenarios. Customers who are already conserving may see increases to their bills as a result of the surcharges. Some customers may perceive this as “being punished for conserving,” even though they will still save money relative to a normal year. Staff intends to communicate the reason for the surcharges (that the utility’s cost to deliver water is mainly fixed), and that the impact of the surcharges will be felt more dearly by those customers who are not reducing consumption.4 3 Bills shown in Tables 7 and 8 assume that conserving customers use 10% less water under the drought surcharges. 4 These bill calculations assume the SFPUC does not raise rates to recover lost revenue. This assumption may hold in the short term, but in an extended drought the SFPUC will increase rates as needed. In this event, the City would adjust rates to pass the cost through to customers. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Table 7: Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges (20% Reduction Level) on Residential Bills for both Conserving and Non-Conserving Customers Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates* Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo % $/mo 4 39.75 39.03 -2% -0.72 41.31 4% 1.56 (Winter median) 7 59.99 58.15 -3% -1.84 63.47 6% 3.48 (Annual median) 9 76.75 73.39 -4% -3.36 82.51 8% 5.76 (Summer median) 14 118.65 111.47 -6% -7.18 130.11 10% 11.46 25 210.83 186.20 -12% -24.63 234.83 11% 24.00 * Proposed rates effective September 1, 2015 Table 8: Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges, Non-Residential Bills, 20% Reduction Level Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates* Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo % $/mo Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters) (Annual median) 12 99.07 96.95 -2% -2.12 104.95 6% 5.88 (Annual average) 64 458.91 447.59 -2% -11.32 490.27 7% 31.36 Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters) (Winter median) 9 134 124 -8% -11 145 8% 11 (Summer median) 37 367 323 -12% -44 410 12% 43 (Winter average) 56 524 458 -13% -66 590 13% 66 (Summer average) 199 1710 1473 -14% -236 1944 14% 234 * Proposed rates effective September 1, 2015 Drought Surcharge Rate Design, Alignment With Design Guidelines The design for the drought surcharges are mostly in line with the rate design guidelines adopted by Council, with deviations from Guidelines 5, 6, and 7 as discussed below. Guideline 1: Rates to be based on the cost of service The drought surcharges are based on the memo titled “Proposed Drought Surcharges” by Raftelis Financial Consultants (Attachment G). The surcharges use the same cost of service methodology as the City’s normal year rates, but assume reductions in sales commensurate with the water use reductions required. The model assumes that, during a drought, greater water use reductions occur in the rate classes more associated with irrigation (Tier 2 W-1, W-7), which results in higher increases in the rates. These surcharges are not “penalty rates” designed to punish overuse; instead, they are intended only to recover revenue lost due to water use reductions, although they may have the side effect of sending a price signal to encourage City of Palo Alto Page 9 conservation. While the surcharges may have some impact on customer conservation, they are not the primary tool for the City to achieve drought reduction targets, nor is that their intended purpose. Guidelines 2 through 4: Consistency of Overall Demand Targets and Indoor and Outdoor Use Reductions with Design Criteria in Appendix G of the UWMP The UWMP lists several criteria to use when evaluating the water allocations that form the basis for any rate design. These are included in Attachment H and are summarized below. They state that the allocations underlying any rate design should: a. Reduce overall City consumption to the reduction target required b. Provide sufficient water available for personal use c. Have a design that is acceptable to the community d. Be designed to minimize unemployment and business loss e. Minimize landscaping investment losses f. Be cost-effective, enforceable, and achievable in the given timeline g. Allow for flexibility h. Take into account for new water services i. Recover penalties applied by suppliers The proposed rate design accomplishes these goals. The demand targets and allocations used as the basis for the rate design are shown in Attachment E. By assuming greater cuts in outdoor use than indoor use, and designing rates on that basis, the demand targets and indoor/outdoor allocations preserve sufficient water for personal use and minimize the impacts on business use. However, no individual allocations are established, which means people have the opportunity to choose whether they focus their savings goals on indoor or outdoor use. This provides flexibility to the consumer, allowing them the flexibility to allocate their water use as needed to minimize landscape investment losses, and makes it more likely the rate design will be acceptable to the community. Since individual allocations are not established, the rate design automatically takes into account new water services. Guidelines 5 and 6: Adding a Tier to the Residential (W-1) and General Non-residential (W-4) Rate Schedules As part of this study staff evaluated a three tier system for residential rates (W-1) and a two tier system for general non-residential consumption (W-4), but does not recommend adopting additional tiers at this time. Staff’s analysis of customer usage suggests that such an approach may be feasible and cost-justified, but it requires more legal and technical analysis than staff can currently accommodate given the June 1 effective date of the state’s mandatory 24% use reduction. Guideline 7: Create a Separate Water Supply Rate Component Staff recommends against proceeding with this rate design feature at this time. Staff is currently projecting little change to the SFPUC’s water rates over the next three years given the large rate increase that will go into effect July 1, 2015. However, if the drought continues City of Palo Alto Page 10 beyond the upcoming winter, the SFPUC may increase its rates higher than anticipated, prompting staff to revisit this feature as part of a future rate change. Guideline 8: Evaluate the Need for Variance Processes The proposed cost-based surcharges do not include extraordinarily large increases or penalty rates for second tier users, so staff is recommending against creating a variance process at this time. However, if it becomes apparent that a variance process is necessary, staff will re-evaluate the feasibility of such a process. Commission Review The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) reviewed this proposal at its June 3, 2015 meeting. Because of the proximity of the UAC meeting to the June 16, 2015 Finance Committee meeting, the outcome is not available for this report and will be provided at the June 16, 2015 Finance meeting. Timeline Assuming the Finance Committee supports staff’s recommendation, notification of the rate increases will be sent to customers as required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution (added by Proposition 218, 1996). The rate schedules will then go to the City Council in August, at which time the public hearing required by Article XIIID of the State Constitution will be held. Assuming the Council adopts the rate changes, they will become effective September 1, 2015. Resource Impact The attached rate schedules include a 4% increase over the rates that are proposed to be adopted July 1, 2015. The proposed July 1, 2015 rates are 8% higher than the existing rates and will generate roughly $3 million in additional revenue during a normal year. The additional 4% increase will generate an additional $1.5 million during a normal year, though it will generate less in FY 2016 due to the late adoption date. Actual revenue from both rate changes will be lower in the short term because sales volumes are lower due to drought restrictions. The entire revenue increase will be offset by an increase in wholesale water supply costs, as discussed in the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan. In addition to the 4% rate increase, the attached rate schedules include the addition of drought surcharges that could be imposed by Council as needed. Table 9 shows the estimated revenue that would be recovered by the attached drought surcharges under various drought scenarios, if they were kept in place for an entire fiscal year. Note that this revenue is not extra revenue above the utility’s cost of operation. It only replaces revenue lost due to decreased sales associated with the drought. Staff is recommending activation of the drought surcharges at the 20% level effective September 1, 2015. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Table 9: Revenue Recovered by Drought Surcharges Reduction in Available Supply Estimated Lost Revenue Recovered by Drought Surcharges 10/15% $1.3 million 20% $2.7 million 25% $4.1 million The Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget assumes a rate increase of 12% consistent with the approved Water Utility Financial Plan. Due to the two-step process to achieve a 12% rate increase to cover the utilities costs and the uncertainty of water usage due to the drought and drought rates, staff anticipates returning to the City Council as part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Midyear Budget review report with a recommendation to adjust the water fund’s revenues and align it with actual experience during the first six months of fiscal year 2016. Policy Implications As discussed above, the proposed drought surcharges and underlying rates are consistent with the Design Guidelines for the 2014 Water Utility Drought Rate Cost of Service Study and Appendix G of the UWMP, except as noted above. In addition, they are consistent with Article XIIID of the State Constitution in that they reflect only the cost to serve customers under normal conditions and under various drought scenarios. Environmental Review Adoption of these rate changes is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8), (adoption of rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies, meet reserve needs and obtain capital improvement funds), thus no environmental review is required. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Drought Surcharges, a Water Rate Increase, and Amending Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W 7 (PDF) Attachment B: Amended Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W 7 (PDF) Attachment C: Resolution Activating Drought Surcharges Effective September 1, 2015 (PDF) Attachment D: Adopted Design Guidelines for Drought Rate Cost of Service Analysis (DOCX) Attachment E: Bill Impacts of Drought Surcharges Under Various Reduction Scenarios (PDF) Attachment F: May 20, 2015 Memo from Raftelis Financial Consultants, "Proposed Water Rates" (PDF) Attachment G: May 20, 2015 Memo from Raftelis Financial Consultants, "Proposed Drought Surcharges" (PDF) Attachment H: Appendix G of the Urban Water Management Plan (PDF) Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 1 052615 sdl 6053336 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to Increase Water Rates 4% and Add Drought Surcharges R E C I T A L S A. On January 17, 2014 the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency due to severe drought conditions. On April 1, 2015 the Governor issued Executive Order proclaiming that severe drought conditions continue to exist, and ordering the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt regulations imposing mandatory water use restrictions on water suppliers to achieve a 20% reduction in statewide potable water use through February 28, 2016. B. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations imposing upon Palo Alto a mandatory 24% reduction in potable water consumption from June 1, 2015 through February 28, 2016. C. The City's costs of distributing water and managing its operations are mostly fixed, and will not decrease despite decreases in water consumption during a drought. Customer response to this call for mandatory reductions will result in reductions in water sales revenue. The City intends to add drought surcharges to its rate schedules that may be used to recover these fixed costs during current and future droughts. D. The City, on June 15, adopted the FY 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan (Staff Report #5813), which determined an additional 12% increase in revenue was needed for FY 2016 due to increased water supply costs. On June 15 the City adopted an 8% increase to its water rates effective July 1, 2015. An additional 4% increase to normal year water rates is necessary to achieve adequate revenue to fund operations for FY 2016. E. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges. F. On July _____, 2015, the City mailed notice of the proposed water rate amendments and drought surcharges to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customers. The notice contained a description of the 4% overall increase in water rates, as well as each of the three levels of drought surcharges that Council may activate in response to a drought or other water shortage situation. Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 2 052615 sdl 6053336 G. Pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on August 17, 2015, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed water rate amendments, including the drought surcharges. H. The total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing was __________ fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed water rate amendments. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-1, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-2, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-3, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-4, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule W-7, as amended, shall become effective September 1, 2015. SECTION 6. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the adoption of this resolution shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 7. The Council finds that the fees and charges adopted by this resolution are charges imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged, and do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the service or product. Attachment A * NOT YET APPROVED * 3 052615 sdl 6053336 SECTION 8. Council may later find it necessary to activate one of the drought surcharge levels described in the August 2015 public notice. Pursuant to Government Code 53750(h)(2)(B), Council’s later activation of any one of the properly noticed and Council- approved drought surcharge levels is not a rate increase for purposes of Article XIII C and Article XIII D of the California Constitution and Government Code 53750. SECTION 9. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge: Per Month For 5/8-inch meter ..................................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03 For 3/4 inch meter ..................................................................................................... 20.8821.50 For 1 inch meter ........................................................................................................ 31.5832.45 For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................................. 58.3259.83 For 2-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 90.4092.67 For 3-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 192.01196.70 For 4-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 341.74350.00 For 6-inch meter ........................................................................................................ 700.04716.82 For 8-inch meter ........................................................................................................1,288.281,319.07 For 10-inch meter ......................................................................................................2,036.962,085.57 For 12-inch meter .......................................................................................................2,678.682,742.56 Commodity Rate: (To be added to Service Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................$5.705.93 Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1) ........................................................................8.088.38 ATTACHMENT B GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-2 Drought Surcharges: If adopted by City Council resolution as described in Section D.3, one of the three designated drought surcharge reduction levels will be added to the Customer’s applicable Commodity Rate for Tier 1 and Tier 2 water usage. The drought surcharges in the table below are measured in dollars per hundred cubic feet (ccf). System-wide Water Usage Reduction level 10/15% 20% 25% Tier 1 0.19 0.39 0.59 Tier 2 0.55 1.14 1.76 Temporary unmetered service to residential subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2. Calculation of Usage Tiers Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11. GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-1-3 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-1-3 3. Drought Surcharge During periods of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may adopt a resolution activating a Drought Surcharge at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level, as needed to recover the water utility’s costs of providing water service. The purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption. {End} WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-2-1 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all water taken from fire hydrants for construction, maintenance, and other uses in conformance with provisions of a Hydrant Meter Permit. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: 1. Monthly Service Charge. METER SIZE 5/8 inch ........................................................................................................................... 50.00 3 inch ........................................................................................................................... 125.00 2. Commodity Rate: (per hundred cubic feet) ................................................................ $6.666.92 3. Drought Surcharges: If adopted by City Council resolution as described in Section D.5, one of the three designated drought surcharge reduction levels will be added to the Customer’s Commodity Rate. System-wide Water Usage Reduction level 10/15% 20% 25% Surcharge (dollars per hundred cubic feed) 0.24 0.49 0.72 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Monthly charges shall include the applicable monthly service charge in addition to usage billed at the commodity rate. 2. Any applicant using a hydrant without obtaining a Hydrant Meter Permit or any permittee using a hydrant without a Hydrant Meter Permit shall pay a fee of $50.00 for each day of such use in addition to all other costs and fees provided in this schedule. A hydrant permit may be denied or WATER SERVICE FROM FIRE HYDRANTS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-2 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-2-2 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-2-2 revoked for failure to pay such fee. 3. A meter deposit of $750.00 may be charged any applicant for a Hydrant Meter Permit as a prerequisite to the issuance of a permit and meter(s). A charge of $50.00 per day will be added for delinquent return of hydrant meters. A fee will be charged for any meter returned with missing or damaged parts. 4. Any person or company using a fire hydrant improperly or without a permit, or who draws water from a hydrant without a meter installed and properly recording usage shall, in addition to all other applicable charges be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 5. During periods of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may adopt a resolution activating a Drought Surcharge at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level, as needed to recover the water utility’s costs of providing water service. The purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption. {End} FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 Effective 7-1-2015 dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-3-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: 1. Monthly Service Charges Public Fire Hydrant .................................................................................................... $5.00 Private Fire Service: 2-inch connection .......................................................................................................$3.383.43 4-inch connection .......................................................................................................20.9421.22 6-inch connection ....................................................................................................... 60.8261.63 8-inch connection .......................................................................................................129.61131.34 10-inch connection .....................................................................................................233.09236.20 12-inch connection .....................................................................................................376.51381.52 2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or testing purposes.) Per Hundred Cubic Feet All water usage........................................................................................................... $10.00 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other than fire extinguishing or testing and repairing the fire extinguishing facilities. Using hydrants and fire services for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the commodity charge as noted above, fines, and criminal prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 2. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply. FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 Effective 7-1-2015 dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-3-2 3. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire Services. 4. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer. {End} RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master meter. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge Per Month For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03 For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 20.8821.50 For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 31.5832.45 For 1 ½-inch meter .................................................................................... 58.3259.83 For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 90.4092.67 For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 192.01196.70 For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 341.74350.00 For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 700.04716.82 For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,288.281,319.07 For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,036.962,085.57 For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,678.682,742.56 Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 6.666.92 RESIDENTIAL MASTER-METERED AND GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 Effective 7-1-20159-1-2015 dated 7-1-20137-1-2015 Sheet No W-4-2 Drought Surcharges: If adopted by City Council resolution as described in Section D.2, one of the three designated drought surcharge reduction levels will be added to the Customer’s Commodity Rate. System-wide Water Usage Reduction level 10/15% 20% 25% Surcharge (dollars per hundred cubic feed) 0.24 0.49 0.72 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2. Drought Surcharge During periods of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may adopt a resolution activating a Drought Surcharge at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level, as needed to recover the water utility’s costs of providing water service. The purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption. {End} NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 Effective 7-1-2015 dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-7-1 A. APPLICABILITY: This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution area. B. TERRITORY: This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services. C. RATES: Per Meter Monthly Service Charge Per Month For 5/8-inch meter .................................................................................... $ 15.5416.03 For 3/4-inch meter .................................................................................... 20.8821.50 For 1-inch meter .................................................................................... 31.5832.45 For 1 1/2 inch meter .................................................................................... 58.3259.83 For 2-inch meter .................................................................................... 90.4092.67 For 3-inch meter .................................................................................... 192.01196.70 For 4-inch meter .................................................................................... 341.74350.00 For 6-inch meter .................................................................................... 700.04716.82 For 8-inch meter ....................................................................................1,288.281,319.07 For 10-inch meter ....................................................................................2,036.962,085.57 For 12-inch meter ....................................................................................2,678.682,742.56 Commodity Rates: (to be added to Service Charge) Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf) Per Month All Pressure Zones Per ccf ............................................................................................................ $ 8.088.29 NON-RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 Effective 7-1-2015 dated 7-1-2013 Sheet No W-7-2 Drought Surcharges: If adopted by City Council resolution as described in Section D.2, one of the three designated drought surcharge reduction levels will be added to the Customer’s Commodity Rate. System-wide Water Usage Reduction level 10/15% 20% 25% Surcharge (dollars per hundred cubic feed) 0.51 1.18 1.93 D. SPECIAL NOTES: 1. Calculation of Cost Components The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2. Drought Surcharge During periods of water shortage or restrictions on local water use, the City Council may adopt a resolution activating a Drought Surcharge at the 10/15%, 20% or 25% level, as needed to recover the water utility’s costs of providing water service. The purpose of the Drought Surcharge is to recover revenues lost as a result of reduced consumption. {End} ****NOT YET APPROVED***** Attachment C 1 150526 sdl 6053335 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Drought Surcharges at the 20% Reduction Level in Response to Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board R E C I T A L S A. The state of California is experiencing record dry conditions. On January 17, 2014 the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency due to severe drought conditions. On April 1, 2015 the Governor issued an Executive Order proclaiming that severe drought conditions continue to exist, and ordering the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt regulations imposing mandatory water use restrictions on water suppliers to achieve a 20% reduction in statewide potable water use through February 28, 2016. B. On May 5, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations imposing upon Palo Alto a mandatory 24% reduction in potable water consumption from June 1, 2015 through February 28, 2016. C. Customer response to this call for mandatory reductions will result in reductions in water sales revenue. The City’s costs of distributing water and managing its operations are mostly fixed, and will not decrease despite decreases in water consumption. The drought surcharges are necessary to recover these fixed costs. D. The City wishes to activate the drought surcharges for all of its water rate schedules at the 20% level. In light of the State’s mandate that Palo Alto reduce its overall potable water consumption by 24%, activation of local surcharges at the 20% level is projected to recover no more than the City’s fixed costs of operations, and is not projected to collect revenue above and beyond the cost to serve the City’s water customers under drought conditions. E. Pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing utility services, fees and charges. F. On July _____, 2015, the City mailed notice of the proposed water rate amendments and drought surcharges to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customers. The notice contained a description of the 4% overall increase in water rates, as well as each of the three levels of drought surcharges that Council may activate in response to a drought or other water shortage situation. The notice further informed customers that in August 2015, staff plans to recommend that Council activate the 20% drought surcharge level. ****NOT YET APPROVED***** Attachment C 2 150526 sdl 6053335 G. Pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on August 17, 2015, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the proposed water rate amendments, including the drought surcharges. H. The total number of written protests presented by the close of the public hearing was _______ fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and property owners subject to the proposed water rate amendments. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. As authorized by Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the drought surcharges listed in Section C under the 20% reduction level for the W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-4 (Residential Master- Metered and General Non-Residential Service), W-7 (Non-residential Irrigation Water Service) will apply to all City of Palo Alto Utilities water customer bills as of September 1, 2015,. SECTION 2. In light of the State’s mandate that Palo Alto reduce its overall potable water consumption by 24%, activation of local drought surcharges at the 20% level is projected to recover no more than the City’s fixed costs of operations, and is not projected to collect revenue above and beyond the cost to serve the City’s water customers under drought conditions. SECTION 3. The drought surcharges will continue to apply until the City Council acts to remove or amend them. Council may later find it necessary to activate one of the other drought surcharge levels described in the August 2015 public notice. Pursuant to Government Code 53750(h)(2)(B), Council’s later activation of any one of the properly noticed and Council- approved drought surcharge levels is not a rate increase for purposes of Article XIII C and Article XIII D of the California Constitution and Government Code 53750. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution changing water rates to meet operating expenses, purchase supplies and materials, meet financial reserve needs and obtain funds for capital improvements necessary to maintain service is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a). After / / / / / / / / ****NOT YET APPROVED***** Attachment C 3 150526 sdl 6053335 reviewing the staff report and all attachments presented to Council, the Council incorporates these documents herein and finds that sufficient evidence has been presented setting forth with specificity the basis for this claim of CEQA exemption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services Attachment D Adopted by Council on November 10, 2014 (Staff Report 5171) Design Guidelines for the 2014 Water Utility Drought Rate Cost of Service Study 1. Drought rates must be based on the cost to serve customers. This is the overriding principle for this study; all other rate design considerations must fall within this basic premise. 2. The drought rate design should be consistent with the water shortage response plan evaluation criteria in Appendix G of the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, summarized as follows: a. Reduce overall City consumption to reduction target required b. Provide sufficient water available for personal use c. Design should be acceptable to the community d. Unemployment and business loss should be minimized e. Landscaping investment losses should be minimized f. Plan should be cost-effective, enforceable, and achievable in the given timeline g. Plan should allow for flexibility h. Plan should take into account for new water services i. Plan should recover penalties applied by suppliers These criteria are discussed in more detail in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. 3. Rates will be designed for the following demand targets: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission System-wide Demand Reduction Target Palo Alto Demand (CCF) Projected Sales (CCF) 10/15% 4.976 million 4.571 million 20% 4.586 million 4.213 million 25% 4.261 million 3.914 million 4. Rates will be designed assuming the following allocation of water between indoor and outdoor (irrigation) use. SFPUC System- wide Reduction in Available Supply CPAU Sales (CCF) Indoor Use Outdoor Use (CCF) % reduction over normal year (CCF) % reduction over normal year None 4.946 million 3.134 million - 1.812 million - 10/15% 4.571 million 2.977 million 5% 1.589 million 12% 20% 4.213 million 2.852 million 9% 1.359 million 25% 25% 3.914 million 2.758 million 12% 1.160 million 36% 5. Rates for residential customers should provide an allowance for efficient landscaping through the use of three tiers, if feasible, and should otherwise be based on two tiers. Attachment D Adopted by Council on November 10, 2014 (Staff Report 5171) 6. Rates for commercial customers should provide an individual baseline allocation representing indoor use (based on winter use in a pre-drought year) and a second tier for outdoor use. 7. Water purchase costs should be passed through directly on the bill as a separate rate component. 8. Evaluate variance processes for customers needing additional water for medical necessity, health and safety, and other critical needs. Page 1 of 3 Estimated Impact of Proposed Drought Surcharges on Customer Bills The charts below show the impact of drought surcharges on customer bills. Note that the bill calculations below assume that the City’s wholesale supplier, the SFPUC, does not raise rates to recover lost revenue. This assumption may hold in the short term, but in an extended drought the SFPUC will increase rates as needed. In this event, the City would adjust rates to pass the cost through to customers. 10% / 15% REDUCTION LEVEL Residential Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo. % $/mo. 4 39.75 39.29 -1% -0.46 40.51 2% 0.76 (Winter median) 7 59.99 58.95 -2% -1.04 61.68 3% 1.69 (Annual median) 9 76.75 75.03 -2% -1.73 79.54 4% 2.79 (Summer median) 14 118.65 115.21 -3% -3.44 124.19 5% 5.54 25 210.83 200.22 -5% -10.61 222.42 5% 11.59 Commercial Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo. % $/mo. Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters) (Annual median) 12 99.07 97.65 -1% -1.42 101.95 3% 2.88 (Annual average) 64 458.91 451.36 -2% -7.55 474.27 3% 15.36 Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters) (Winter median) 9 134 130 -3% -4 139 4% 5 (Summer median) 37 367 346 -6% -21 385 5% 18 (Winter average) 56 524 493 -6% -31 553 6% 29 (Summer average) 199 1710 1601 -6% -109 1811 6% 101 ATTACHMENT E Page 2 of 3 20% REDUCTION LEVEL Residential Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo. % $/mo. 4 39.75 39.03 -2% -0.72 41.31 4% 1.56 (Winter median) 7 59.99 58.15 -3% -1.84 63.47 6% 3.48 (Annual median) 9 76.75 73.39 -4% -3.36 82.51 8% 5.76 (Summer median) 14 118.65 111.47 -6% -7.18 130.11 10% 11.46 25 210.83 186.20 -12% -24.63 234.83 11% 24.00 Commercial Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo. % $/mo. Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters) (Annual median) 12 99.07 96.95 -2% -2.12 104.95 6% 5.88 (Annual average) 64 458.91 447.59 -2% -11.32 490.27 7% 31.36 Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters) (Winter median) 9 134 124 -7% -10 145 8% 11 (Summer median) 37 367 323 -12% -44 410 12% 43 (Winter average) 56 524 458 -13% -66 590 13% 66 (Summer average) 199 1710 1473 -14% -237 1944 14% 234 Page 3 of 3 25% REDUCTION LEVEL Residential Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo. % $/mo. 4 39.75 38.98 -2% -0.77 42.11 6% 2.36 (Winter median) 7 59.99 57.55 -4% -2.44 65.29 9% 5.30 (Annual median) 9 76.75 71.75 -7% -5.00 85.57 11% 8.82 (Summer median) 14 118.65 107.24 -10% -11.41 136.27 15% 17.62 25 210.83 173.76 -18% -37.07 247.81 18% 36.98 Commercial Bills Usage (CCF/month) Bill under Normal Year Rates Bill with Surcharges, Conserving Customer Bill with Surcharges, Non-Conserving Customer Bill Change in Bill Bill Change in Bill % $/mo. % $/mo. Commercial (W-4) (5/8” meters) (Annual median) 12 99.07 96.71 -2% -2.36 107.71 9% 8.64 (Annual average) 64 458.91 446.31 -3% -12.60 504.99 10% 46.08 Irrigation (W-7) (1 ½” meters) (Winter median) 9 134 119 -11% -15 152 13% 18 (Summer median) 37 367 302 -18% -65 438 19% 71 (Winter average) 56 524 426 -19% -98 632 21% 108 (Summer average) 199 1710 1361 -20% -349 2094 22% 384 201 S. Lake Avenue Suite 301 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone 626 . 583 . 1894 Fax 626 . 583 . 1411 www.raftelis.com Raftelis Financial Consultants Memorandum TO: Jon Abendschein, Senior Resource Planner FROM: Sudhir Pardiwala/Hannah Phan DATE: May 20, 2015 SUBJECT: Proposed Water Rates The City of Palo Alto (City) engaged Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) to review the cost of service methodology and water rate structure described in our 2012 rate study1 to ensure its continued compliance with Proposition 218. This memo summarizes the methodology and development of the proposed water rate methodology and tiered rate structure. Proposed Water Rates The following subsections detail the methodology and calculation related to the proposed water rates for fiscal year (FY) 2016. Cost of Service Analysis Adjustments At the City’ request, RFC reviewed the cost of service analysis methodology used in its 2012 rate study, to ensure its continued compliance with Proposition 218’s substantive requirements for water rates. The methodology and rate structure described in the 2012 cost of service study remains fundamentally sound. Upon review, we have refined our analysis and recommend that the following adjustments be made to ensure that the rates proposed continue to equitably recover the City’s costs of providing water service: 1.RFC updated the customer class peaking factors using FY 2014 data. Peaking costs are one of the elements used to differentiate rates amongst different classes of customers. Different customers impose different demands on the system, and the portion of the costs related to peaking are applied proportionally to the peaking factors. As discussed below, peaking factors for the customer classes have shifted since the last study, and the new peaking factors should be reflected in the proposed rates. 2.RFC analyzed the usage characteristics for residential Tiers 1 and 2 usage in order to update the peaking-related costs to be allocated to each tier. The boundary between Tier 1 and Tier 2 use, 6 CCF, represents the median winter monthly usage for residential customers (winter is consider January through March). Analyzing winter usage is a common way to calculate indoor, year- 1 Palo Alto Water Cost of Service and Rate Study Report dated March 2012 ATTACHMENT F City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 2 round, base load use. Usage above this level typically is related to irrigation. As a result, the 2012 cost of service study did not allocate any peaking factors to Tier 1, because the customers with usage solely in that tier were presumed not to have a usage peak. Upon further study, RFC has determined that Tier 1 customers do have a small peaking factor that occurs as a result of their slightly higher summer use. As a result, RFC recommends refining the 2012 cost of service analysis to allocate a small share of peaking factor costs to Tier 1. This change will more equitably recover system design and operational costs associated with Tier 1 customers’ peak demands upon the system. 3. RFC adjusted the model to more clearly delineate the difference between base (delivery), peaking, and the cost of purchased water from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). While this does not necessarily affect the cost allocation between customer classes, it does more clearly show the costs being allocated among customer classes and residential tiers. The adjustments were made to the model used to calculate the City’s existing rates, which has been updated to reflect FY 2016 budget requirements. Adjustment 1: Peaking Factors for Customer Classes Table 1 shows the peaking factors by customer class, based on the maximum month factors calculated from each customer class’ water usage in FY 2014, compared to the peaking factors used in the 2012 study. These were calculated using the same methodology as in the 2012 cost of service study. The primary differentiator of rates amongst different customer classes is based on the demand that they put on the system. This demand is expressed in terms of the maximum day and maximum hour factors. These are the demands expressed as a ratio of the maximum demand to the average demand for each customer class. For example, if the maximum demand for a customer class were 10,000 CCF per day, and the average annual demand were 5,000 CCF per day, the peaking ratio would be 2.0. Residential customers generally have higher peaking factors than commercial customers, and irrigation customers have the highest peaking factors. The max day factor for each customer class is based on the maximum month demands. The ratio of the max hour and max day for the whole system is used to estimate the max hour factor for each customer class. Since usage in the Construction – W2 class is intermittent and varies based on the construction activity in the City, customers in the Construction – W2 class are considered to be the same as the Commercial – W4 class for the purpose of calculating variable charges. These two classes are differentiated only in the fact that temporary hydrant meters are used for construction customers, while commercial customers have permanent services. City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 3 Table 1 Revised Peaking Factors by Customer Class The change to the peaking factors by customer class shifts the capacity or peaking-related costs among the customer classes, to equitably reflect their demands on the system and recover the City’s cost of providing service. The peaking factors for the W-4 customer class has remained the same (when normalized).2 The peaking factor for the W-1 customer class as a whole has also remained the same, though the peaking factors for the residential tiers have been adjusted as discussed below. The W-7 customer class peaking factor has changed. Adjustment 2: Peaking Factors for Residential Rate Tiers In order to equitably allocate the peaking related costs to residential Tiers 1 and 2, RFC analyzed the water usage per month per account for FY 2014. Since the maximum month usage for residential customers occurs in August, the August usage in each tier was compared with the average usage in each tier to determine the relative peaking factor for each tier. Table 2 shows the calculation of the peaking factor for each tier, representing the amount of extra capacity needed on the system to serve customers in that tier. The peaking factor for Tier 1 is 1.06 (i.e., the peak is 1.06 times the average or 6 percent above the average Tier 1 usage.) Similarly, the peak for Tier 2 is 69 percent above the average for Tier 2 usage. The delivery cost, or average cost of providing service, is recovered from the average component, and the peak cost recovered from the peak component. Based on the analysis, Tier 2 requires approximately 12 times (0.69/0.06) more peaking capacity than Tier 1. Conversely, in the 2012 study, no peaking cost was allocated to Tier 1, thus putting 100 percent of the peaking costs on Tier 2. 2 Normalization is done so that W-1 equals 2.0. This normalization is performed to make it easier to see differences between customer class peaking factors and how those peaking factors change over time. Using the normalized peaking factors results in the same cost allocation as would result if the non-normalized peaking factors were used. Customer Specific Peaking Factors 2012 Max Day (MD) 2012 Max Hour (MH) 2014 Max Day (MD) 2014 Max Hour (MH) Residential - W1 1.49 2.34 1.45 2.27 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 1.30 2.04 1.27 1.99 Irrigation - W7 2.25 3.53 1.81 2.84 Construction - W2 1.30 2.04 1.27 1.99 Customer Specific Peaking Factors 2012 MD Normalized 2012 MH Normalized 2014 MD Normalized 2014 MH Normalized Residential - W1 2.00 3.14 2.00 3.14 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 1.75 2.75 1.75 2.75 Irrigation - W7 3.00 4.71 2.50 3.92 Construction - W2 1.75 2.75 1.75 2.75 City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 4 Table 2 Peaking Factors for Tiers 1 and 2 Adjustment 3: Presentation of Underlying Rate Components These changes discussed above result in the calculated rates shown in Table 3 for FY 2016, assuming a 12 percent revenue increase. Each rate has three components: supply rate, delivery rate, and peaking rate. The supply rate represents the cost of purchased water from the SFPUC, which is applied to all customer classes and tiers equally since the City only has one source of water. Note that the supply rate component includes the fixed meter costs (about 2 percent of total costs) and losses (about 8 percent of purchased water). The delivery rate represents the City’s fixed costs of operating the water system to serve year-round base load consumption, excluding any peaking related costs. This component is also applied to all customer classes and tiers equally. The peaking rate represents the capacity related costs of the system necessary to serve peak load, and it differs per customer class and tier based on the calculated peaking factors for each customer class and tier, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 4 shows the existing rates and how they underlying rate components were previously displayed. Table 3 Proposed FY 2016 Commodity Rate Peaking Factor Analysis for W1 Customers Max Month Usage Bills in Tier Usage per Bill Average Usage Peaking Factor Tier 1 - 0-6 CCF 73,173 13,124 5.58 5.27 1.06 Tier 2 - over 6 CCF 154,329 11,739 13.15 7.78 1.69 Customer Class Tier (ccf)Supply Rate ($/ccf) Delivery Rate ($/ccf) Peaking Rate ($/ccf)Rate ($/ccf) Residential - W1 Tier 1 6 $4.61 $1.10 $0.22 $5.93 Tier 2 over 6 $4.61 $1.10 $2.67 $8.38 Average Rate $3.87 $7.36 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $4.61 $1.10 $1.21 $6.92 Irrigation - W7 $4.61 $1.10 $2.58 $8.29 Construction - W2 $4.61 $1.10 $1.21 $6.92 City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 5 Table 4 Existing Commodity Rate Components The proposed rates are shown in Table 5 for both an 8 percent and a 12 percent revenue increase. The monthly meter service charge includes customer service, metering, and billing charges as well as the costs associated with the service connection and a portion of the distribution system capacity. Fire service meter charges include costs associated with maintaining system capacity to serve firefighting flows for private fire meters. Customer Class Tier (ccf)Supply Rate ($/ccf) Delivery Rate ($/ccf) Peaking Rate ($/ccf)Rate ($/ccf) Residential - W1 Tier 1 6 $3.41 $1.58 $0.00 $4.99 Tier 2 over 6 $3.41 $1.58 $2.59 $7.58 Average Rate $6.41 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $3.41 $1.58 $1.16 $6.15 Irrigation - W7 $3.41 $1.58 $2.53 $7.52 Construction - W2 $3.41 $1.58 $1.16 $6.15 City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 6 Table 5 Proposed FY 2016 Water Rates General Monthly Meter Service Charge Meter Size Existing Rates Updated COS Rates (8.2%) Updated COS Rates (12.1%) 5/8"$14.67 $15.54 $16.03 3/4"$19.51 $20.88 $21.50 1"$29.18 $31.58 $32.45 1 1/2"$53.37 $58.32 $59.83 2"$82.39 $90.40 $92.67 3"$174.29 $192.01 $196.70 4"$309.72 $341.74 $350.00 6"$633.80 $700.04 $716.82 8"$1,165.86 $1,288.28 $1,319.07 10"$1,843.02 $2,036.96 $2,085.57 12"$2,423.45 $2,678.68 $2,742.56 Monthly Fire Meter Service Charge Meter Size Existing Rates Updated COS Rates (8.2%) Updated COS Rates (12.1%) 2"$3.03 $3.38 $3.43 4"$18.78 $20.94 $21.22 6"$54.55 $60.82 $61.63 8"$116.24 $129.61 $131.34 10"$209.03 $233.09 $236.20 12"$337.65 $376.51 $381.52 Commodity Rate ($/ccf) Existing Rates Updated COS Rates (8.2%) Updated COS Rates (12.1%) Residential - W1 Tier 1 0 - 6 ccf $4.99 $5.70 $5.93 Tier 2 over 6 ccf $7.58 $8.08 $8.38 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $6.15 $6.66 $6.92 Irrigation - W7 $7.52 $7.99 $8.29 Construction - W2 $6.15 $6.66 $6.92 201 S. Lake Avenue Suite 301 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone 626 . 583 . 1894 Fax 626 . 583 . 1411 www.raftelis.com Raftelis Financial Consultants Memorandum TO: Jon Abendschein, Senior Resource Planner FROM: Sudhir Pardiwala/Hannah Phan DATE: May 20, 2015 SUBJECT: Proposed Drought Rates The City of Palo Alto (City) engaged Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) to develop a drought rate structure that is Proposition 218-compliant, fair and equitable while encouraging conservation. This memo summarizes the methodology for the proposed drought rates. Proposed Water Drought Rates The following subsections detail the methodology and calculation related to the proposed drought rates for FY 2016. Demand Scenarios The City receives its potable water supply from SFPUC, which is currently asking its wholesale customers for a 10 percent voluntary reduction. If the drought worsens, SFPUC will ask for mandatory cutbacks. RFC modeled three supply reduction scenarios, which were provided by the City as supplied by SFPUC: a 10/15% reduction scenario, a 20% reduction scenario, and a 25% reduction scenario. Table 1 shows the projected purchases and sales in acre feet (AF) of water for each drought scenario for FY 2016, including a water loss factor of approximately 8.1 percent as well as projected reductions in usage. Table 1 Drought Scenarios Drought Scenarios – FY 2016 Purchases (AF) Sales (AF) Normal 11,404 10,477 10/15% reduction 10,535 9,679 20% reduction 9,710 8,920 25% reduction 9,022 8,288 Proposed Drought Surcharge Calculation The proposed drought rates are calculated to be revenue neutral, net of SFPUC costs, compared to the revenue generated from the FY 2016 rates shown in Table 2. ATTACHMENT G City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 2 Table 2 Proposed FY 2016 Water Commodity Rates Reduced sales result in reduced revenues as well as reduced purchased water costs. However, the net result is inadequate revenue to recover costs since a significant amount of the water system costs are fixed. As a result, rates need to be increased during drought and other shortage situations, to ensure financial stability and sufficient revenue recovery. In times of drought, it is important to ensure that basic health and sanitation needs are provided for first. This is considered to be essential usage. The City has set reduction targets for each type of consumption for each drought scenario, as shown in Table 3, in order to achieve the total target reduction set by SFPUC. Indoor usage is required to conserve less than outdoor usage. While it is not practical to set a target reduction for construction usage, for purposes of the analysis in order to calculate drought rates, construction usage is projected to have the same reduction as commercial customers. Table 3 Assumed Water Reduction in Each Scenario Table 4 shows the indoor and outdoor reductions (from a normal year) assumed under each reduction scenario and the usage reductions assumed for each customer group and billing tier based on the percentages shown in Table 3. Updated COS Rates (12.1%) Residential - W1 Tier 1 0 - 6 ccf $5.93 Tier 2 over 6 ccf $8.38 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $6.92 Irrigation - W7 $8.29 Construction - W2 $6.92 Requested Reductions:10/15%20%25% Residential Indoor Reduction (0 - 6 CCF)5%9%12% Outdoor Reduction (7 - 30 CCF)10%18%26% Outdoor Reduction (30+ CCF)15%30%36% Reduction Goal 8%15%21% Non-Residential Indoor Reduction 5%9%12% Outdoor Reduction 12%25%36% City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 3 Table 4 Projected Water Usage in Each Scenario When usage is reduced in a drought, water purchase costs decrease as well. Therefore, water purchase costs were separated out before calculating the revenue requirement for the drought surcharges. Table 5 shows the estimated SFPUC supply costs for each drought scenario. Because of the fixed costs that SFPUC charges the City, the unit cost increases as the usage decreases. Table 5 SFPUC Supply Unit Cost in Each Drought Scenario - ($) The total water enterprise cost in FY 2016, excluding the cost of water purchased from SFPUC, is approximately $11.7 million, as shown in Table 6. To determine the cost to serve each customer class, net of water purchase costs, in FY 2016, RFC determined the total commodity revenue, based on the FY 2016 rates, less purchased water costs. Fixed meter charges are excluded from this analysis since those are unaffected by the drought. RFC used the same cost allocation methodology discussed in the previous section to determine the cost allocation to each customer class by cost component. Delivery costs are costs associated with providing service to customers during average conditions. Peaking costs are costs associated with providing service at peak conditions, which differ based on customer class since they peak at different levels. Table 6 Allocation of City’s Costs to Customer Class Customer Class Tier (ccf)Total Usage (ccf)Reduction %Total Usage (ccf)Reduction %Total Usage (ccf)Reduction %Total Usage (ccf) Residential - W1 Tier 1 6 894,536 -1.2%883,519 -2.2%874,706 -3.0%868,096 Tier 2 over 6 1,260,973 -13.5%1,090,204 -24.8%948,351 -34.2%829,401 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 1,798,207 -6.3%1,685,653 -11.9%1,584,610 -16.3%1,504,785 Irrigation - W7 428,161 -12.0%376,781 -25.0%321,120 -36.0%274,023 Construction - W2 6,694 -6.3%6,275 -11.9%5,899 -16.3%5,601 TOTAL 4,388,571 4,042,432 3,734,687 3,481,906 Normal 10/15% Reduction 20% Reduction 25% Reduction FY 2016 SFPUC Costs Usage (ccf)Unit cost ($/ccf) Normal $20,189,435 4,388,571 $4.61 10/15%$18,858,590 4,042,432 $4.67 20%$17,679,924 3,734,687 $4.74 25%$16,711,773 3,481,906 $4.80 COS Allocation Delivery Peaking Total Residential - W1 $2,360,813 $3,566,028 $5,926,841 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $1,969,480 $2,182,259 $4,151,739 Irrigation - W7 $468,941 $1,104,723 $1,573,665 Construction - W2 $7,331 $8,123 $15,454 Total $4,806,566 $6,861,134 $11,667,699 City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 4 Table 7 shows the delivery unit cost in each drought scenario based on the projected water usage in Table 4 and the cost in Table 6. Since these costs are fixed, the unit cost increases as usage decreases. Table 7 Calculation of Delivery Unit Cost in Each Drought Scenario Table 8 shows the calculation of each rate component for each customer class in each drought scenario. The calculation is based on the data presented in Tables 5 through 7. Since the City only has one source of water, everyone pays the same unit cost for supply. That principle applies to the fixed delivery cost of the system. Since this cost is fixed, the unit rate increases as the usage decreases. The differentiation between the prices for the tiers comes from the peaking related costs. Since customer usage peaks at different levels, the peaking cost is used to differentiate between customer classes and tier prices. The difference in peaking costs between residential Tiers 1 and 2 is based on the same methodology and ratio shown in Table 2. In all scenarios, the revenue collected from the delivery and peaking components equals $11.7 million, meaning the drought surcharges only collect revenue equal to the normal year revenue requirement for delivery and peaking costs. Delivery Cost 10/15%20%25% Total Cost $4,806,566 $4,806,566 $4,806,566 Usage (CCF)4,042,432 3,734,687 3,481,906 Average Unit Cost ($/CCF)$1.19 $1.29 $1.38 City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 5 Table 8 Calculation of Rate Component in Each Drought Scenario1 Table 9 shows the proposed drought surcharges for each drought scenario from the FY 2016 normal rates, shown in Table 2. These are calculated as the difference between the normal rates and the rates shown in Table 8 for each customer class and rate category. 1 Totals may not add due to rounding. 10/15% Reduction Supply (SFPUC)Delivery Peaking Total Residential - W1 Tier 1 6 $4.67 $1.19 $0.26 $6.12 Tier 2 over 6 $4.67 $1.19 $3.06 $8.93 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $4.67 $1.19 $1.29 $7.16 Irrigation - W7 $4.67 $1.19 $2.93 $8.80 Construction - W2 $4.67 $1.19 $1.29 $7.16 20% Reduction Supply (SFPUC)Delivery Peaking Total Residential - W1 Tier 1 6 $4.74 $1.29 $0.29 $6.32 Tier 2 over 6 $4.74 $1.29 $3.49 $9.52 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $4.74 $1.29 $1.38 $7.41 Irrigation - W7 $4.74 $1.29 $3.44 $9.47 Construction - W2 $4.74 $1.29 $1.38 $7.41 25% Reduction Supply (SFPUC)Delivery Peaking Total Residential - W1 Tier 1 6 $4.80 $1.38 $0.33 $6.52 Tier 2 over 6 $4.80 $1.38 $3.95 $10.14 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $4.80 $1.38 $1.45 $7.64 Irrigation - W7 $4.80 $1.38 $4.03 $10.22 Construction - W2 $4.80 $1.38 $1.45 $7.64 City of Palo Alto May 20, 2015 Page 6 Table 9 Proposed Drought Surcharges Commodity Rate ($/ccf)Normal 10/15%20%25% Residential - W1 Tier 1 6 $5.93 +$0.19 +$0.39 +$0.59 Tier 2 over 6 $8.38 +$0.55 +$1.14 +$1.76 Master MFR/Commercial - W4 $6.92 +$0.24 +$0.49 +$0.72 Irrigation - W7 $8.29 +$0.51 +$1.18 +$1.93 Construction - W2 $6.92 +$0.24 +$0.49 +$0.72 CRITERIA TO EVALUATE WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN This appendix lists criteria expected to guide the selection of allocation/allotment strategies whenever water use reductions are needed. Not all of them may be applicable to every strategy but customer perception of equity is important in achieving the necessary reductions. 1. Reduce overall City consumption by reduction target required -this is the effective goal of any plan. To accomplish this goal the percentage reduction for the various customer classes will necessarily vary because their ratios of indoor/ outdoor use varies. 2. Sufficient water available for personal use -the most important use of water is for basic drinking, health, and sanitary uses, and therefore, this is given the highest priority of use. This prioritization will drive both rate schedules and water use restrictions. However, within allowed limits (i.e., water use restriction ordinances}, customers will be able to choose how they use their allotment between indoor and outdoor uses. 3. Acceptance by the community-many people tend to evaluate or accept a particular water- rationing plan in terms of how it would directly affect them. It is this aspect which makes it difficult to gain a popular consensus on any one plan. However, any plan must be generally accepted by the community to be successful. One important aspect of acceptance is the public's understanding of the program; thus, it is viewed as important to make the plan as uncomplicated as possible. 4. Minimize unemployment or business loss -water is extensively used in both commercial and industrial functions. If water is severely limited to these consumers, increased unemployment and business losses could result. Staff intends that, wherever possible, this should be avoided. Still, outside water use must be sacrificed greatly if only minimal indoor reductions are required. Cooling tower use for air conditioning must also be considered. 5. Landscaping investment losses -in cases of critical or severe shortage of water, it is expected that significant landscaping losses may arise. The use of recycled water should be encouraged for certain applications. In some cases, using the City's well system to augment the SFPUC supply will be an option to provide a minimum amount of water for landscaping. In this case, the goal should be to keep valuable and mature trees and plantings alive. Shrubs and lawns will be considered a lower priority. 6. Workable plan -the plan must be workable in order to accomplish its goal. It must take the following factors into account: a. Cost -the cost of any water plan to the public should be minimized. Page 1of2 ATTACHMENT H b. Enforcement -enforcement is viewed as a key component of any plan. Those plans requiring fewer resources for enforcement would be preferable. However, the success of a plan is contingent upon effective enforcement and the utility must be provided the resources to meet the enforcement objective. The current staff can only absorb a certain level of additional responsibilities without unreasonably impacting service to the customer. c. The plan must be practical and feasible from a data processing viewpoint and not subject to erroneous results due to incomplete or inaccurate databases. A realistic timeframe must be allowed to perform any necessary data entry or customer programming functions. 9. Flexibility-the water shortage is a dynamic situation and may get better or worse. Thus, it is necessary that any plan be adaptable to changes in targets or adjustable if original expectations are not being met. 10. Allowance for new services-some provision must be made in any plan to serve new establishments or those under construction. 12. Recover penalties applied by suppliers -revenue should be collected to the extent necessary to recover any penalties that may be charged by suppliers. Page 2 of 2 Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 9 of 11 ITEM 6: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Council Adopt two Resolutions Effective September 1, 2015: 1) Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Servicer), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to Increase Rates 4% and Add Drought Surcharges; and 2) Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20% Level in Response to Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board Senior Resource Planner Jon Abendschein provided a brief summary of the written report. The UAC and Finance Committee had previously recommended a 12% rate increase effective July 1, 2015. Staff sent out notices to customers of these 12% increases. Subsequently, a court decision was published providing additional guidance on rate design. Staff asked its rate consultant to review the City’s rate design methodology. The consultant recommended minor adjustments. To incorporate these adjustments and comply with the noticing requirements of the California Constitution, the 12% rate increase had to be broken into two parts: 8% effective July 1, 2015, and 4% effective September 1, 2015. Staff had also been developing drought surcharges based on design guidelines adopted by Council the previous fall. Staff recommended including these drought surcharges in the rate action effective September 1, 2015. Public Comment Herb Borock asked the UAC not to approve the rate increase proposed. He also said that he will also recommend that the Council reject the 8% rate increase in front of them on June 8. He said that proposed rates should be heard by the Council before notice was sent to customers. This had been done in the past. Only recently did staff begin taking proposed rates to the UAC and Finance Committee, but not the Council, before they send out the Proposition 218 notice to customers. Chair Foster asked Mr. Borock to clarify whether his concern was solely with the process, or whether he also had concerns regarding the rate increase itself. Mr. Borock stated he also had concerns about whether recycled water had been considered in the cost of service analysis. UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2015 DRAFT ATTACHMENT D Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 10 of 11 Chair Foster asked whether the UAC could recommend that the Council approve the rates, and whether the City Attorney would later inform the Council if there were any problem with the process. Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Kolling said that he would, but that the City Attorney would not have allowed this to proceed if there were a problem with the process. ACTION: Chair Foster made a motion to approve the staff proposal. Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-0 with Commissioners Cook, Danaher, Foster, and Schwartz voting yes and Commissioners Eglash, Hall and Van Dusen absent). • ::1 l C_<' Of PALO ALTO FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Special Meeting Tuesday, June 16, 2015 Chairperson Schmid called the meeting to order at 6:15 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Absent: Filseth, Kniss, Schmid (Chair) Scharff Oral Communications None Agenda Items 1. Staff Recommendation that the City Council Adopt Two Resolutions Effective September 1, 2015: 1) Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master- Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non- Residential Irrigation Water Service) to Increase Rates 4 Percent and Add Drought Surcharges; and 2) Activating Drought Surcharges at the 20 Percent Level in Response to Mandatory Potable Water Use Restrictions Imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board. Jon Abendschein, Senior Resource Planner: Good evening, Council Members. My name's Jon Abendschein. I'm a Senior Resource Planner with the Resource Management Division. I'm here to talk to you tonight about the four percent Water Rate increase and Drought Surcharges. The recommendation that we have for you tonight is to adopt two Resolutions, one to amend Water Rates, to raise rates by four percent, and add Drought Surcharges effective September 1, 2015. The second is to activate those Drought Surcharges. We're putting three levels of Drought Surcharge on the rate schedule, and we're recommending that you activate the 20 percent reduction level surcharge effective September 1, 2015. We're trying to achieve three objectives with these ... Page 1of28 ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Chair Schmid: Could I ask a question? You're asking us to activate or to recommend to Council to activate. Mr. Abendschein: To recommend to Council to activate. I'm sorry. This is our recommendation to the City Council we're asking you to recommend to the City Council. Chair Schmid: Pass it on, yes. Mr. Abendschein: Our objectives with these two Resolutions. We have three objectives. First off, we want to complete the 12 percent rate increase that we discussed with you last week, which we recommended be broken into two parts, an eight percent effective July 1st and four percent effective September 1st. Last night you approved the first part of that two-part rate increase. This would be the second part. We're also, as I said, adding Drought Surcharges and activating the Drought Surcharges. On June 3rd, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) unanimously recommended the Council approve the recommended action. We don't' unfortunately have the minutes of the discussion in the report, because their meetings were too close together. We do have Chair Foster, Jonathan Foster, here to talk about the UAC's discussion. I'll just go over the background. It's important just to remind everyone how we got here. Last fall as we were getting into the drought, the Finance Committee discussed a set of Rate Design Guidelines to be used in designing Drought Surcharges. We started a Cost of Service analysis. In March and April, we started our usual financial forecasting process. We recommended a 12 percent rate increase. That was adopted by the UAC and the Finance Committee. I'm reiterating some discussion we had at the Council Member meeting. In late April when we were mailing our Prop 218 notice, there was a court decision. We asked our Water Rate Consultant to take a look at our rate design methodology. We came to you last week to incorporate some recommended adjustments effective July 1st. I don't think I need to necessarily reiterate this. You've already heard this earlier in the week. If you have any questions on it, I'm happy to answer them. This slide, Slide Number ... Council Member Kniss: Could I interrupt with that one? Given that court decision, even though you've discussed tiers in here, help me out with that. Perhaps I didn't understand the court decision. Mr. Abendschein: I can go into this in a little more depth then. The court decision did address tiers. The court decision did not say-I'll defer to the City Attorney on this-that tiers were something cities couldn't use; they just had to be cost justified. Our Water Rate Consultant took a look at ... Page 2 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES Council Member Kniss: That's a big thing, to cost justify it. That's what it hung on, as I understand it. Mr. Abendschein: That's right. When we adopted our Two-tier rate system back in 2012, we had a methodology for justifying that two-tier system. In the wake of the court decision, we wanted to take a look at it and say, "Do we still feel comfortable with it?" The consultant said, "We do still feel comfortable with it." It has to do with the way that system capacity is allocated to year-round and seasonal uses. I'm happy to go into that in more depth, if you would like to. Council Member Kniss: As I said, this is the crux of the whole thing. It's why we're debating this. It's why, as I understand it, we're doing one right now and we're going to add more at the end of the summer. If I'm wrong on that, I'd like to know it. That was my understanding as I looked at this and realized what our objectives are and so forth. Mr. Abendschein: You're absolutely right. Council Member Kniss: If I'm not in the right direction then ... What people are asking us now is, "How are you setting the rates?" Someone said, "Here's what Mountain View anticipates." What is your limit? What are you telling people they can use or not use? What are you telling them about if they use more water, it's going to cost them more? We need to be very exact when we are explaining to the public this very scarce resource becoming scarcer unless the Nino does hit, which certainly one hopes will. This may be a long term and really important resource that we have to deal with. Molly Stump, City Attorney: Jon, perhaps I can wade in a little bit? Mr. Abendschein: Please do, yes. Ms. Stump: Molly Stump, City Attorney. Thanks for the question. There's been a fair amount of confusion about this, since the Court of Appeal issued the San Juan Capistrano decision. As you know, Proposition 218 has some significant, substantive requirements in it. One of them is that when a local agency adopts rates to assess property-related fees or charges that those fees need to be based on the cost of providing service to those payers. Although the language of Prop 218 says the cost needs to be proportional to the service to the parcel, courts have said it's legitimate for agencies to group customers into similarly situated clusters and to figure out the cost of serving based on those groupings. It's very common, state of the art, to put residential customers together, commercial customers and then perhaps agricultural or industrial. We do that. The court in Southern California Page 3 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES looked at one rating agency's decisions to create a tiered rate structure. San Juan Capistrano had four tiers in their residential rates. They were very steep tiers. Every rating agency does this different. Palo Alto has two tiers, and they're relatively close together. The court found that San Juan Capistrano did not have evidence that their rate structure was supported by the cost of providing service to the people in those various tiers. Our situation is different. The Utilities Department has worked with Raftelis, and they have developed a methodology that measures the usage including the base usage and also what's called the peaking factor. This is something that the utility has to design for, the regular usage and then usage that will rise up and peak typically on very hot days in the summer. There's an expert methodology for assessing what it costs to build for that peaking capacity and then allocating that to the customers that generate those costs. When the new decision came down, there have been several on tiered rates. This is one of several. We took that opportunity to look at the guidance from this panel of the Court of Appeal and go back to the expert and say, "This is the methodology that you've recommended before, that you believe allows us to charge people based on the cost of serving them. In light of the court's newest comments, are we still good?" They said, "Yes. The methodology is fundamentally sound." They did update it and recommend some minor adjustments which, if I'm correct, had the effect of bringing our tiers a little closer together. Because of those changes, the City needed to put the rate increases that are needed to fund the full cost of the system in place in two steps. This is the second step. To answer your question, unfortunately the media reporting on the San Juan Capistrano decision was very high level. "Court says tiered rates are unconstitutional." What they actually said was this particular jurisdiction's rates did not meet the constitutional standard. If court challenges are filed in other jurisdictions, it's going to depend on the work that those jurisdictions have done to establish what is the cost of serving, what is their rate structure and what kind of evidentiary basis do they have to support it. We feel we're in a very different position, and these tiered rates are well supported by our expert. Does that help? Council Member Kniss: That's very reassuring. It'll be very reassuring to the public. Those of us will accept them, but it's about what we're saying to the public as to why this is happening when the San Juan Capistrano case was so visible and so well-discussed. Thank you. Mr. Abendschein: Slide 5 illustrates why we had to break the rate increase into two parts. As Molly said, the adjustments that the consultant recommended we make to the methodology flattened the tiers slightly. We had sent out a Prop 218 notice with rates at this level. If we were to have a 12 percent increase and incorporate the methodology changes, it would have resulted in tiered rates at this level which means the Tier 1 rate would have Page 4 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES been above what we sent out in the Prop 218 notice. What we did was we said, "We'll have an eight percent increase instead." As you can see, that sets the Tier 1 rate for July 1st at the Prop 218 notice level. We're going to have a second Prop 218 notice to do an additional 4 percent to get us to the total 12. We don't like to send out two Prop 218 notices, but fortunately we were in the process of developing Drought Surcharges and we knew we would have to have a second Prop 218 notice of the Drought Surcharges anyway, so we were able to combine those two efforts into one Prop 218 notice. That's ready to go out assuming you recommend approval tonight. Slide 6 and Slide 7 are for reference. If you'd like to speak to any of those slides, I can put them back up for the public. I'm not going to go into them in-depth; they're covered in the report. Council Member Kniss: One more question on this, if I might. If I'm looking at my Tier 2 rates ... Chair Schmid: Can you read what slide? Council Member Kniss: I'm on Slide 6. I'm looking at the tiered rates. They go up, but it's not a great deal. It's not a huge amount. When I get my water bill, and that is the big discussion lately. "Have you gotten your water bill? What did your water bill look like?" What am I going to see? What is the average water bill? I don't actually know. Mr. Abendschein: It's in the ballpark of 12 to 14 Centum Cubic-feet (CCF) annually. Valerie Fong, Utilities Director: Slide 10. Council Member Kniss: Am I jumping ahead of you? Ms. Fong: Yeah. Council Member Kniss: Why don't you hold on for a minute and then we'll see. Mr. Abendschein: These are the billing (crosstalk) Drought Surcharges. Ms. Fong: This is the Drought Surcharge (crosstalk). Mr. Abendschein: I have a backup slide. If you're able to turn and take a look, I can show it to you. If you want to open your report to Page 5. Council Member Kniss: Packet Page 5? Page 5 of28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director and Chief Financial Officer: Or Page 5 of the Report? Mr. Abendschein: Page 5 of the report itself. Mr. Perez: Packet Page 7. Mr. Abendschein: Packet Page 7. It looks like the table is cut off across pages unfortunately. It's at the very bottom of Page 5, the top of Page 6, Report Page 5 and 6. The annual median, I'm sorry, is 9 CCF. The summer median is 14 CCF. The winter median is 7 CCF. The impact of the 4 percent increase is between $2 and $4 to the average residential bill, or the median residential bill that is. That's in addition to what you'd see for the July 1, 2015 8 percent rate increase which is unfortunately not in your report. If you want to look at the backup slide that I've put up here, you can see that as well. Chair Schmid: If I could ask a question there. Tier 1 and Tier 2 are separated at 6 CCF. Mr. Abendschein: That's right. Chair Schmid: Yet, you say here that your median is-you have a winter median, an annual median, a summer median. How does that fit into Tiers 1 and 2? Mr. Abendschein: I'm going to have to take a look at the winter median again, because last time I checked it was at 6. I don't know why our table is showing 7 here. We checked that over with the consultant as well. Chair Schmid: At six. Mr. Abendschein: Six is the breakpoint, if you think of that as the winter median ... Chair Schmid: If the annual median is nine, I would assume that in six you have 20-25 percent of the residents. Mr. Abendschein: Six CCF, for most residential customers it represents their year-round usage, their base load usage. It's their winter usage and it's the portion of the system that gets used year-round. Anything above six generally is seasonal. Chair Schmid: Everybody is in both Tiers 1 and 2. Page 6 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES Mr. Abendschein: Correct. It's actually not everybody. We do have a significant subset of customers who do stay within six. Is this helpful as far as the bill impacts of the normal year rate increases? This doesn't address the bill impacts of the Drought Surcharges, which we'll get to in a moment. If there are no more questions on that, I'm happy to move onto the Drought Surcharges. This is Slide 8. This is a challenging part of this proposal. We would have preferred to have presented the Drought Surcharges entirely separately from the normal year four percent rate increase, but we weren't able to do that this year. The Drought Surcharges are different from normal year rate increases. We present them differently. They're only intended to recover lost revenue due to lower sales during a drought. They're not intended to raise additional revenue. The four percent and the eight percent increases are intended to raise additional revenue. Council Member Kniss: If I might. That is what has people so puzzled. Why is it that you're charging me more when I'm using less? Mr. Abendschein: That's right. It's a good question and it goes to the issue that you're paying for the transportation rather than the water itself. You're paying for the pipes and the maintenance and all of those things that we have to do every year, rather than the water itself. Council Member Filseth: Is it as simple as the fixed costs being amortized over a smaller volume of water or is there more than that? Mr. Abendschein: That's exactly it. That's all there is. Council Member Filseth: That's all there is. There's nothing more. Mr. Abendschein: That's all there is to it. We're proposing rate schedules to deal with three different levels of water use reductions. We have a 10 and 15 percent level, a 20 percent and a 25 percent level. You might ask why the 10 and 15 percent level are the same. It has to do with the way water is allocated during a drought under our contract with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) We have a high-I'm sorry, what's the ... The supply guarantee, that's the word I'm looking for. We have a higher supply guarantee relative to our usage, contractual supply guarantee with the SFPUC relative to our normal year usage than other agencies do. That benefits us during a drought. We end up seeing very similar water use reduction requirements under 10 percent and 15 percent system-wide Hetch Hetchy water use reductions. That's why those are the same. We want these surcharges to be on the rate schedules all the time, updated every time we update the regular rate schedules. When we get into a drought, they could be activated by separate Council action. I'm moving on to Slide 9 here. Because of the Governor's requested mandate that we cut water use Page 7 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES 24 percent from calendar year 2013, we're recommending activation of the surcharges at the 20 percent reduction level. You might ask why 20 percent instead of 25 percent. The answer is these are calculated as a reduction from a normal year, a 20 percent reduction from a normal year. Calendar year 2013 was an above average year. It was very dry. We sold a lot more water than we normally would have sold. Activating them at the 20 percent level, which is a little bit confusing, recovers exactly the revenue that we need to recover. Because we would be activating these in September rather than July, we would be drawing down reserves to recover some of the lost revenue. We're comfortable that we can accommodate that within the financial forecast. Moving on to Slide 10, unless there are any questions on Slides 8 or 9. When we look at the bill impacts of Drought Surcharges, you have to think about three different customers. When we activate these Drought Surcharges, there are three different types of customers you need to think about. There are customers who are not conserving and then choose to start conserving. Those customers will see a bill reduction, even with the Drought Surcharges. You see customers who have not conserved and choose to continue not to conserve. Those customers will see a bill increase. There are customers who are already conserving, and we have a lot of those. Those customers will see an increase in their bills. This is where the public communication gets very complicated. Essentially these customers are going to be doing better than customers who are not conserving, but they're not going to be doing as well as they were before. Council Member Filseth: I have a question. I'm sure this is fiendishly complicated and that's why (inaudible). Did you guys look at the possibility of somehow taking that into account and normalizing it for cubic feet per head in household? I don't know; something like that. Just for that case of the person who says, "Now wait a second. I've had three bricks in my toilet, and I only shower every other day. Meanwhile, my neighbor with the swimming pool, with the two swimming pools, is going to get a rate cut, and I'm going to have to pay more." I assume there's no simple way around that. Mr. Abendschein: There isn't a simple way, but we did take that into account. When we did the Drought Rate Design Guidelines, we said we're going to ask for lower levels of conservation from smaller users. That's built into these Rate Schedules. You can see it's exhibited in the Drought Surcharges as well. The surcharge for Tier 1 is a lot lower than the surcharge for Tier 2. Council Member Filseth: That's a very important message. If you're already conserving, you're being asked to do less than somebody who is not. I hope that comes out in the communications. Page 8 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES Mr. Abendschein: Absolutely. We have examples here. Our Communications Manager couldn't be here tonight, but we have some examples of communication pieces that we've been developing. We're happy to share that with you. Council Member Kniss: That you're going to put in the bill? Mr. Abendschein: Yeah. We'll have it available online as well. That's it. We're preparing a communications plan. We have some examples; this isn't all the collateral that we're going to have put together. As part of the communications, one of the things that we do hear from customers is that there isn't any economic incentive right now for people to conserve. There are people who feel like they're doing their part, but others have not faced an economic incentive. They may be paying a higher bill, but they may be glad to see those surcharges in place. Council Member Filseth: From a macro level, it's hard to think that anybody's going to be surprised to see water getting more expensive, given the context of everything we've heard in all this (inaudible). Mr. Abendschein: No, I don't think so. Council Member Filseth: I wanted to ask another question. The way that I read this, the Drought Surcharge and the rate increases don't completely cover the cost, and we're going to make up some of that from reserves. Mr. Abendschein: That's correct. Council Member Filseth: Why would we not increase it so it covers (inaudible) reserves? Mr. Abendschein: This year it's a practicality. We're adopting the surcharges starting September 1st. We want them to be at a level where we're only going to be recovering our revenues if the drought extends on year after year after year. We would have had to try and set them above our long-term revenue recovery level to make up for those two months. It's perfectly reasonable, we thought, to take a little out of reserves. Ms. Fong: The reserves are covering a couple of high-use months, what would normally be high water use months because we're not starting the surcharge until September 1. Mr. Perez: You're expecting it to cover the minimum anyway, right? Mr. Abendschein: Yes. Page 9 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES Chair Schmid: I wondered if before we got into detailed questions, it might be good to hear from Chair Foster to share where the UAC was on this. Jonathan Foster, Utilities Advisory Commission Chair: I'll just say a couple of things. Happy to answer any questions that arise. The UAC has looked at Water Rates over an extended period of time. It is a subject that keeps coming back unfortunately. I would say the UAC, all of us, would like to do anything we can to avoid rate increases in general. The reality of life here is we're getting hit with a double whammy. We've got the reality of the increasing costs coming to us from the San Francisco PUC, leading to the underlying rate increases, and then the drought mandates as well. None of us like to do this. We were, for example, very pleased that last year we were able to avoid rate increases in any of our utilities. Obviously this is not the year with respect to the Water Utility. We certainly looked at it; we asked the kind of questions you're asking, and then unanimously endorsed the Staff recommendation. It's painful, but we think it is the right choice. To the point for the conserving customers, they will be largely shielded from the Drought Surcharge increases. Chair Schmid: Were there any particular issues that you spent time on, going back and forth? Mr. Foster: To be honest, we went through it in the detail of the underlying rate increase, the drought increase. I do not recall anyone saying-our heads were getting around it. It is complex, but I do not recall anybody saying we ought to do it a different way. At the end of the day after you've absorbed what is being recommended here, it did appear to us that it was the best approach possible. Nobody on the UAC said, "Aha! Here's a better way to do it." Chair Schmid: That's important given the fact that, as you say, you've been doing this for years. Mr. Foster: We have. We would love to come up with a better approach, but we couldn't. Chair Schmid: If there are questions about the UAC. Herb Borock: Thank you, Chair Schmid. I have two concerns about whether these rates are proper under Proposition 218. The first has to do with the separation of the potable water service being proposed for these rates and the recycled water service that the City's currently using for some irrigation and that a couple of private companies are using and then selling for a profit to others. The court decision discussed this in the factual context of capital expenses for recycling. I believe that it applies whether there isn't any Page lOof 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES additional expenses on a recycling program or whether there are. The City has both factual situations. First, let me read what the court decided. It said, "The trial court assumed that providing recycled water is a fundamentally different kind of service from providing traditional potable water. We think not. When each kind of water is provided by a single local agency that provides water to different kinds of users, some of whom can make use of recycled water, for example cities irrigating parkland, while others such as private residences can only make use of traditional potable water, providing each kind of water is providing the same service. Both are getting water that meets their needs. Non-potable water for some customers frees up potable water for others. Since water service is already immediately available to all customers of city water, there is no contravention of Subdivision (b)(4) in including charges to construct and provide recycled water to some customers." In fact, that's what we do for the Capital Improvement Programs that we have for considering for future recycled program. It's in the water fund Budget, and it comes out, those expenses, in these rates. We are also currently providing recycled water separately as if it is a separate service. What that means is that those using that service, such as the City irrigating the Golf Course or Greer Park or some private company getting it, are not paying their share of the water service fixed expense for the potable water. That doesn't comply with Prop 18. It is one water service. The second concern I have is that you seem to be trying to do three different things with these Drought Surcharges. Under Proposition 218, the fees are charges imposed on a parcel shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. What we're also doing is something that the court said not to do, which is to try and figure out your rates by saying, "We have to get this much money," and then try and have a rate structure that does that. The third thing is we're talking about conservation. There's nothing in 218 about that. In fact, the court case rejected the argument made by the City in this case and that I was making myself earlier that the constitutional requirement for conservation could be balanced with Prop 218. They went through the history of that part of the constitution. They said, "No." We are saying, on the one hand, we need to charge a Drought Surcharge because people are not going to be using as much water and, therefore, aren't incurring the fixed expenses. If you do use exactly the same amount as you did before, we're going to give you a higher surcharge. You're going to be paying a bigger surcharge, whereas, before if you used that amount you were covering the fixed charges. We're also saying to others that we're going to motivate you to use less and if everyone uses less, maybe those surcharges wouldn't be high enough. I have some problem with how this surcharge complies with Prop 218 and how we're trying to sell it to the ratepayers in terms of conservation when that is not how you go about setting rates Page 11of28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES including with the decision in this court case that conservation is not something to do. Thank you. Council Member Kniss: Mine, as I said, is a wind back question. I remember when we began this a couple of years ago. The discussion was about where were we in the drought and where were we as far as Hetch Hetchy. As we look toward the future, what do we have, what have we contracted for and how long can we go on in this drought? Is it year 4 or year 5? Mr. Abendschein: It depends on where you look at it. A lot of people would say year 4. One of the ways to look at this is how many years do we have left in storage. We have 3 1/2 years of storage. We would expect to be able to use that for substantially longer because of conservation measures. Council Member Kniss: Maybe we can stretch it out 4 1/2 or 5 years? Mr. Abendschein: If not longer. Council Member Kniss: Herb's point is interesting. The more our group conserves water, literally long term, we will have to charge more. It's just what you said earlier. There's a fixed cost and if you're not using enough, then long term you will get, I would think, penalized. There must be a better word to use than that. The less you use, the more it is going to cost long term. Mr. Abendschein: I'll say two things about it. Number one, when we as a City use less, it frees up more capacity for other users in the Bay Area. If those other cities build out, they're going to be taking on more of the cost of the Hetch Hetchy water system. We actually will save some money. If we as a City ... Council Member Kniss: I hadn't thought of that. That's even taking it a step further than I certainly would have thought. Mr. Abendschein: You have to look at those long-term trends when you're thinking about this. In the short term, yes, when we cut usage by quite a bit, we end up having to add surcharges back to recover our fixed costs. Council Member Filseth: Your rate goes up, but your bill doesn't go up (crosstalk). Mr. Abendschein: Right. That's another key-yeah. The other thing I'd say though is that we've had some challenges recently with communicating these things. People see themselves as conserving either through water Page 12 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES efficiency or because of the drought, then their bills continue to go up. They believe that that's happening because they conserved. The problem is we're asking them to conserve at the same time as our costs are going up. Even if they hadn't conserved, their bills would have gone up. Trying to communicate that is something we have to also work on. Council Member Kniss: One other thing. I don't remember how much of our waste water goes to Mountain View. What is it roughly? Ms. Fong: Our recycled water? Council Member Kniss: Yeah, recycled. Mr. Abendschein: The vast majority. They paid to build that recycled water pipeline. Council Member Kniss: One of the things Herb talked about is people who are getting the recycled water, is there an increase in their cost? Mr. Abendschein: We have very few recycled water customers. It's almost entirely City usage. Council Member Kniss: That's what I meant. It's Mountain View, so do we charge them any more as our rates are going up for the infrastructure? It's their infrastructure I realize. Mr. Abendschein: We have very few costs associated with recycled water. We've recovered those directly from the customers who are using the recycled water. When we eventually build out our recycled water system, we're going to have to give a lot of thought to our Recycled Water Rates. We don't have recycled ... Chair Schmid: I think Herb was making the point that water itself is a value, and that there's no difference to the user whether it's recycled or Hetch Hetchy. Shouldn't they be charged the same rates? Including our Recreation Department. Mr. Abendschein: Given that these costs are not associated with the Water Utility, we don't ... Ms. Fong: You can't double recover the same water. Ms. Stump: If I may, just on that point. The San Juan Capistrano discussion is very specific to what was going on in that jurisdiction. It's difficult to generalize. Again, very fact specific these questions. What was happening there is that they had a recycled water system that was available Page 13 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES to some customers and not to others. Some customers who didn't receive recycled water said that system was not a cost of serving them. The Court said in that particular case, because in that system the provision of recycled water to one group of customers freed up additional potable water that was provided to others, the constitutional requirement was met. The court was looking at some very specific language in Prop 218 that said that Cost of Service only can include facilities that are immediately available to the user. This was intended to prevent charging for when you don't have a hook-up at all, when you're not on the system. The court said that was not intended in this particular situation. It did support some flexibility for development of infrastructure and charging that to the rate base when it benefits all. Council Member Kniss: If I could just push on it a little more. We know that there are a number of wells in the City. How are we addressing water use from the wells? Or aren't we? Ms. Fong: What we've been informed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District is there are about 200 wells in the City. The Santa Clara Valley Water District charges pump fees to those well owners who pump. Groundwater here is managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Chair Schmid: Let me raise a couple of issues. As came out in the discussion, the messaging is complicated and how you use words around it. The Drought Surcharge, people associate that with not maintaining the fixed revenue, but rather we need to cut back and this is a Drought Surcharge. Maybe using a different term for that would make the messaging clearer. We have to pay for the Hetch Hetchy rebuild for seismic safety. We have to cover what we're losing. Council Member Filseth: Calling it a Drought Surcharge is a really simple message. It's a drought; water costs more. Everybody's going to get that. Although, the mechanics are more complex. Ms. Fong: Jon, you're going to correct me if I'm wrong here. The fixed costs that we're covering are our own, not SFPUC's. The SFPUC costs are recovered in the SFPUC rates. For us, it isn't about recovering Hetch Hetchy costs; it's about recovering our own distribution costs. Chair Schmid: Our own distribution costs are 25 percent of the SFPUC number. Mr. Abendschein: About 50 percent. Half of our costs are distribution. In the total rate, about half the costs are distribution related; half are Hetch Hetchy system related. Page 14of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES Chair Schmid: I guess I saw a different number. Council Member Filseth: There's been a lot of publicity in the last couple of years about seismic upgrades to Hetch and Hetchy and the costs of those. Mr. Abendschein: Maybe where the confusion is coming is that most of the increase in our rates, almost all the increase in our rates, is related to the Hetch Hetchy upgrade. That may be where that's coming from. Chair Schmid: I'm concerned about the next step. The State and the PUC have said there might be fines associated with not meeting the targets that have been handed out. That is a drought penalty, and the message there is if we don't meet the 25 percent, we will be fined substantial amounts. That's a clear message, but we haven't got that yet. To use up the drought message on something that is not this mandated fine might bind us when the squeeze comes. Mr. Abendschein: The squeeze is on already. From June 1st until next February we will be measured against that 24 percent, and we may be fined. ( crossta I k) Chair Schmid: That's what I 'm talking about. We haven't had a fine yet. Ms. Fong: Correct. What the State will look at, the Water Resources Control Board, is whether or not we did a bona fide effort to try to achieve the reductions that were assigned to us. We've been aggressive in everything we've been doing including our rates. Beyond all that, all of our programs, all of our messaging, our enforcement of the two days per week watering, we've been very much out in front of a lot of other agencies. That will weigh in if we don't hit the 24. Our customers have been just amazing, and we're trying to be optimistic that we will hit the 24 percent target. If we don't, the State will look at what we've done. Chair Schmid: I was struck by the Sunday Chronicle article where the San Francisco PUC, when the Governor cut back water allocations, said if you had a claim by 1904 you were grandfathered in and the PUC has a 1902. They then interviewed the head of the PUC who said, "We're going to fix that in the summer and that date will no longer be protective." I don't want to be a pessimist, but I assume that there will be a ruling in the next couple of months saying that Hetch Hetchy water is not protected. That was the clear implication (inaudible). Ms. Fong: These legal actions-maybe Molly might know a little bit more. Maybe it's so fresh she hasn't had a chance to look into it yet-are going to Page 15 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES be ongoing. That's for certain. I wouldn't want to speculate on what's going to happen there at this point. Chair Schmid: That's not what we're talking about tonight. It is out there in terms of the messaging, that we've got to be prepared for the next steps. One other thing that flows from that is the Plan Bay Area. Does the City have an attitude toward the impact of the drought on planning for the future of the Bay Area and having that as a critical input to how fast California grows, how big California can be, how many new ... Mr. Abendschein: We probably want to have the Planning Director weigh in on regional planning issues. Ms. Fong: Exactly. We're probably not the right folks to answer that question. Mr. Abendschein: We know what our water allocations are. We know what our water rights are. We know how that fits into our development. Regionally, I'm not sure we're prepared to comment on that. Council Member Filseth: You're asking the question of what's the relationship between water consumption and population growth. I assume Plan Bay Area is like, "We don't worry about that." Ms. Fong: I don't know. Mr. Abendschein: I think they do. Chair Schmid: The Santa Clara Valley Water District has announced that they will participate in the Plan Bay Area discussions. Ms. Fong: I don't know that we're necessarily tied into that right now. For every development that is brought forward, we do a water supply assurance study. We are part of the development impact assessment. Chair Schmid: As we go down the drought road though, that might be an issue that comes out. Ms. Fong: That gets considered. Chair Schmid: Plan Bay Area is especially significant because they start the process this summer. The question is will water be a part of the discussions. It would be helpful to have it there. One last question, you say that we will draw a little bit on reserves. I did not see any financial numbers in here. What are the reserves we have, and how much would be drawn? Page 16 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES Mr. Abendschein: It would take me a minute or two to bring up the total reserves numbers. Right now, they're well above the minimum. The $600,000 doesn't take us all that close to the minimum. In fact, we have a fair amount of reserves that are set aside for Rate Stabilization and Capital Improvement Reserves as we finish up this water system master planning study in case there are some additional projects that we have to fund as a result of that. We're comfortable with our reserves right now. What it may result in is a slight acceleration of future rate increases, because we don't have as much available for Rate Stabilization. We'll be very comfortable with our Operational Reserves. Chair Schmid: Given we're the Finance Committee, it would be nice if, when it goes to the Council, you could have a paragraph on the amount of the reserves. Ms. Fong: Okay. Mr. Abendschein: Not a problem. Chair Schmid: Are we ready for a Motion. Council Member Kniss: I think we are. Do you want me to read the whole thing or would you .. . I'm on Page 3 and under the recommendation: "That's to adopt a Resolution, Attachment A, amending rate schedules and so forth, and adopt a Resolution, Attachment C, activating the Drought Surcharges"-! guess we're staying with that word-"at the 20 percent reduction level effective in September." Is there a second? Chair Schmid: I will second that. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Chair Schmid to recommend the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution amending rate schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to add Drought Surcharges and increase rates four percent effective September 1, 2015; and 2. Adopt a Resolution activating the Drought Surcharges at the 20 percent reduced level effective September 1, 2015. Chair Schmid: As the UAC said, we're coming out of a period of time where we've had very low utility increases. We have seen substantial increases on Page 17 of 28 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 MINUTES the wastewater and the refuse and certainly on this. Now we're asking for three separate increases, an 8, a 4, and a 20 percent surcharge. It is important and significant and likely to have some questions coming in on that. Appreciate very much the background material. Council Member Kniss: Did we vote? Chair Schmid: No. Just putting a word in. The communications is important. It's good to see you preparing the way for that. We'll get some public input when these rate bills start corning in. We're aiming for a discussion of the surcharge in August. There'll be a public ... Mr. Abendschein: On August 17th, there'll be a public hearing. Chair Schmid: All in favor? That passes three to nothing. M@T!OINI IP'ASSIED: 3-0, Scharff absent Page 18 0128 Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes 6/16/2015 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5937) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: VTA Call for Projects Title: Proposed Response to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA's) "Call for Projects" for Inclusion in the Countywide Long-Range Transportation Plan (VTP 2040) & Discussion of the Potential Envision Silicon Valley 2016 Transportation Tax Measure From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: (1) Review and authorize the Mayor to sign onto a joint letter to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) from up to eleven North County and West Valley cities; (2) review and authorize a response to the VTA “Call for Projects” consisting of the attached lists of proposed transportation projects; and (3) adopt principles to guide City advocacy for projects and programs for inclusion in the Countywide long-range transportation plan (VTP 2040) and the Envision Silicon Valley 2016 tax measure. Executive Summary As Santa Clara County’s Congestion Management Agency, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is responsible for preparing and adopting countywide long-range transportation plan documents. The VTA has begun a process to update its current transportation plan, VTP 2040, to track with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) development of a new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), also known as Plan Bay Area. Projects included in the countywide VTP will not only serve as recommendations for inclusion in the RTP, but will also provide a pool of candidate projects for a potential County 2016 transportation sales tax measure. This Council Report provides the City Council with an update and overview of the City of Palo Alto-requested projects proposed for inclusion in the current VTP 2040 update process, as well City of Palo Alto Page 2 as a discussion of, and suggested policy principles in regard to, the Envision Silicon Valley process for a potential 2016 transportation tax measure. Background To initiate an update to its current transportation plan, VTP 2040, the VTA has issued a Call for Projects (see Attachment A) and is requesting VTA member agencies update their existing VTP 2040 project lists and submit any new projects intended for completion within the VTP’s 2040 planning horizon. The deadline for agencies to update their VTP project lists was recently extended to August 31, 2015. VTA has also been discussing the possibility of placing a sales tax measure on the November 2016 ballot to enhance transit, pavement maintenance, highways, expressways and active transportation (bicycles, pedestrians, and complete streets), with the idea that a tax measure, if approved by the voters, could support implementation of some of the projects in the VTP 2040 plan. (For example, the City Council recently heard a presentation from County representatives about their County Expressway Plan, which identifies projects the County may wish to include in the plan and at least partially fund through the sales tax measure.) It should be noted that countywide transportation sales tax measures in California have often employed a strategy of combining a list of specific major regional projects to be funded with separate program categories within which smaller-scale projects (such as street repaving or Transportation Demand Management) would be subsequently identified and funded. Projects of significant local importance (such as rail grade separations) could also form a crossover category, in which the tax measure designates a funding level and specific projects are subsequently selected based on certain criteria. To solicit input and better educate stakeholders, VTA has launched Envision Silicon Valley; a campaign aimed to engage community leaders in a visioning process to discuss current and future transportation needs, identify solutions and develop funding priorities. In order to be considered for potential funding through the 2016 County transportation tax measure, projects should be included in the VTP 2040 and the Plan Bay Area documents. A major objective of the VTP 2040 plan and the proposed tax measure will be to improve commute travel by providing a variety of travel alternatives specific to traveler needs. To assist in this discussion, it may be helpful to review the characteristics of commuters traveling to Palo Alto. Based on recent surveys and other employer data, commuters to Palo Alto are approximately distributed as follows (i.e. they commute from/to): Table 1. Employee Commute Origins Downtown1 Citywide2 San Francisco/North Bay 10% ~10% Peninsula 20% 20-25% Palo Alto 22% 20-25% City of Palo Alto Page 3 South Bay / San Jose 33% 30-40% East Bay 7% 8-10% Notes: 1. Downtown Employee Survey conducted by EMC Research, May 2015 2. Estimated Department of Planning & Community Environment, July 2015 In terms of commute mode, single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) account for an average of about 65-70% of commuters and transit about 10-15%, but there is considerable variance by geographic area. San Francisco commuters are primarily transit commuters (60-70%), mostly Caltrain. The highest SOV rates are in the South Bay and East Bay areas at about 75%. These areas (particularly the South Bay) could benefit from improved transit use, such as Caltrain and express buses. Local Palo Alto trips have a high level of walk and bike trips, but relatively low transit use. In parallel with discussion of regional transportation needs, Palo Alto’s ongoing Comprehensive Plan update provides the local context for considering the role of transportation systems in supporting quality of life in our community. While this is a work-in-progress, the recent Our Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan Summit provides a valuable and timely indication of resident perspectives and interests. Attachment E provides a summary write-up of this conversation; the views expressed reflect a wide range of issues with clear interest in pursuing innovative strategies to meet travel needs into the future. Discussion Cities throughout Santa Clara County are responding to VTA’s Call for Projects, with each city preparing its own list of priority projects. In recognition of the potential value of collaboration among cities, Mayor Holman, City Manager Keene, and Assistant City Manager Shikada have participated in a series of discussions with cities in the North County and West Valley. One outcome of these discussions was a desire to ask VTA to reinforce an integrated, systems approach to developing a countywide strategy. This resulted in a draft letter that could be signed by each Mayor and transmitted to VTA. The draft letter, developed through consultation among all of the cities, is provided as Attachment F. Attachment B provides a list of projects sponsored by the City of Palo Alto , including projects in the current VTP 2040 project list (with proposed updates), and new proposed projects. The City last updated its list of projects in 2011. Projects proposed for inclusion on the updated list are either currently in development or are projects the City continues to support for future development. New projects have been recommended for inclusion if they were identified in previous Palo Alto-led studies (e.g. Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Caltrain Grade Separation Studies) or supported by prior City Council actions. Project cost information is currently being updated from what was submitted in 2011 and will be included in the City’s revised project submissions at the end of the month. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachment C provides a list of projects from regional agencies, either in the current plan or expected to be submitted, which impact Palo Alto facilities. The Council may wish to indicate projects that should be prioritized for City support and/or advocacy. Of particular interest is the Caltrain proposal for additional system capacity to address current and future demand. These proposed improvements (additional cars, station upgrades) are designed to supplement the electrification project currently underway. More information about the Caltrain proposal is expected to be provided for the Council discussion on August 17, but was not available during preparation of this staff report. Inclusion of projects in the VTA’s VTP 2040 and the MTC’s Plan Bay Area makes them eligible for funding. The VTA is proposing a transportation sales tax measure be placed on the November 2016 ballot to provide a local source of funds to supplement regional, State, and federal funds that will be available (along with direct funding from local agencies). VTA has identified three desired goals for the sales tax measure, called Envision Silicon Valley: 1. Develop criteria that will be used to create a viable list of transportation projects 2. Establish a list of transportation projects, based on the criteria to address mobility and congestion 3. Create a financing plan As communities submit projects for consideration as part of the VTP 2040 process, VTA has drafted Goals and Strategies for the sales tax measure in several categories (see Attachment D), as follows: Enhance Safety Provide Congestion Relief and Improve Transportation Efficiency Expand Transportation Choices and Improve Travel Experience Expand Transit Ridership and Continue to Promote Quality Transit for Everyone – Including Low-income Areas Actively Promote Healthy Communities, Environmental Sustainability and Plan for the Next Generation Improve System Financial Sustainability and Maintenance City of Palo Alto Page 5 Continue to Support Silicon Valley’s Economic Vitality Based on preliminary discussions over the past year, at this time the following projects and programs are most likely to be considered for the tax measure (which could be up to a 30-year, ½ cent sales tax, generating about $6 billion in current dollars). BART Phase 2 extension to San Jose and, possibly, Santa Clara Increased capacity for Caltrain, including additional cars and station improvements Expressway improvements based on current County Expressway Plan – priorities include upgrades to Lawrence and Page Mill Expressways Key freeway projects, including Express Lanes and interchange upgrades (e.g. the San Antonio/U.S. 101 interchange) Local street and road pavement maintenance (formula allocation), with possible provision to shift local funds if an adequate pavement maintenance level is achieved Active transportation improvements for bicycles and pedestrians Transit service improvements, including service for seniors and persons with disabilities It is expected that an initial proposal for the tax measure will be developed by VTA this fall, based on input from the Call for Projects for VTP 2040 as well as further discussions by the Envision Silicon Valley committees. The Council may wish to adopt some planning principles that can guide the City’s participation in this process. Proposed principles are listed below. Proposed Principles to Guide Palo Alto’s Position & Advocacy A high capacity, rail transit service around the South Bay should ensure that the Peninsula leg (Caltrain) has sufficient capacity to meet demand and match the capacity of the East Bay leg (BART). To improve safety and operations and capacity (traffic and transit), a program to fully grade separate Caltrain in Santa Clara County should be included. If specific locations cannot be included, significant funding should be set aside for future project selection. Providing funding for first and last mile transit connections should be a priority, using advanced technology and public/private strategies, with specific funding decisions at the discretion of the city. The measure should focus on key safety improvements, alternatives to single-occupant commuting and adequate maintenance of the transportation infrastructure. Roadway expansion should prioritize HOV lanes and be complemented with measures to increase transit and reduce SOV commuting. Operational street improvements should help, not hinder, plans for Complete Streets. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Programs and projects should maintain flexibility to meet changing needs. Priority should be given to projects resulting from collaboration among neighboring communities. Further public and agency review regarding the proposed sales tax measure will occur starting in the fall. The Envision Silicon Valley process will include formal review of the proposed measure by the following VTA boards and committees: VTA Board and Envision Silicon Valley Ad-Hoc Committee (Los Altos Hills Councilmember Rich Larsen represents the North County cities) VTA Policy Advisory Committee (Councilmember Kniss represents Palo Alto) VTA Technical Advisory Committee (Staff from the City’s Department of Planning & Community Environment represent the City) Envision Silicon Valley stakeholder committees, including Community Interest Groups and Transportation Advocacy Groups (including the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and Stanford University) Additional potential advocacy for the composition of the measure could come from key employers (separately or through the Silicon Valley Leadership Group), other community and environmental groups and a possible coalition of North County cities. Timeline Based on Council direction, staff will submit a list of updated and new projects to VTA by the August 30, 2015 deadline. Over the next several months updated project information and new project submittals will be discussed at VTA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee, and other committees as needed. Draft project lists will be publicly posted for review and comment later this summer, and a public meeting and/or workshop will also be held during these months. The Envision Silicon Valley process will continue over the coming months leading to development of a draft expenditure plan for a proposed tax measure. The final deadline for the November 2016 ballot is early August 2016. Resource Impact The City funds investments in transportation infrastructure through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and routinely seeks funding from regional agencies (VTA and MTC) to support those investments. Inclusion of City projects in the VTP 2040 plan (and therefore MTC’s Plan Bay Area) will ensure the projects are eligible for funding. City of Palo Alto Page 7 A ½ cent increase in the sales tax would generate $200.5M on a Countywide basis; a ¼ cent increase would generate $100.3M. Approximately 6.5 percent of the sales tax that would be generated in Santa Clara County is generated in Palo Alto. Policy Implications As noted above, the list of projects proposed for the Council’s consideration was derived from the list of projects in the VTA’s current plan (dating from 2011) and updated based on prior actions and policy direction from the City Council. For example, the City Council’s adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in 2012, and the City Council’s discussion of Caltrain grade separation options in 2014. The principles proposed for the City Council’s consideration are generally consistent with the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and are offered to support strategic comments and collaboration by City representatives as the VTP 2040 and proposed sales tax measure move forward via various public discussions and venues The Council will be discussing whether/how to adjust transportation goals within the Comprehensive Plan on August 31st, and received substantial community input on transportation issues in advance of and during the May 30 Summit, as demonstrated by the “ideas analysis” in Attachment E developed by researchers at Stanford University.1 Environmental Review Not applicable; this is not a project as defined under CEQA. Attachments: Attachment A: VTA Memorandum on VTP Update of CFP - May 2015 (DOCX) Attachment B: Current & Proposed VTP Projects (DOCX) Attachment B: Current & Proposed VTP Projects (DOCX) Attachment C: Proposed VTP Projects by Other Agencies (DOCX) Attachment D: Final Goals for Envision Silicon Valley (PDF) Attachment E: Transportation Report_July.14th (PDF) Attachment F: VTA North County Cities Letter August 2015 (DOCX) 1 Dr. Tanja Aitamurto is the Deputy Director and a Brown Fellow and the Brown Institute for Media Innovation at the School of Engineering. She is the author of Crowdsourcing for Democracy: New Era in Policy Making, and has advised and studied open government projects in several countries including topics such as participatory budgeting and crowdsourced legislation. Dr. Aitamurto and a team of doctoral students at Stanford have been working with City staff to analyze the crowdsourcing and open sourced community input as part of the update to the Comprehensive Plan. Kaiping Chen is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication where her research is focused on deliberative democracy and social choice; she has helped municipal governments in China launch democratic reforms. 1 | P a g e Attachment A MEMORANDUM TO: Technical Advisory Committee1 FROM: VTA Staff DATE: May 25, 2015 SUBJECT: Notification of Long-Range Plan Update Call-for-Projects ____________________________________________________________________________ As the Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is responsible for preparing and adopting the countywide long-range transportation plan. The process to update the current plan, Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040, has started. This memo outlines the call-for-projects process. The development of the new long-range countywide transportation plan is tracking with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), also known as Plan Bay Area. Projects included in our countywide plan serve as recommendations for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Please note the following: 1. MTC has not changed the plan horizon year for Plan Bay Area; it remains at 2040 – accordingly, our horizon year will remain at 2040. 2. Project cost figures (capital and operations) must be in $2017. 3. Fund assumptions for Plan Bay Area, at the time of this memo, have not been finalized. VTA must submit a financially-constrained list to MTC. In the interim, VTA will be utilizing estimates developed internally. Project List Update/Development The first step in this process is for Member Agencies to update their existing project lists from VTP 2040 and submit any new projects. A Project Submittal Guidance Form is provided as Attachment A. This form is intended assist project sponsors with assembling the necessary information prior to filling out the online form. Project submittals are being administered through an online database found here: http://projects.planbayarea.org/. The current VTP2040 projects lists are provided as attachments B thru G. Digital (.pdf) versions are attached, and can also be found at www.vta.org/envisioncallforprojects. VTA staff is available to assist with any phase of this process. 1 CC’d to the PAC, CAC, SOMS, CIP, and BPAC 2 | P a g e Guidelines for Updating Existing Projects Project information should be updated if cost estimates have changed significantly, and/or if the project description has changed significantly. Please also note if the project schedule or priorities have changed; for example if your jurisdiction intends to develop the project earlier or later than previously submitted. Upon request, VTA will make all the past submittal forms available to project sponsors. Lastly, please identify projects that have been completed, projects that came be taken off a financially-constrained list, or that your jurisdiction no longer wishes to pursue. Guidelines for Submitting New Projects Submittals for new VTP projects must: Result from a planning study and public review process. Be sufficiently defined to have project descriptions and reasonable cost estimates. Be sponsored by a jurisdiction or public agency (such as a city, the County, Caltrans or Caltrain). Reflect the design guidelines and policies developed by VTA and MTC. These include VTA’s Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use, Pedestrian Technical Guidelines and Bicycle Technical Guidelines, and MTC’s Routine Accommodations Policy. Additionally, submittals must include: Project description (e.g., project limits, alignment, number of lanes, etc.). Estimated capital cost. Estimated operating and maintenance cost. Identified or prospective fund sources (Local, State or Federal). Project timeline; including start and completion or planning and/or construction phases. VTA is accepting new and revised project information through Friday July 10th, 2015. Next Steps Over the next several months updated project information and new project submittals will be discussed at VTA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Subcommittee, and other committees as needed. Draft project lists will be publicly posted for review and comment this summer, and public a meeting and/or workshop will also be held during these months. Final Draft project lists will be submitted to MTC by September 30, 2015. If you have any questions about this process, please contact John Sighamony at (408) 321-5767 or john.sighamony@vta.org. Attachments: A. Project Submittal Guidance Form B. Transit List C. Express Lanes List D. Highways List 3 | P a g e E. County Expressways List F. Bike-Pedestrian List G. Local Streets & County Road List Note: the Multimodal Transportation Investments (MTI) is a program area within VTP 2040 and does not contain specific projects. City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Transit - New Caltrain Grade Crossings - Safety Improvements (Fencing) Installation of 8’ welded wire fencing along the entire 4-mile west-side of the Caltrain corridor in Palo Alto $1.3 million Includes the cost of materials, labor, and removal of vegetation and existing fencing Transit - New Caltrain Grade Crossings - Safety Improvements (Camera Intrusion Detection System) Installation of a camera intrusion detection system at Palo Alto’s four at-grade crossings $0.7 million Includes the cost of equipment and labor Transit - New Caltrain Quiet Zones Construct crossing improvements to facilitate implementation of quiet zone $5.0 million Assumes quad gates and other improvements at all four at-grade crossings Transit - New Palo Alto Shuttle Project Acquire (or lease) shuttle vehicles to operate expanded service and improve shuttle stops $2.0 million Assumes two additional routes and expansion of current service Transit - New Palo Alto Inter- model Transportation Center (PAITC) Modification of University Ave. and Caltrain Station to facilitate better access and connections $50 million Original City plan was developed in late 1990s and included in 2000 transportation tax measure City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Local Streets – Existing Project R13 El Camino Real Corridor Improvements – PAMF to Churchill Ave. Reconfigure El Camino Real between Palo Alto Medical Foundation and Churchill Ave. Improvements focus on utility undergrounding, new median islands and streetscape- focused improvements, and operational enhancements along adjacent streets. $4.0 million Encompasses two current projects under development – Churchill Ave. and Embarcadero Road improvements at El Camino Local Streets – Existing Project R14 Middlefield Road – Midtown Corridor Improvements Project includes sidewalk enhancements, transit stop improvements, lighting improvements, and traffic signal improvements. $2.3 million Drop project – elements have been incorporated into other projects (e.g. bicycle boulevards) City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Local Streets - New Caltrain Grade Separation - Charleston and Meadow Lower Caltrain below Charleston and Meadow $527 million Cost includes 2% escalation to 2017 and is based on previous study of depressed alignment with 2% grade Local Streets - New Caltrain Grade Separation - Churchill Grade separation at Caltrain tracks – Churchill depressed below Caltrain $196 million Cost assumes Alma is lowered to maintain turning movements Local Streets - New Charleston Road / Arastradero Road Corridor Improvements Continuous bike lanes, median and intersection improvements $10.0 million Conceptual design is completed – project is currently fully funded City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B10 Bicycle Boulevards Network Project Expand Bicycle Boulevard Network pursuant to adopted bicycle plan. $20.0 million Multiple projects under development. Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B11 US 101 / Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Bicycle Grade Separation Construct a year-round, Class I overcrossing of Hwy. 101 at Adobe Creek for pedestrian and cyclists and a trail along the Adobe Creek levee road owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The project will connect to the San Francisco Bay Trail, East and West Bayshore Roads, employment centers and open space. $9.5 million Project design concept selected; costs may be updated Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B95 Adobe Creek Reach Trail Extend Adobe Creek Trail between West Bayshore Rd. and Louis Rd. $0.1 million Coordinated with Adobe Creek grade separation project (B11). City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B96 California Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing Replacement of California Ave. bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain tracks with new ADA compliant structure. $13.0 million Maintain project. Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B97 Palo Alto Transit Center/University Ave. Undercrossing Construct new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain tracks, near Everett or Lytton Sts., to connect Downtown with the University, Medical Center, and multi-modal transit center. $10.0 million Maintain project. Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B98 South Palo Alto Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade Separation Construct grade separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing between California Ave. Caltrain station and at-grade crossing on E. Meadow. $13.0 million Maintain but coordinate with planning for potential grade separation and with Matadero Creek project. City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Bicycle & Pedestrian – New Project Enhanced Bikeways Project Construct Class IV separated bikeways, Class I paths, and/or Class II bike lanes on or adjacent to arterial streets. $20 million Multiple projects under development in South Palo Alto and Downtown. Bicycle & Pedestrian – New Project Downtown Palo Alto Pedestrian Facility Upgrades Add pedestrian signals and other improvements to improve access and safety $3 million Specific needs will be based on upcoming study of needed improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian – New Project Bike Share Expansion Expand existing (or alternative) bike share program citywide $1.0 million Assume approximately 20- 25 stations citywide Bicycle & Pedestrian – New Project Matadero Creek Trail and Undercrossing at US 101 Construct new undercrossing and other improvements to help implement Matadero Creek Trail / Midtown Connector project $7 million Conceptual alternatives currently under development City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes System Operation – Existing Project S26 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrades Install new traffic controllers, software and Internet- accessible traffic signal communications to upgrade the existing traffic system. $1.8 million REMOVE FROM VTP. Project is nearing completion. System Operation – Existing Project S27 Citywide Traffic Signal CCTV/EV Preemption Project $1.4 million Maintain project – integrate with new signal project described below System Operation – New Project Citywide Traffic Signal Retiming Provide real-time traffic information and expand adaptive signal timing to additional corridors $1.0 million System Operation – New Project Palo Alto Downtown Parking Improvements Parking signage (way-finding) and equipment to manage paid parking and monitor usage $2.5 million System Operation – New Project Palo Alto Downtown and Calif. Ave. Parking Supply and Management Program Construction of new parking facilities and equipment to help manage parking supply $10.0 million City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Transit - New Caltrain Grade Crossings - Safety Improvements (Fencing) Installation of 8’ welded wire fencing along the entire 4-mile west-side of the Caltrain corridor in Palo Alto $1.3 million Includes the cost of materials, labor, and removal of vegetation and existing fencing Transit - New Caltrain Grade Crossings - Safety Improvements (Camera Intrusion Detection System) Installation of a camera intrusion detection system at Palo Alto’s four at-grade crossings $0.7 million Includes the cost of equipment and labor Transit - New Caltrain Quiet Zones Construct crossing improvements to facilitate implementation of quiet zone $5.0 million Assumes quad gates and other improvements at all four at-grade crossings Transit - New Palo Alto Shuttle Project Acquire (or lease) shuttle vehicles to operate expanded service and improve shuttle stops $2.0 million Assumes two additional routes and expansion of current service Transit - New Palo Alto Inter- model Transportation Center (PAITC) Modification of University Ave. and Caltrain Station to facilitate better access and connections $50 million Original City plan was developed in late 1990s and included in 2000 transportation tax measure City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Local Streets – Existing Project R13 El Camino Real Corridor Improvements – PAMF to Churchill Ave. Reconfigure El Camino Real between Palo Alto Medical Foundation and Churchill Ave. Improvements focus on utility undergrounding, new median islands and streetscape- focused improvements, and operational enhancements along adjacent streets. $4.0 million Encompasses two current projects under development – Churchill Ave. and Embarcadero Road improvements at El Camino Local Streets – Existing Project R14 Middlefield Road – Midtown Corridor Improvements Project includes sidewalk enhancements, transit stop improvements, lighting improvements, and traffic signal improvements. $2.3 million Drop project – elements have been incorporated into other projects (e.g. bicycle boulevards) City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Local Streets - New Caltrain Grade Separation - Charleston and Meadow Lower Caltrain below Charleston and Meadow $527 million Cost includes 2% escalation to 2017 and is based on previous study of depressed alignment with 2% grade Local Streets - New Caltrain Grade Separation - Churchill Grade separation at Caltrain tracks – Churchill depressed below Caltrain $196 million Cost assumes Alma is lowered to maintain turning movements Local Streets - New Charleston Road / Arastradero Road Corridor Improvements Continuous bike lanes, median and intersection improvements $10.0 million Conceptual design is completed – project is currently fully funded City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B10 Bicycle Boulevards Network Project Expand Bicycle Boulevard Network pursuant to adopted bicycle plan. $20.0 million Multiple projects under development. Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B11 US 101 / Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Bicycle Grade Separation Construct a year-round, Class I overcrossing of Hwy. 101 at Adobe Creek for pedestrians and cyclists and a trail along the Adobe Creek levee road owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The project will connect to the San Francisco Bay Trail, East and West Bayshore Roads, employment centers and open space. $11-13 million Project design concept selected; project cost estimate updated from $9.5 million to reflect potential increases Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B95 Adobe Creek Reach Trail Extend Adobe Creek Trail between West Bayshore Rd. and Louis Rd. $0.1 million Coordinated with Adobe Creek grade separation project (B11). City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B96 California Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing Replacement of California Ave. bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain tracks with new ADA compliant structure. $13.0 million Maintain project. Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B97 Palo Alto Transit Center/University Ave. Undercrossing Construct new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of Caltrain tracks, near Everett or Lytton Sts., to connect Downtown with the University, Medical Center, and multi-modal transit center. $10.0 million Maintain project. Bicycle & Pedestrian – Existing Project B98 South Palo Alto Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade Separation Construct grade separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing between California Ave. Caltrain station and at-grade crossing on E. Meadow. $13.0 million Maintain but coordinate with planning for potential grade separation and with Matadero Creek project. City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Bicycle & Pedestrian – New Project Enhanced Bikeways Project Construct Class IV separated bikeways, Class I paths, and/or Class II bike lanes on or adjacent to arterial streets. $20 million Multiple projects under development in South Palo Alto and Downtown. Bicycle & Pedestrian – New Project Downtown Palo Alto Pedestrian Facility Upgrades Add pedestrian signals and other improvements to improve access and safety $3 million Specific needs will be based on upcoming study of needed improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian – New Project Bike Share Expansion Expand existing (or alternative) bike share program citywide $1.0 million Assume approximately 20- 25 stations citywide Bicycle & Pedestrian – New Project Matadero Creek Trail and Undercrossing at US 101 Construct new undercrossing and other improvements to help implement Matadero Creek Trail / Midtown Connector project $7 million Conceptual alternatives currently under development City of Palo Alto Attachment B Existing and New Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 2 Project Category - Existing / New Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes System Operation – Existing Project S26 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrades Install new traffic controllers, software and Internet- accessible traffic signal communications to upgrade the existing traffic system. $1.8 million REMOVE FROM VTP. Project is nearing completion. System Operation – Existing Project S27 Citywide Traffic Signal CCTV/EV Preemption Project $1.4 million Maintain project – integrate with new signal project described below System Operation – New Project Citywide Traffic Signal Retiming Provide real-time traffic information and expand adaptive signal timing to additional corridors $1.0 million System Operation – New Project Palo Alto Downtown Parking Improvements Parking signage (way-finding) and equipment to manage paid parking and monitor usage $2.5 million System Operation – New Project Palo Alto Downtown and Calif. Ave. Parking Supply and Management Program Construction of new parking facilities and equipment to help manage parking supply $10.0 million City of Palo Alto Attachment C Other Agency Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 3 Project Category / Sponsor Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Transit / Caltrain Caltrain Capacity Expansion Project elements include: Additional electric rail cars to fully convert diesel fleet and expand to 8 car trains System upgrades (crossovers, additional tracks) to support higher frequencies Station improvements for longer platforms, level boarding and access upgrades $ TBD Additional details to be provided by Caltrain staff in early August; Caltrain also supports a program for grade separations (similar to San Mateo sales tax program) Highway / Caltrans – Current Project H43 US 101 / Oregon Expressway / Embarcadero Road Interchange Construct improvements to the US 101/Oregon Expressway / Embarcadero Rd. interchange. $55 million Maintain project City of Palo Alto Attachment C Other Agency Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 3 Project Category / Sponsor Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Highway / Caltrans/VTA San Antonio Road Interchange/ Charleston Road Connection Replace or widen existing San Antonio Road/U.S. Route 101 overcrossing to four lanes and create a new southbound on- ramp to U.S. Route 101. Close existing Charleston Road on- ramp to southbound U.S. Route 101 (possibly replace with new pedestrian / bike undercrossing) $100.0 million Caltrans/VTA project; also submitted by City of Mountain View Expressways / Santa Clara County – Current Project X15 Page Mill Expressway at I-280 interchange Project modifies the I-280 freeway connections to enhance safety and improve operations for motor vehicles and bicyclists traveling on Page Mill Rd. through the interchange area. $19.7 million Updated cost reflects concept developed in Page Mill Expressway Corridor Study (2015) Expressways / Santa Clara County – Current Project B48 Page Mill Expressway at I-280 interchange Modify ramp configurations to enhance safe passage for bicyclists through the interchange area $6.0 million Updated cost reflects the plan for new path on south side of Page Mill as developed in Page Mill Expressway Corridor Study (2015) City of Palo Alto Attachment C Other Agency Project Requests VTP 2040 Update Attachment 3 Project Category / Sponsor Project Title Description Cost Estimate (in 2017 millions) Comments/Notes Expressways / Santa Clara County Page Mill Widening from I-280 to Foothill Expressway Widen Expressway to six lanes with transition to four lanes east of Foothill $17.0 million County project; Support if incorporating HOV priority Expressways / Santa Clara County Page Mill Improvements - Foothill to Ramos Includes intersection improvements at Hanover and Hansen and bike lane improvements $2.7 million City has impact fees that could be utilized for partial funding Expressways / Santa Clara County Page Mill Improvements at El Camino Intersection improvement including additional and longer turn lanes $2.4 million City has impact fees that could be utilized for partial funding Goals and Strategies Envision Silicon Valley Goal: Enhance Safety Prioritize projects that address safety concerns. All projects will result in a safe, reliable and comfortable transportation system. Goal: Provide Congestion Relief and Improve Transportation Efficiency Improve regional connectivity and seamless travel. Improve transit service and travel times to meet demand. Relieve roadway, highway and expressway bottle necks and minimize traffic in residential neighborhoods. Goal: Expand Transportation Choices and Improve Travel Experience Use technology to improve the transportation experience. Provide amenities to attract transit riders. Deliver high quality bicycle and pedestrian projects that close gaps, provide trail connections and promote countywide connectivity. All transit and roadway projects should take into consideration geographic equity. Goal: Expand Transit Ridership and Continue to Promote Quality Transit for Everyone – Including Low-income Areas Prioritize transit programs and projects for commuters, students, seniors, people with disabilities, economically disadvantaged and all who choose to use public transit. Support equitable development by promoting transit-oriented development that includes affordable housing and prevents displacement. ITEM 2: ENVISION SILICON VALLEY GOALS Goal: Actively Promote Healthy Communities, Environmental Sustainability and Plan for the Next Generation Projects will promote healthy communities and a high quality of life especially in communities marked by poor health outcomes. Projects should help minimize Green House Gas Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled. Goal: Improve System Financial Sustainability and Maintenance Increase maintenance funding for roadways, sidewalks, bike lanes, pedestrian paths and transit stops. Leverage new revenues with other funding sources to attract private investment and outside grant funds. Strategically apply new local fund sources to underfunded project categories. All projects and programs must have high levels of support from the residents of Santa Clara County. Goal: Continue to Support Silicon Valley’s Economic Vitality Projects should stimulate economic development, encourage investment and provide employment opportunities including disadvantaged communities. Ensure land-use decisions are consistent with transportation project priorities. Projects should benefit economic vitality and sustainability of Silicon Valley to the benefit of all residents and businesses. ITEM 2: ENVISION SILICON VALLEY GOALS 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive City Plan Transportation Ideas Analysis July.14th 2015 Introduction I. Background On 30th of May 2015 about 300 Palo Altans gathered to ideate and deliberate in the Palo Alto Summit about three issues facing their city: Transportation, housing and growth management. The Summit was organized by the City of Palo Alto. The Summit participants were divided to several small groups that discussed and brainstormed about those three topics. After each brainstorming session, the group leaders sent three top ideas from the group to the Summit organizers. Besides the Summit day, City Council had posted questions asking the top three things that motivate citizens to drive less on Nextdoor (a forum for community discussion) months before the Summit, and after the Summit, on the Open City Hall of Palo Alto website, a virtual meeting is going on, collecting citizens’ feedbacks on city’s major corridor and innovations to maintain the treasured quality and livability of Palo Alto’s neighborhoods. II. Methodology: Idea analysis and categorization We analyzed and categorized the ideas gathered in the Summit, Nextdoor and Open City Hall by using an open coding method (Strauss and Corbin, 1998)1. We first analyzed a pilot patch of the ideas in each main category: Transportation, Housing and Growth Management, and we assigned initial subcategories in each main category. Each text message contained several ideas, and we separated the ideas for the analysis. For instance, the following text message was sent from a group discussion: “Transportation for students: shuttles and more bike lanes, On demand shuttles/carpools.” There are several ideas here: More shuttles, bike lanes, on- demand shuttles and carpools for students. These were separated as ideas for the analysis. We then analyzed all the ideas, and revised the categories after the first round of coding. Some categories were merged and some new categories emerged. Finally, we compared the coding categories between the main categories, and summarized the finding. There were four researchers conducting the coding, and unclear ideas and category allocations were discussed and resolved collaboratively, and in most cases, clarity could be found. The ideas were submitted as short lists, typically without further reasoning or background, and therefore, in some cases, the idea remained ambiguous, and could have belonged to several categories. However, we assigned a primary category for each idea. About 10 [update after the final analysis] were removed because they were off-topic. III. Constraints of the data It is important to note that the ideas are from a small group of Palo Altans, from about 300 Summit participants, 56 responses from the Nextdoor, and 29 responses from the ongoing Open City Hall virtual meeting. That is not a statistically representative sample of the residents 1 Strauss, A. L, and J. M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 2 in Palo Alto, and therefore, the ideas shouldn’t be treated as a “the voice of the Palo Altans.” Furthermore, the Summit ideas were summarized from group discussions in the Summit. Each group leader was asked to summarize the top three ideas to a text message, which was then sent to the Summit organizer. Most likely, not all the ideas that were presented and discussed ended up to the text messages, yet there most likely was some degree of consensus about the top ideas. In this report, we present the transportation issue results from Summit Ideas, Nextdoor Ideas, and some of the ongoing Open City Hall virtual meeting, starting from a summary of main trends in each main category. Section 1: Summit Idea Analysis I. Main Category: Transportation Summary of main trends in transportation ideas Altogether 158 ideas were identified in participants’ input in the Palo Alto Summit from 57 users (the group discussion leaders). The ideas were categorized to the following four main categories: Public transit, Non-motor powered transit, Private transit, and Big picture infrastructure, as summarized in Table 1. There were 138 unique ideas in the data; meaning ideas that are not replicates. In the following we show how the ideas are distributed to the main categories and subcategories under them. Public transit When examining by numbers, most ideas about transportation were about public transit. The participants proposed a wide array of ideas for improving public transit in Palo Alto, such as public self-driving cars, on-demand and personalized public transit options and public shuttles. Many wanted to move Caltrain underground to ease congestion around the rails. In general, a need for more frequent, more personalized public transit with a wider geographical reach was proposed. Non-motor powered transportation The second most popular category in transportation were ideas about non-motor powered transportation, that is, transit options for pedestrians and bicycles. Most ideas in this category were about improving infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists: bike lanes, bike corridors, and pedestrian paths. Many ideas also proposed more options for biking: bike sharing, electric bikes, and safe bike parking. Private transit The third most popular category in transportation ideas was private transit. In this category, the participants proposed ideas about increasing carpooling with personalized carpool options and incentives for carpooling. With personalized carpools the participants meant on-demand carpools, uber pools and car pools located in neighborhoods. Big picture infrastructure 3 The fourth category included ideas about transit infrastructure in large scale, so we decided to call it ‘Big picture infrastructure’. The category included ideas for improving traffic conditions by road infrastructure management and improving traffic signals. Table 1. Ideas about transportation categorized in two subcategories. Main category Subcategory 1 Subcategory II Transportation Public transit Personalized public transit Public shuttles Infrastructure Public transit modes Last mile connections Others Non-motor powered transportation Infrastructure Biking safety More biking options Traffic law enforcement on bikers Private transit Carpools Parking Pollution Reducing private driving Big picture infrastructure Road management Improving traffic signals Implementing existing programs Better communication Congestion pricing Improving East/West Palo Alto connectivity Caltrain Key trends: Personalized, on-demand services Across the four categories, we saw the following five key trends emerge: i) Personalization of public transit: on-demand services, servicing individual schedules and neighborhoods better ii) Better connectivity in public transit iii) More parking lots for commuters iv) Use of technology in transit: More seamless schedules, self-driving cars v) More route options for bicyclists and pedestrians 4 II. Summary about each main category in ‘Transportation’ A) Public transit Under the main category of Public Transit, ideas were further divided to six subcategories: Personalized public transit, Public shuttles, Infrastructure, Public transit modes, Last mile connections, Others, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Table 2. Idea subcategories in Public transit. Main Category Subcategory I Subcategory II Subcategory III Public transit Personalized public transit Public self-driving cars On demand public transit Rapid bus transit Personal rapid transit Electric buses Trolley Public shuttles Shuttle types Neighborhood shuttles Parking shuttles Employee shuttles Student shuttles Shuttle modes Increasing frequency Expanding geographically Public shuttles funded by businesses Signage at shuttle stops Infrastructure Underground Caltrain Public transit corridors Public transit modes Increase frequency Expand geographical reach Last mile connections Better coordination between public transit modes Solve the “last mile” problem 5 On-call self driving cars between transit hubs and employment destinations Smart last mile shuttles Others Public transit map applications Public education on the benefits of public transportation Cheap fares for in- town Caltrain rides Improving public transit in California Ave Personalized public transit This subcategory includes ideas about Public self-driving cars, On demand public transit, Rapid bus transit, Personal rapid transit, Electric buses and Trolley. Public self-driving cars In this category the ideas proposed public self-driving cars for Palo Altans to use. On demand public transit In this category the ideas included on-demand public transit options; that means shuttles and buses. Rapid bus transit The ideas proposed more rapid bus transit options, e.g. on El Camino Real, and all the way from San Jose to San Francisco. Personal rapid transit The ideas proposed personalized rapid transit, which can mean, for instance public transport mode, which features small automated vehicles operating on a network of specially built guideways. Electric buses The ideas proposed electric buses and rapid electric buses. Trolley The idea proposed a trolley service on Alma street. Public shuttles This subcategory was further divided to the following subcategories: Shuttle types, Shuttle modes, Public shuttle funded by businesses, Signage at shuttle stops. Shuttle types 6 The ideas proposed neighborhood shuttles, parking shuttles, employee shuttles and student shuttles. The ideas reflect a need for shuttles that would serve certain neighborhoods, parking lots and companies. Shuttle modes The ideas proposed increasing frequency of existing public shuttles and expanding the geographical reach of shuttles. Public shuttles funded by businesses The idea proposed shuttle services that would be funded by retail businesses. Signage at shuttle stop The idea proposed a more clear signage at existing shuttle stops. Infrastructure This subcategory has two subcategories: Underground Caltrain and Public transit corridors Underground Caltrain The ideas proposed putting Caltrain underground, and using the remaining space from on the top for housing, parks, bike and pedestrian paths. Public transit corridors The ideas proposed transit corridors that are designated for public transit only. Public transit modes This category had two subcategories: Increasing frequency and expanding geographical reach. Increasing frequency The ideas proposed more frequent bus and train schedule. Expanding geographical reach The ideas proposed expanding the geographical reach of public transit, namely more bus routes in neighborhoods. The routes should connect to ‘feeder streets’, like Alma, Park Boulevard, and Middlefield. Others This category included two topics: Public transit map applications and Public education on the benefits of public transportation. Public transit map applications These ideas proposed a better use of technologies to connect public transit users with public transit. Public education on the benefits of public transportation These ideas proposed awareness-raising programs to encourage people to use public transport. Cheap fares for in-town Caltrain rides Improving public transit in California Ave 7 Figure 1. Idea categories in Public Transit B) Non-motor powered transit The ideas in our second main category, Non-motor powered transit category, were further divided to four subcategories: Infrastructure, More biking options, Awareness-raising programs on the benefits of biking, and traffic law enforcement on bikers. ● Infrastructure: The subcategory Infrastructure includes ideas about adding bike corridors, improving walkability and improving biking safety. ● Bike corridors: Most of the ideas propose that, once the Caltrain is underground, we should replace the surface rails by bike corridors. There is also one request to improve the bike corridors between East/West Palo Alto. Biking safety: These ideas concerned biking safety training and reconfiguring streets to improve biking safety. ● More biking options: The category More biking options includes ideas about more bike sharing options, electric bikes, low cost/free bikes, more bike repair and pump stations, and secure and convenient bike parking. ● Traffic law enforcement on bikers: The category Traffic law enforcement on bikers consists of an idea regulating bicyclists to ensure a safe environment. Main Category Subcategory 1 Subcategory 2 Non-motor powered transit Infrastructure Bike corridors Improve walkability 8 Improving biking safety More biking options More bike sharing options Electric bikes Low cost/free bikes More bike repair and pump stations Secure and convenient bike parkings Traffic law enforcement on bikers Regulating bicyclists to ensure safety C) Private transit The ideas in our third main category, private transit category, were further divided to four subcategories: Carpools, Parking, Pollution, and Reducing private driving. These subcategories are elaborated in more detail in the following, and summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Subcategories in Private transit. Main Category Subcategory 1 Subcategory 2 Subcategory 3 Private transit Carpools Personalized carpool systems On-demand carpools Uber-pooling Neighborhood carpools Employee carpools Zip car pools Incentives for carpooling Retail discounts for carpoolers Parking benefits for carpoolers Reward programs for carpooling Others More carpool lanes Pooling commute traffic Parking Parking passes Parking infrastructure Pollution Cap- and-trade for car trips Non-regressive carbon tax Leveraging alternative fuel vehicles Public education on 9 environmental effects of driving Reducing private driving Incentives for reducing car ownership Cap on private transit Incentivize businesses to reduce employee commutes via technology and transportation Telecommuting ● Carpools The subcategory Carpools was further divided to three subcategories: Personalized carpool systems, Incentives for carpooling and Others. Personalized carpool systems Personalized carpool systems included ideas that proposed on-demand carpools, Uber-pooling, neighborhood carpools, employee carpools and Zip car pools. Incentives for carpooling This category included ideas that proposed retail discounts for carpoolers, parking benefits for carpoolers and reward programs for carpooling. Others This category included ideas proposing more carpool lanes and pooling commute traffic in general. ● Parking The subcategory Parking included two subcategories: Parking passes (5) and Parking infrastructure. Parking passes Parking passes included ideas that proposed more expensive parking passes, limited or shared parking passes, frictionless parking and parking passes for special events. Parking infrastructure Parking infrastructure included ideas that proposed more peripheral parking lots , for example by Highway 101, and more parking for handicaps. ● Pollution The subcategory Pollution consists of ideas in four subcategories: Cap- and-trade for car trips, Non-regressive carbon tax, Leveraging alternative fuel vehicles, and Public education on environmental effects of driving. Cap-and-trade for car trips 10 This idea proposes cap- and trade procedure for car trips for employers in downtown. This is how the cap-and-trade procedure works: The “cap” sets a limit on emissions, which is lowered over time to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere. The “trade” creates a market for carbon allowances, helping companies innovate in order to meet, or come in under, their allocated limit. The less they emit, the less they pay, so it is in their economic incentive to pollute less. Non-regressive carbon tax This idea proposes a non-regressive carbon tax to reduce CO2 emissions. Leveraging alternative fuel vehicles The idea proposes an increased use of alternative fuel vehicles. Public education on environmental effects of driving This idea proposes more education about the environmental effects of driving. ● Reducing private driving The subcategory Reducing private driving consists of two subcategories: Incentives for reducing car ownership and Cap on private transits. Incentives for reducing car ownership This category included ideas that propose a tax on car ownership, and eco-pass subsidies for those who reduce car ownership . Cap on private transit This idea proposed an ultimate cap for private driving, prohibiting new net car trips for downtown area and research park. Incentivize businesses to reduce employee commutes via technology and transportation Telecommuting D) Big picture infrastructure The forth main category Big picture infrastructure was further divided to six subcategories: Road management, Improving traffic signals, Improving East/West Palo Alto connectivity, Implementing existing programs, Better communication, Congestion pricing, and Caltrain. These subcategories are described in more detail in the following, and summarized in Table 4. ● Road management Road management includes ideas proposing reversible lanes, traffic solution management along feeder roads, safe school routes support, and a request to fix Palo Alto high school crossing. ● Improving traffic signals The subcategory Improve traffic signals includes ideas proposing smarter coordinated traffic signals, more advanced traffic signals technology, and a request to fix Embarcadero/ El Camino intersection lights. ● Implementing existing programs 11 The subcategory Existing programs implementation includes two requests: to implement recommendations from the existing “City of Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study and Bicycle, and to implement the existing “Pedestrian Transportation Plan”. ● Better communication The subcategory Better communication includes ideas proposing better communication of public services via websites and making the leverage data and analysis tools public. ● Congestion pricing Congestion pricing consists of surcharging users of public goods during peak hours. ● Improving East/West Palo Alto connectivity. This idea consists in improving the connectivity between East and West Palo Alto by building underpasses. ● Caltrain This category is composed of 2 ideas: Replacing University/Alma Caltrain Interchange and Minimizing impact of electrification and high speed rails. Table 4. Subcategories in the Big picture infrastructure. Main Category Subcategory 1 Subcategory 2 Big picture infrastructure Road management Reversible lanes Traffic solution management along feeder roads Safe school routes support Fix Palo Alto High School crossing Improving traffic signals Smarter coordinated traffic signals More advanced traffic signals technology Fix Embarcadero/ El Camino intersection lights Implementing existing programs Implement the City of Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study and Bicycle Implement Pedestrian Transportation Plan Better communication Better communication of public services via websites Leveraging data and analysis tools public Congestion pricing Congestion pricing for peak hours Caltrain Replacing University/Alma Caltrain Interchange Minimizing impact of electrification and high speed rails. 12 Section 2: Nextdoor Ideas Analysis The idea analysis method we utilized for Nextdoor is the same as that in the Summit. We came up with four main categories as those in the Summit and further analyze subcategories under each main category. I. Main Category: Transportation Summary of main trends in transportation ideas Altogether 85 ideas were identified in participants input in “the Next Door” from 56 users. The ideas were categorized to the following four main categories: Public transit, Non-motor powered transit, Private transit and Big picture infrastructure, as summarized in Table 1. There were 71 unique ideas in the data; meaning ideas that are not replicates. In the following we show how the ideas are distributed to the main categories and subcategories under them. Public transit The second most popular category in transportation is public transit. The participants proposed a wide array of ideas for improving public transit in Palo Alto, such as schools buses, neighborhood shuttles and ride sharing applications. In general, participants expressed a need for more comprehensive and frequent public transportation system. Non-motor powered transportation When examining by numbers, most ideas about transportation were about non-motor powered transportation, that is, transit options for bikers. Most ideas in this category were about improving infrastructure for bikers: protected bike lanes and exclusive bike boulevards. Many participants also asked for a better bike theft prevention that is safer bike parking and more bike racks in front of businesses. Furthermore, other participants asked for more biking options: more rental and pumping stations, bike share locations. One participant even proposed that the city of Palo Alto should pay Palo Altans to bike. Private transit The third most popular category in transportation ideas is private transit. In this category, the participants asked for more law enforcement on dangerous drivers. Participants also asked for more personalized transit options like zip cars with electric golf cars. Meanwhile, other participants proposed to create a special “gas” tax and encourage telecommuting to ultimately reduce private driving. Big picture infrastructure The fourth category included ideas about transit infrastructure in large scale, so we decided to call it ‘Big picture infrastructure’. In this category, road safety was the participants’ main preoccupation. For instance, some participants asked for more bumps and more signs to alert drivers to share the road while others proposed to have buttons at traffic lights that stop the auto traffic to let bikes across. Moreover, some ideas suggested to replace lights by roundabouts to reduce traffic. 13 Table 1. Ideas about transportation categorized in two subcategories. Main Category Subcategory Transportation Non-motor powered transit Infrastructure Bike theft prevention More biking options Public transit Public transit Modes Public shuttles More school buses Subsidies to public transit Incentives to use public transit Others Private transit Law enforcement Reducing private transit Personalized private transit Big picture infrastructure Road infrastructure Education on safe driving Completion of Charleston-Arastradero Plan and other bike boulevard projects Key trends: Safety, efficiency and law enforcement Across the four categories, we saw the following five key trends emerge: i) Protected bike lanes and boulevards ii) bike locks in front of retail stores to prevent bike theft iii) More efficient public transit iv) Law enforcement on aggressive and distracted drivers v) Promoting Road safety through a better infrastructure and raising-awareness programs II. Summary about idea categories in ‘Transportation’ A) Public transit The ideas in the first main category, Public Transit, were further divided to six subcategories: Public transit mode, Public shuttles, School bus, Subsidizing public transit, Incentive to use public transportations, Others, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Table 2. Idea subcategories in Public transit-category. Main Category Subcategory I Subcategory II Subcategory III Public transit Public transit modes Increasing public transit frequency and expanding geographical reach 14 Note: Here participants mentioned both frequency and geographical reach. Increasing public transit frequency Note: Here participants only mentioned the frequency More frequent Caltrain More frequent public transportations in general Expanding public transit geographical reach Note: Here participants only mentioned the geographical reach. Expand VTA light rails to Palo Alto More comprehensive public transportation Faster public transit Public shuttles Neighborhood shuttles Last mile connection shuttles Shuttle service on the Arastradero/Charleston corridor School Bus Subsidizing public transit Incentives to use public transit Free public transit Less expensive Caltrain Others Ride sharing application Underground Caltrain Bus lanes Tram system Disabled only bus 15 Public transit modes This subcategory has four subcategories: Increasing public transit frequency and expanding geographical reach, Increasing public transit frequency, expanding geographical reach and faster public transit. ● Increasing public transit frequency and expanding geographical reach Here participants mentioned both frequency and geographical reach. ● Increasing public transit frequency In this subcategory, the ideas focus more on the frequency than on increasing geographical reach. Most of the ideas are demands for a more frequent Caltrain. ● Expanding public transit geographical reach In this subcategory, the ideas focused more on expanding the geographical reach than on the frequency. One participant asked to expand the VTA light rails to Palo Alto while another asked participant asked for a more comprehensive public transit. ● Faster Public transit Public shuttles This category was further divided to the following subcategories: Neighborhood shuttles, last mile connection shuttles and Shuttle service on the Arastradero/Charleston corridor. ● Neighborhood shuttles Here, participants proposed to expand public shuttles into more neighborhoods ● Last mile connection shuttle Additional shuttles connecting south Palo Alto to trains, jobs and schools. ● Shuttle service on the Arastradero/Charleston corridor School Bus More school buses to reduce private commute. Subsidizing Public transit Here participants suggested that the city of Palo Alto should subsidize public transit. Incentives to use public transit This category contains two ideas: Free public transit; Less expensive Caltrain. Others This category contains 5 ideas: Ride sharing application, Tram system, Underground Caltrain, Bus lanes, Disabled only bus. ● Ride sharing application Safe ride sharing apps exclusively reserved to known community people. ● Tram system A tram system that goes everywhere in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park. ● Underground Caltrain ● Bus lanes Special bus lanes ● Disabled only bus Buses reserved to people with disabilities. B) Non-motor powered transit 16 The ideas in the second main category, Non-motor powered transit category, are further divided to three subcategories: Infrastructure, Bike theft prevention, and More biking options. Infrastructure The category infrastructure is further divided into 4 subcategories: Bike lanes, safe bike crossings, more bike friendly streets, and better biking safety. ● Bike lanes The subcategory bike lane contains 5 different ideas: protected bike lanes, bike boulevards, more bike lanes, smoother bike lanes, and off-road bike paths. ● Safe bike crossings Safe bike crossing in busier streets like El Camino and in major highways like 101. More bike friendly streets Better biking safety Bike theft prevention The category Bike theft prevention contains the following ideas: safer bike parking near retail stores, more bike racks in front of businesses, more bike lock locations, better bike parking, more bike parking in shopping districts. More biking options This category contains 4 different requests: more pump stations, more bike rentals, more bike share locations and financial compensation paid by the city of Palo Alto to those who bike. Main Category Subcategory I Subcategory II Subcategory III Non-motor powered transit Infrastructure Bike lanes Dedicated bike boulevards Protected bike lanes More bike lanes Smoother bike lanes Off road bike paths Safe bike crossings More bike friendly streets Better biking safety Bike theft prevention safer bike parking near retail stores Unspecified More bike racks in front of businesses 17 More bike lock locations Better bike parking More bike parking in shopping districts. More biking options More pump stations More bike share locations More bike rental locations Financial compensation paid by the city of Palo Alto to those who bike. C) Private transit The ideas in our third main category, private transit category, were further divided to three subcategories: Law enforcement, Reducing private transit, Personalized public transit. These subcategories are elaborated in more detail in the following, and summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Subcategories in Private transit category. Subcategory 1 Subcategory 2 Subcategory 3 Private transit Law enforcement Enforcing laws on distracted drivers More tickets for motorists who talk on their cell phones while driving. More speeding tickets More law enforcement on dangerous drivers Reducing private transit Telecommuting A Bay Area $.25/gal tax on gasoline & diesel Tripling fuel prices Personalized private transit Zip Cars with electric golf cars 18 EV charging stations ubiquitous in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley Law enforcement This category contains four main suggestions: Enforcing laws on distracted drivers, More tickets for motorists who talk on their cell phones while driving, More speeding tickets, More law enforcement on dangerous drivers. Reducing private driving This category contains three main ideas: Telecommuting, A Bay Area $.25/gal tax on gasoline & diesel, Tripling fuel prices. Personalized private transit This category contains two suggestions: Zip Cars with electric golf cars, EV charging stations ubiquitous in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. D) Big picture infrastructure The main category Big picture infrastructure was further divided to two subcategories: Road management, Regular advertising with the Utilities bill and newsletters about practicing safe driving, Completion of Charleston-Arastradero Plan and other bike boulevard projects . These subcategories are described in more detail in the following, and summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Subcategories in Big picture infrastructure category. Main Category Subcategory I Subcategory II Big picture infrastructure Road management Roundabout instead of lights Bumps and timed lights Make Arastradero one lane in each direction with no widening to double lanes and then back again to reduce drivers aggressiveness More signs to alert drivers to share the road Buttons at traffic lights that actually do something - like stop the auto traffic to let bikes across Fix Miranda/Foothill intersection by painting the road so that the curves suggesting a hard right turn onto Miranda 19 are a whole lot more visible Regular advertising with the Utilities bill and newsletters about practicing safe driving Completion of Charleston- Arastradero Plan and other bike boulevard projects Road management This category contains 6 different ideas: Roundabout instead of lights, Bumps and timed lights, Making Arastradero one lane in each direction with no widening to double lanes and then back again to reduce drivers aggressiveness, More signs to alert drivers to share the road, Buttons at traffic lights that actually do something - like stop the auto traffic to let bikes across, Fix Miranda/Foothill intersection by painting the road so that the curves suggesting a hard right turn onto Miranda are a whole lot more visible. Regular advertising with the Utilities bill and newsletters about practicing safe driving Completion of Charleston-Arastradero Plan and other bike boulevard projects Section 3: Open City Hall Ideas Analysis The Open City Hall offers citizens another platform to share their ideas on the transportation issue. This virtual meeting offers an opportunity for citizens to share their vision, thoughts and solutions for the Palo Alto of tomorrow: (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/open_city_hall.asp#peak_democracy). Currently there are 29 respondents on Transportation Issue. We have analyzed 16 respondents’ ideas so far and will update the analysis with the virtual conversation goes on during the year. Using the same data organization method, we separate 16 idea clusters into 46 different ideas. We found that most ideas also fall into our 4 main categories and the related subcategories (see Table below). 20 Besides finding similarities between ideas in the Open City Hall and in the Summit, we also found some new ideas raised by respondents in the Open City Hall. For instance, in the forth main categories, Big picture infrastructure, the ideas with a star are new ideas not raised in Summit but raised in the Open City Hall. We see that in Open City Hall, a key trend in ideas is participants want a better infrastructure on the road and bike corridors. We will keep you updated about the Transportation Idea Report, and offer Idea Report on Housing and Growth Management in August. If there is any knowledge and skill we could contribute to your deliberation and evaluation, don’t hesitate to contact us: Tanja Aitamurto: tanjaa@stanford.edu Kaiping Chen: kpchen23@stanford.edu Attachment F Dear Chair Woodward: The Mayors and City Managers of West Valley and North County cities have been meeting in recent weeks to discuss regional transportation issues and our common interests in addressing the transportation-related needs of our residents and businesses. A commitment to an innovative, intermodal and geographically balanced transportation vision for Santa Clara County is critical to the continued growth and vitality of the Silicon Valley as well as the quality of life of its residents. The Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA’s) current effort to update the list of projects to be included in the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 provides Valley leaders with a critical opportunity to shape a new and transformative long-range vision for transportation in Santa Clara County. Representatives of the West Valley and North County cities believe that in addition to VTP project requests submitted from each city, a stronger “systems” perspective is needed to support an integrated regional strategy and decisions on future mass transit investments. Specifically, the cities signing this letter respectfully request that the VTA initiate a comprehensive study, leading to an alternatives analysis and formal Federal environmental review process and clearance, to develop a system-wide plan that integrates future mass transit investments in Santa Clara County with connections to other counties, via such systems as Caltrain, as well as community-level systems and “first/last mile” strategies. The study’s initial focus should be on the Highway 85/U.S. Route 101/State Route 237/Interstate 280 corridors, recognizing the changing dynamics of commute patterns within the Peninsula, East Bay and southern Santa Clara County. The undersigned cities all agree that it is imperative that work on this study begin as soon as possible, so that the study can inform near-term project funding decisions, and that the study process include consideration of the formation of a joint powers advisory board. Thank you for your attention to this request. CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: FROM: CITY OF PALO AL TO MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No. 24 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AGENDA DATE: AUGUST 17, 2015 ID#: 6001 SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S (VTA'S) "CALL FOR PROJECTS" FOR INCLUSION IN THE COUNTYWIDE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (VTP 2040) & DISCUSSION OF THE POTENTIAL ENVISION SILICON VALLEY 2016 TRANSPORTATION TAX MEASURE With reference to Attachment F for Agenda Item No. 24 (VTA North County Cities Draft Letter, August 2015), please find attached an updated version of the one that you had received in your packet of August 6th. Thank you. Direc r Planning and Community Environment Attachment August 21, 2015 Dear Chair Woodward: The Mayors and City Managers of West Valley and North County cities have been meeting in recent weeks to discuss regional transportation issues and our common interests in addressing the transportation-related needs of our residents and businesses. A commitment to an innovative, intermodal and geographically balanced transportation vision for Santa Clara County is critical to the continued growth and vitality of the Si'fi��n Valley as well as the quality of life of its residents. The Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA's) curre, included in the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2, opportunity to shape a new and transformati Clara County. Sincerely, ,lbn to VTP s" perspective is n'eeded to ,e mass transit investments. he VTA initiate a ' Federal environmental tegrates future mass transit , o ot er nties, via such systems as ·rst/last mile" strategies. The study's initial · tate Route 237 /Interstate 280 corridors, a ns within the Peninsula, East Bay and . ,,,JJ;�,v'and North County cities. perative that work on this study begin as soon as ,orm ne v· erm project funding decisions, and that the study f the formation of a joint powers advisory board. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6001) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: BV Housing Guidelines Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Affordable Housing Guidelines to Permit Use of the Commercial Housing Fund for Preservation of Existing Units From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Adopt the attached resolution amending the City’s Affordable Housing Guidelines so that the Commercial Housing Fund may be used to support the preservation of existing housing as well as construction of new affordable housing. Executive Summary On June 29, 2015, the City Council directed the City Manager to identify and set aside $14.5 million in affordable housing funds to match County funds made available for the purpose of preserving affordable housing at Buena Vista Mobilehome Park. Based on the Council’s direction, the City has put $6.8M on hold in the Residential Housing Fund and $7.7M on hold in the Commercial Housing Fund. These two funds are made up of housing “in lieu” fees and impact fees paid by developers, and collectively support development, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. These two funds have existed since the 1970s and their intended uses are established by guidelines which currently state that the Commercial Housing Fund may only be used for new construction. In asking the City Manager to set aside funds for the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park, the City Council also requested that staff bring forward an action to amend the City’s Affordable Housing Guidelines so that the Commercial Housing Fund may be used for Buena Vista. Tonight’s requested action would make the required change to the guidelines and also affects other changes necessary to reflect current law and practice. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The Buena Vista Mobilehome Park is a privately-held property containing 104 mobile homes, 12 studio apartments, and one single family residence on approximately 4.5 acres. The site is within the Barron Park neighborhood of Palo Alto and is home to about 400 people, including many families with children who attend local public schools. In 2012, the Buena Vista Park owner filed an application with the City to close the Mobilehome Park. State and local law gives mobile home park owners the right to close those businesses, provided they mitigate the impact on mobile home owners who are tenants in the park. In May of this year, the Council fulfilled its obligation to address the closure application by approving Park owner’s closure plan with mitigation measures and conditions. The Park owner now may accept the approval and conditions, and begin the closure process. At this time, the City has not yet received formal notice that the owner has accepted the closure approval and mitigations. During the many months that the closure application was pending with the City, the City Council was obligated to refrain from taking up any policy matters related to the Park, so that all parties in the closure proceeding were ensured of fair process. Nonetheless, the City’s adopted Housing Element has long recognized the mobile home park as providing low- and moderate-income housing opportunities and indicates that to the extent feasible, the City will seek appropriate local, State and federal funding to assist in the preservation and maintenance of the existing units (Housing Element Program H3.1.8). In the fall of 2014, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian initiated an effort to find ways to preserve affordable housing at Buena Vista. In January 2015, the County Board of Supervisors voted to set aside $8 million in County affordable housing funds, generated by development on the Stanford campus, for the purpose of acquiring and providing affordable housing at the Buena Vista site. In February, City Manager Keene set aside $8 million of City affordable housing funds for later determination by the Council regarding use for Buena Vista affordable housing. In April, the County entered into a contract with housing non-profit Caritas Corporation for the purpose of developing an offer to purchase the Buena Vista site and a plan to maintain it as a mobile home park with deed-restricted affordable rents. On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to set aside an additional $6.5 million in County affordable housing funds. The County’s intention is to work in partnership with the City of Palo Alto and Caritas Corporation to put together a market-rate offer to purchase the Park, plan for needed improvements, and maintain it as a source of deed- restricted affordable housing. The key components of funding, as identified by the County, are matching County and City affordable housing funds, tax-exempt revenue bonds issued against the rental income stream, and potentially private philanthropic funds. As noted above, the City Council directed the City Manager to set aside funds to match the County’s $14.5M on June 29, 2015. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The City of Palo Alto maintains two primary funds to support development, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. The Residential Housing Fund consists of residential in lieu fees paid by developers of market rate housing and the Commercial Housing Fund consists of housing impact fees paid by commercial developers. These funds have existed since the 1970s and their intended uses are established by guidelines most recently adopted by the City Council in 2003 (City Council Resolution 8352 adopted October 27, 2003).1 Currently, the City’s guidelines state that the Commercial Housing Fund may only be used for new construction “consistent with longstanding City policy.” The Residential Housing Fund may be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, and other activities related to the preservation and development of affordable units. The City’s legal expert on housing matters has reviewed the guidelines and the nexus studies they were based upon and determined that the City Council may amend the guidelines to permit use of the Commercial Housing Fund for purchasing existing units and converting them to deed-restricted affordable units, including necessary rehabilitation. Discussion Adoption of the resolution included as Attachment A would enact revisions to the City’s Affordable Housing Guidelines included as Attachment B and would enable the City to use its Commercial Housing fund to support the preservation of existing units as well as the construction of new units. Proposed revisions are shown in tracked changes and also include revisions necessary to reflect changes in the law/practice since 2003. Further changes may also be proposed for the City Council’s consideration in the near future, when the Council considers an updated nexus study and housing impact fee program (expected later this year). Resources At the Council’s direction, the City has already set aside affordable housing funds to match the County’s funding for a potential Buena Vista transaction; those funds will be held for that purpose and will not be available for other affordable housing projects. Actual expenditure of funds will require future Council action, including review and approval of the terms of any transaction. Grants or loans require approval of detailed transaction documents including agreements to ensure the preservation of units as affordable to specific income categories (for example, low income households). Environmental Assessment Reservation of affordable housing funds for a possible future transaction is not a project subject to environmental review. Future action to expend the funds will have to consider the potential that such action will result in direct or indirect physical impacts consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1 There are three other, smaller housing funds for specific purposes discussed in the Guidelines. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy Implications The City’s Housing Element contains policies both supporting the preservation and rehabilitation of existing units (Policy H1.1 and H1.2), and policies supporting actions to increase the supply of affordable housing (Policy H2.1 and H2.2). The Housing Element also documents at length some of the housing challenges facing Palo Alto and the region, and articulates quantified objectives for the 2015-2023 planning period for rehabilitation (600 below market rate units), preservation (334 below market rate units), and new development (1,401 below market rate units), indicating the need for investments in all of these activities. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution (PDF) Attachment B: Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 150720 jb 0131473 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Updating the Housing Reserve Guidelines as the Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines R E C I T A L S A. In 1978 the City began requiring large commercial developers to pay affordable housing environmental mitigation fees on new developments and in 1977 first collected in-lieu fees from residential developers under its Below Market Rate Program. B. Over twenty-six years ago, the City established, by adoption of a budget resolution, the “Industrial-Commercial” account and the “Residential-Miscellaneous” account as its local affordable housing funds and began providing loans and financing to developers of affordable housing projects from these accounts. C. In 1984 the City adopted ordinance 3560, codified as Chapter 16.47 Approval of Projects with Impacts on Housing, as subsequently amended in 1985 and 2002, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code establishing a commercial housing linkage fee to require that developers of commercial and industrial projects contribute to programs that increase the City’s low-income and moderate-income housing stock. D. On February 3, 1986, the City adopted the Housing Reserve Guidelines which established eligible uses, priorities and application procedures for monies contributed to the Housing Reserve which was comprised of the two separate local affordable housing funds previously created in 1977-78, the “Industrial-Commercial” account and the “Residential- Miscellaneous” account, subsequently renamed the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund and the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund. E. Since the inception of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in the 1970’s, the Council has consistently allocated through its annual CDBG budget resolution a substantial portion of its annual CDBG entitlement grant to a Housing Development Fund within the City’s CDBG program for the purpose of funding costs of new and existing low and very-low income housing. F. The City as a past grant recipient of federal HOME program funds is required to separately account for any future loan repayments from HOME funded housing projects and maintain a segregated HOME program income fund. G. In September 2002, the Council established a Below Market Rate (BMR) Emergency Fund, which is a trust fund to preserve the City’s stock of BMR ownership housing and to assist BMR unit owners facing substantial, mandatory condominium assessments. Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 150720 jb 0131473 2 H. On October 27, 2003, the City adopted the amended and restated Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines (“Guidelines). The City now desires to make minor updates to the Guidelines, including to allow the Commercial Housing Funds to be used for the acquisition, rehabilitation and/or preservation of existing affordable housing units and existing units that will be deed restricted for affordable housing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVEs as follows: SECTION 1. The City council adopts the amended and restated Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines in order to clearly describe, coordinate and consolidate the City’s housing funding priorities, eligible projects, lending terms and standards, application decision making procedures and other matters for all sub-funds of the Affordable Housing Fund. SECTION 2. The Council finds that adoption of the amended and restated Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Guidelines Section 15280 for Lower Income Housing Projects. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Page 1 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] City of Palo Alto Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines Approved by the City Council on October 27, 2003 August 17, 2015 by Resolution No. 8352 A. Definition of the City of Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Fund The Affordable Housing Fund is a local housing trust fund established by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, California to provide financial assistance for the development, acquisition and rehabilitation of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households that live or work in the City. The City currently administers five distinct Sub-Funds for affordable housing that together comprises the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. The BMR Emergency Fund has the sole purpose of preservation of the BMR ownership housing stock, whereas the other four funds have the broader purposes listed above. 1) Commercial Housing Fund 2) Residential Housing Fund 3) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Housing Fund 4) Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Fund 5) Below Market Rate (BMR) Emergency Fund These Administrative Guidelines summarize the City’s goals, policies and priorities for both the overall Fund and the Sub-Funds. These Guidelines cover eligible projects, eligible and ineligible costs, funding criteria and priorities, typical loan terms, application process and administrative procedures. B. Program History, Summary and Description 1. Commercial Housing Fund In 1977, the City of Palo Alto began requiring affordable housing mitigation payments on large industrial and commercial projects under its environmental review authority under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation payments were deposited into a separate account and the funds were used exclusively to assist in the development of new housing units, with most units affordable to very low and low-income households. Originally, this fund was named the Industrial – Commercial Account; later it was renamed the Commercial Housing In- Lieu Fund. It is now to be called the Commercial Housing Fund. In 1984, the City Council adopted Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requiring that all commercial, retail, hotel and industrial projects pay an affordable housing mitigation fee on net new square footage as a condition of project approval. In March 2002, the Council increased the fee rate from $4.21 to $15.00 based on updated nexus study findings; the current fee is much less than the full cost of affordable housing impacts. The fee rate is adjusted annually to reflect inflation and is currently $19.85 per square foot. Collection, administration and reporting concerning the commercial housing mitigation fee must complyis consistent with provisions of Page 2 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] the State’s Housing Mitigation Fee Act (Sections 660001 et seq. of the California Government Code). The fees collected must be utilized in ways that preserve or increase affordable housing for Palo Alto’s workforce. Since the Fund’s inception, seven new construction housing projects have been assisted from the Commercial Housing Fund producing 377 new affordable rental units. All but 20 of the 377 new units assisted are restricted to very low income and low income occupancy. Palo Alto’s Commercial Housing Funds have been used by developers in combination with other State and federal housing programs in all seven projects, such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, project-based Section 8, HUD Section 202 and Section 811, HOME, AHP and the Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP). 2. Residential Housing Fund Starting in Since 1974, the City has required developers of market-rate housing to include below market rate (BMR) housing units in housing developments containing more than a minimum number of units. (See Program H 35 the Below Market Rate Program of the City’s adopted 1998 2006 Housing Element). At that time, Palo Alto also started collectings housing in-lieu fees from small projects, for fractional units and for residential developments where it is infeasible to provide below market rate units on-site. Based on a court decision in [date],2009, this inclusionary housing program and in lieu fee isare currently applicable only to units produced for sale, rather than rental housing. (Like other jurisdictions, Palo Alto is seeking to address this issue by preparing a new nexus study, which will update impact fees for commercial and residential development projects where inclusionary units are not provided. It is also expected that legislation will be introduced to allow rental units to be subject to inclusionary requirements.) Residential These fees, along with interest earnings of the Fund and other miscellaneous revenues related to housing, are placed in the Residential Housing Fund. Examples of miscellaneous revenue sources have included proceeds from the sale of surplus public land, payments pursuant to housing development agreements, and repayment of loans made from the Residential Housing Fund. The Residential Housing Fund may be used to provide funding for new housing development or for the conversion of existing housing to affordable housing through acquisition. The Fund may also be used for the rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing. Throughout the history of the Fund, all housing assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low-income households. 3. CDBG Housing Fund The City has been an entitlement recipient of federal Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) since the creation of the program in 1974. Policies and priorities for the use of CDBG funds are stated in the HUD Consolidated Plan prepared by the City every five years. Historically, Palo Alto has allocated a large portion (typically 50%) of its annual CDBG grant for housing development activities. Any use of CDBG funds for housing activities must comply with the federal CDBG regulations (see CFR Section 570.200) as the regulations apply to Palo Alto’s grant. Page 3 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] CDBG funds have been provided by the City to non-profit organizations for housing activities such as land acquisition for housing construction, housing pre-development costs, acquisition of existing rental apartment buildings, rehabilitation of rental units, construction or rehabilitation of shelters and transitional housing facilities for homeless persons, preservation of HUD-assisted rental housing, and acquisition and rehabilitation of group housing for persons with disabilities. 4. Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and Program Income Fund The City does not receive federal HOME funds on an entitlement basis from HUD. However, the City is eligible to apply for HOME funds from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) annually on a competitive basis. In 2014 the City joined the Santa Clara County Home Consortium (SCCHC) for the period July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018. Participation in the HOME consortium does not guarantee the City a direct allocation of HOME funds. Instead, through this effort the City of Palo Alto has become a participating jurisdiction and serves as a partner in bringing in additional funding into the County to help address regional affordable housing needs. Applications will be directly submitted through the County's request for proposal process for available HOME funds. It is anticipated that funding through the SCCHC for the first two years of the agreement will be available for pre-development, development, construction, acquisition, preservation and substantial rehabilitation of affordable, permanent or transitional, housing units. During the third year of the agreement, the SCCHC may choose to implement a Countywide Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program. The County will only fund a project that has the local support of the City. Therefore before a project can be considered by the County for funding under the SCCHC, staff will present the proposed project as part of the CDBG annual action plan and budget. This will provide the City Council with the opportunity to determine local support. Certain nonprofit organizations known as Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) may also apply for funding from State HCD for housing projects located within Palo Alto. The City received one HOME grant from 1992 HOME funding for the Barker Hotel project. Proceeds from HOME loan repayments must be deposited into a HOME Program Income Fund and used in accordance with the HOME program regulations. 5. Other Funds Redevelopment Housing Set Aside Fund: Palo Alto has established a redevelopment agency but has not adopted a project area. There are no tax increment funds available for housing from redevelopment projects. BMR Emergency Fund: On September 9, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4761 together with the “Assessment Loan Program: Criteria, Need, Priorities, Definitions and Loan Terms” to establish the “Below Market Rate Program (BMR) Emergency Fund”. The Fund was created to preserve and maintain the City’s stock of BMR ownership units and to assist owners with low incomes and/or very limited assets pay for large mandatory assessments for capital repairs and improvements. An appropriation transfer of $150,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund provided the initial funding. Page 4 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] C. Eligible Housing Types, Projects and Activities 1. Housing Types Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Fund revenues will primarily be used to assist the following types of affordable housing: • Rental housing, typically apartments (new and existing) • Rental housing with supportive services for elderly and special needs populations • Single room occupancy (SRO) rental units • Transitional rental housing • Group homes serving special needs populations • Shared housing, co-housing, mobile home parks and other special or innovative housing products • Below Market Rate ownership housing with resale deed restrictions Some affordable housing activities such as down-payment assistance for home purchases and rehabilitation loans to low-income single-family homeowners are eligible, but either have never been offered, or in the case of rehabilitation loans, were discontinued. 2. Eligible Projects and Activities for Each Fund Commercial Housing Fund: Historically In accordance with City policy has restricted in effect since its inception, the Commercial Housing Fund for use in is restricted to funding activities that increase Palo Alto’s affordable housing stock through: • The construction of new housing units, • The addition of new units to existing buildings, or • The conversion of non-residential space to housing units. Effective in August 2015, the Commercial Housing Fund may also be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of existing housing that is deed restricted for use as BMR housing. Reasonable related administrative costs incurred by the City may also be paid from the Fund; examples of appropriate administrative costs include: • Direct staff costs for the collection of housing mitigation fees and the administration of the fund, • The cost of periodic consultant studies required to determine or update the fees charged, and • Direct costs for the City to implement the affordable housing new construction program. Residential Housing Fund: All housing types are eligible for assistance utilizing Residential Fund monies. This Fund may be used for new housing projects, for acquisition of existing housing and for rehabilitation of existing housing serving any household type. Because most of the monies deposited to the Fund are from in-lieu fees received pursuant to the City’s BMR housing program requirements, a reasonable portion of the Fund’s average annual revenue may be used for administrative costs of operating the BMR program. Historically, the City has used Residential Page 5 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] Housing Funds for the costs of an annual contract with an outside organization for the administration of certain aspects of the BMR program. CDBG Housing Fund: Uses of CDBG funds for housing must comply with the federal regulations, as stated previously. Broad funding priorities are established every five years as part of the City Council’s adoption of the Consolidated Plan. The current plan covers the period from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005. Council also approves an Annual Action Plan with specific funding priorities and awards, usually in May. The annual CDBG funding cycle begins in the fall for funding for the fiscal year beginning the following July. HOME Program Funds: Housing assisted with HOME funds must comply with the federal regulations for the HOME program. Given the State’s once per year funding cycle, the focus of Palo Alto’s affordable housing programs and the local housing market, the City intends to seek HOME funds only for major rental housing projects. HOME program income will also be used only for rental housing activities. BMR Emergency Fund: This Fund may be used for activities related to the preservation of the City’s BMR ownership housing stock. In September 2002, Council authorized: 1) An assessment loan program to provide deferred payment, low interest loans to assist BMR owners facing severe financial hardship in paying major capital assessments on their condominium homes. Regular monthly homeowner’s dues do not qualify for these loans. The Director of Planning and Community Environment establishes specific eligibility criteria and procedures within the general guidelines set by Council. 2) Protection and preservation of units within the program from loss due to foreclosure, typically by legal action and / or direct purchase by the City; 3) Repair, holding, and resale costs of BMR units acquired by the City; and 4) Short-term loans to correct deferred maintenance or rehabilitate older BMR units at resale Overall City Affordable Housing Loan Program Administrative Costs: From the inception of the City’s affordable housing program in the late 1970’s through 2003, the City has utilized the General Fund budget to cover staff administrative costs and third party direct costs, such as outside legal costs in administering and monitoring the loan program. The portion of the City’s CDBG grant that may be used for staff costs is very limited and has historically been only sufficient to cover the cost of the CDBG program management staff. The General Fund has covered the cost of affordable housing activities, including staff work in the Planning Division, the City Attorney’s Office and the Administrative Services Department. 3. Eligible Uses of Funds Commercial and Residential Housing Funds: All reasonable and necessary costs to the development of eligible affordable housing types may be funded from these two Funds. Examples of eligible costs are: feasibility studies, site evaluation, due diligence and environmental studies; all pre-development “soft” costs, including design, engineering, legal, costs necessary to apply for Page 6 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] and close the project’s permanent and construction financing and subsidies, demolition and clearance, land acquisition, acquisition of air rights or by long-term lease, acquisition of buildings, hard construction costs, rehabilitation, on and off-site improvements, developer fees, impact fees, permit fees, marketing, initial funding of replacement and operating reserves, buy down of interest rates on permanent and construction financing and furnishing of on-site facilities that will primarily serve project residents, such as community rooms, playgrounds and child care centers. City funding may be used at any stage of project development from site search to long-term permanent loans. CDBG Housing Fund: The most commonly funded affordable housing activities in Palo Alto that are eligible under the federal regulations, are compatible with City housing priorities and the realities of the local housing market include: • Acquisition of land for housing construction • Acquisition of existing housing or buildings for conversion to housing • Rehabilitation and major repairs of existing affordable rental housing projects • Feasibility studies, environmental and pre-development activities related to the acquisition of land or buildings • Relocation studies and benefits • Pre-development costs for new housing (to the extent allowed under HUD rules) • Clearance & disposition of land or buildings • Construction of off-site utilities necessary for housing • Installation of accessibility improvements • Construction, acquisition and rehabilitation for transitional housing • Acquisition and / or rehabilitation of group homes for special needs populations 4. Specific Limitations, Restrictions and Ineligible Uses by Fund Commercial Fund: By Council policy, all costs must be directly related to the development of new housing units or to the preservation of existing housing whose long term affordability will be protected through deed restriction or other mechanism.that is deed restricted as affordable. In addition, because the Fund’s revenues are linked (as required by State law) to the affordable housing needs of Palo Alto’s work force, funded projects should provide housing for households likely to be participating in the work force. Housing with occupancy restrictions for individuals with statistically low work force participation (such as the elderly) will only be eligible for these funds in proportion to the extent that the intended residents typically participate in the work force. Furthermore, housing projects assisted with this Fund must be located within the City limits of the City of Palo Alto. Residential Housing Fund: There are no special limitations or restrictions on the use of this Fund. CDBG Housing Fund: Federal regulations prohibit the use of CDBG funds (except in unusual situations) for the actual construction costs of housing. Palo Alto is also very limited, by the way federal regulations are applied, in the amount of CDBG funds that can be provided for predevelopment costs of certain kinds of housing. Page 7 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] 5. Eligible Applicants; Project Sponsors; Developers The typical funding applicant and project sponsor is a nonprofit housing development organization, a social service nonprofit, or a public agency (such as a city, county or the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County). Eligible non-governmental applicants are nonprofit corporations and limited partnerships (in which an eligible applicant, or an affiliate of an applicant, is a controlling general partner), that have as part of its organizational purposes the development of housing or operation of housing programs for households of extremely low-, low- , very low- or moderate-income. The City will consider applications for funding from for- profit housing developers for the Commercial and Residential Funds on a case-by-case basis, providing provisions for long-term affordability can be met. All entities involved in a housing project, particularly the applicant, sponsor, consultants, developer, general partner, management entity, services provider and their principals or key staff, must have appropriate experience in affordable housing relative to the complexity, scale and type of project for which funding is sought. The City may require that applicants with insufficient housing development or management experience secure a joint venture partner and / or agree to ownership and / or management of the housing units by an experienced affordable housing organization approved by the City. The CDBG and HOME regulations should also be carefully reviewed by applicants for specific rules regarding the types of organizations that are eligible funding recipients. D. Funding Priorities, Housing and Household Types, and Evaluation Criteria 1. Priorities for Affordable Housing Funding (Commercial, Residential, CDBG and HOME Funds) Primary Priorities: • New construction of permanent rental housing, especially for households with children • Preservation of existing, federally subsidized rental housing from conversion to market-rate • New construction of permanent rental housing for households with special needs or disabilities • New or existing permanent rental housing for homeless households or those at- risk of homelessness linked with supportive services • Transitional rental housing linked with supportive services Secondary Priorities: • Acquisition and / or rehabilitation of existing affordable rental housing, including group and shared residential facilities, and mobile homes, especially for households with children and special needs households • New construction of permanent rental housing primarily serving Palo Alto’s low- Page 8 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] income work force, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units • New construction of permanent rental housing primarily serving extremely low- income elderly • Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing market rate rental housing for conversion to affordable housing for extremely low-income, and very low-income, and low- income households Other Priorities To Meet the City’s Housing Production Goals as Stated in the Adopted Housing Element: Palo Alto also has important unmet housing production needs for low and moderate-income households as described in the City’s Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The BMR requirements are the City’s principal method of addressing these housing needs. Developers must provide the required BMR units, and any BMR units that satisfy a public benefit agreement, within the market-rate project or off-site, without funding assistance from the City. However, the City could consider providing funding to assist a developer provide additional BMR units (above and beyond the required units) if there was a significant or unique opportunity to substantially increase low and moderate income housing production, as follows: • New construction of very low and low-income rental housing units within, or in connection with, market-rate housing projects under the City’s BMR program requirements. • New construction of moderate-income homeownership units, including units within market-rate projects under the BMR program. Two groups of households will be served: those with incomes between 80 and 100% of median income and households with incomes between 100 and 120% of median income. 2. Rent and Occupancy Standards: Income Targeting The primary objective of Palo Alto’s affordable housing program is to increase the City’s housing stock for those households with the most serious housing needs. To meet this objective, the City prioritizes and focuses the program and the available funding on serving extremely low, very-low and low-income households. Most rental housing projects funded with City Affordable Housing Funds also are funded by at least one, and often several, State, local or federal housing programs with rent and occupancy requirements. The City sets appropriate rent and occupancy requirements for each project giving consideration to factors such as: • Financial feasibility • Coordination with other funding rules, such as tax credits, HUD, State • Availability of rental subsidies such as Section 8 • Needs and income level of project’s target population (for example, elderly, homeless, working families, etc.) A loan agreement, deed of trust, and note are prepared for all City housing loans. A long-term regulatory agreement is usually required and must be recorded against the property as a Page 9 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] condition of most any City housing loans. This regulatory agreement will include the City’s affordability and occupancy requirements. Smaller rehabilitation loans (generally under $100,000) will usually be provided with just a loan agreement containing use and occupancy requirements and a note and deed of trust. If appropriate and allowed by other funding entitiesTo the extent consistent with fair housing laws, local occupancy preferences for households living or employed within the City of Palo Alto will may be required. The City may also require that existing rental assistance contracts be renewed and that the owner seek and give preferences to households receiving Section 8 assistance. 3. Evaluation Criteria for Project Selection and Underwriting Standards The following factors will be considered in evaluating applications for City housing funds. All factors will be assessed in relationship to the type of project being proposed and the difficulty and risk involved: • Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines • Housing needs and priorities stated in the most recent Consolidated Plan • Relevant Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs • Provision of a significant number of units (at least 30% of total units) affordable to extremely low-income households • For family housing projects, whether there is a significant number of three or more bedroom units (at least 30% of total units) • For special needs housing and housing for the homeless, the coordinated provision of supportive services available to the residents • Lack of relocation of residential tenants and owners, especially low income tenants • Experience & staff capability of the development team and management entity • Financial strength and fiscal record of sponsor & developer • Project readiness & ability to meet a reasonable schedule • For major projects, the likelihood of securing other State, federal or local housing subsidies to leverage City housing funds • Matching of City housing funds including sponsor and developer commitments of equity funding, in-kind staff support, partial waiver or deferral of developer fees and other matching funds or resources committed • Reasonable cost per unit for type of housing proposed • Reasonable percentage of City funding to total development costs • Management plan and experience of management entity • Rehabilitation projects require specific information regarding the scope of work, specifications, inspections and written cost estimates. In addition to the above factors, funding applications involving new housing construction, demolition or conversion of use, especially where a site will require a rezoning, will be subject to City review for site-related factors such as the following. The City may require that a formal feasibility study be completed and reviewed by Council prior to application for, or approval of, site acquisition funding or development subsidies. Page 10 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] • Compatibility of the proposed use, density, height and other features with the surrounding neighborhood • Suitability of the site for the proposed project • Environmental review issues including traffic, access, parking and historic preservation • Displacement and relocation issues • Soil or groundwater contamination, including costs of remediation • Provisions for site control, land acquisition costs and terms E. Loan Provisions and Terms Grants, Unsecured Loans: The City does not provide grants of housing funds, except for emergencies or very unusual circumstances and then only for small amounts, generally under $50,000. Funding for preliminary feasibility studies may be provided subject to an unsecured loan, if the property, or site, is not owned by the applicant. The applicant may request that the City forgive the loan, if the proposed project does not proceed. Council, or the City Manager depending on the loan amount, will make such decisions on an individual basis. If the project does proceeds, then the feasibility loan will be combined with any further funding provided by the City into a permanent loan against the project. Non-profit organizations are the only entities eligible for grants and unsecured loans. Expenditure Limits: There are no per unit or per project expenditure limits. Leverage and Matching Funds: Project applicants should seek to maximize the leverage of the City funds and secure matching funds, to the extent feasible. Security: Normally, aAll loans must be secured against the real property with a promissory note and recorded deed of trust. For projects with direct HUD funding and operating budget controls (such as HUD 202 and 811 projects), the City will accept a HUD approved residual receipts note form and may waive the deed of trust security. Subordination of City Loan Documents and Regulatory Agreements: The City normally consents to subordinate its loan to the loans of construction and permanent lenders, when required for the developer to secure the necessary funding to complete the project. Subordination of the City’s regulatory agreement to the loan documents and regulatory agreements of other lenders may also be approved, if absolutely necessary for the project to proceed to completion. All subordination agreements will be reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office on a case-by-case basis. Typically, the City Council delegates the authority to approve subordination agreements to the City Manager, with the recommendation of the City Attorney. Applicants must provide the City with information as soon as possible about the subordination policies and requirements of the other lenders, funders and investors in the project. Loan Terms: Typical minimum City loan terms are: • 3% simple interest • Deferred payment of interest and principal until senior debts, such as commercial lender mortgages, are repaid, or Page 11 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] • Annual payments from residual receipts (surplus cash flow) • Principal and interest is are due at sale, transfer, refinancing (depending on structure) or early termination of use restrictions or at the end of the affordability term • Projects with substantial numbers of Section 8 assisted units will usually require the funding of an affordability reserve fund Loan interest rates, repayment provisions, and subordination provisions are negotiated on each project. Lending terms are tailored to the project’s cash flow and the specific requirements and legal regulations of other financing sources. Higher interest rates, loan amortization or other loan terms may be a condition of loan approval, depending on the specifics of the project. The Council must approve loan and regulatory agreements and other documents or specifically delegate such approval to the City Manager. Term of Affordability and Regulatory Agreements: Palo Alto’s policy is that housing provided with City Affordable Housing Fund subsidies remain affordable for the longest possible period of time with the ultimate goal of permanent affordability. The use and occupancy restrictions for affordability must be included in legal agreements between the applicant / developer, property owner and the City and in most situations will be recorded against the property. For City housing funds, regulatory agreements that survive repayment of the loan are required for funding exceeding $50,000. Where CDBG funds are used for housing, the federal regulations regarding the disposition or change in use of real property funded with federal assistance may apply when there is an early termination of the affordable housing use. The minimum term of the affordability controls are based on the source and amount of City funding, as follows: Minimum Affordability Terms for City Housing Funding Source of Loan Funds Term of Affordability and Use Restrictions Other Provisions - Commercial & Residential Housing Fund Loans; - HOME & CDBG funding (Loans of over $150,000) 55 years -With provisions for extended affordability, where possible - Regulatory agreement required - CDBG Housing Fund (Loans over $50,000) 30 years - Regulatory Agreement required - CDBG Housing Fund (Loans under $50,000) 5 years or more - Subject to CDBG regulations regarding the disposition or change in use of real property acquired with federal funds F. Administrative Procedures and Responsibilities The Department of Planning and Community Environment is responsible for administering the City’s affordable housing programs and the Affordable Housing Fund. The Administrative Services Department provides financial management, accounting and reporting services for the Page 12 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] Fund. The Affordable Housing Fund is regularly audited by the City’s outside auditor and may also be examined by the City Auditor’s Office. Exceptions and Revisions to the Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines: The City Manager may approve revisions to these Guidelines, or exceptions for a particular project, in order to comply with the regulations or requirements of other housing funding sources or with the regulations for the CDBG or HOME program, as necessary. Significant permanent revisions to the Guidelines shall be presented to the City Council for review and approval. G. Application Process Applications for Affordable Housing Funds shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Environment for review and recommendation by the City Manager to the City Council. Funding applications may be submitted at any time throughout the year. However, when possible applications should be submitted by the deadline for the annual CDBG funding cycle for funding awards in the next fiscal year. Staff will review an application and seek additional information/clarification, if required, within 60 days. Staff will then schedule the application for internal management review. Housing funding applications are normally taken to the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for review and comment, including applications for funding from the Commercial and Residential Housing Funds. If a funding review and decision is needed more quickly than is possible under the CDBG cycle, then the application can be taken directly to Council, or to Council after CAC review. Applicants should allow at least 90 days for City review and action on an application. Page 13 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] City of Palo Alto Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines Appendix A) Definition of Income Categories and Limits The City of Palo Alto generally uses the income categories and definitions established in State law. These income categories are derived from the HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for a four- person household. HUD publishes updated median income figures for major cities and metropolitan areas annually, usually in the early part of the year. HUD’s median income figure for the San Jose PSMA covers all of Santa Clara County. The State HCD uses HUD’s AMI figure to calculate income limits by household size for the following categories: • Extremely low income (up to 30% of AMI) • Very low income (up to 50% of AMI) • Lower income (This category is equal to HUD’s low income limit for the CDBG program. The calculation is prescribed by federal regulations and varies from year to year; it has ranged from about 65% to 80% of AMI.) • Median Income (this category is equal to the 100% of median figure) • Moderate Income (up to 120% of AMI) • Above Moderate Income is a household with incomes exceeding the 120% of median income For the BMR program, the City of Palo Alto uses as its “Low” Income limit the actual 80% of AMI figures, rather than the CDBG program definition of low income. Various State and federal housing assistance programs also target other income levels. City program staff should be contacted for information describing current income categories and the maximum income for each household size within each income category. B) Definition of Affordable Rents and Prices Affordable Rent: The City of Palo Alto generally using the methodology for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to calculate a maximum affordable monthly rent at various levels of affordable housing. The Tax Credit Program rents are updated each year based on changes in the HUD AMI. Rents are published for different unit types by the number of bedrooms. Normally, if a project is regulated by another funding program such as the Tax Credit program, then the rents required by that program will be acceptable to the City. Affordable Sales Prices: The City of Palo Alto sets price guidelines annually for newly built BMR units using the target income ranges for the program, current interest rates and estimates of other ownership costs such as homeowners dues, insurance, maintenance and property taxes. Page 14 of 14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] C) Application Forms The application forms to apply for funding from the Affordable Housing Fund are the same as the forms used for CDBG funding proposals together with the separate housing project proposal attachment. Contact City staff for copies of the forms and instructions or download them from the Internet at: Web Site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cdbg/application.html D) Program Staff Contact Information The Affordable Housing Fund is administered by: Planning Division, Department of Planning & Community Environment Steve Emslie Hillary Gitelman, Director City of Palo Alto 5th Floor City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 321-2441 (Department’s main information number) (650) 329-2154 (Fax) For information about the Guidelines, and the Affordable Housing Fund, or the CDBG Program, please contact: Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator at (650) 329 2108 E mail: cathy.siegel@cityofpaloalto.org For specific CDBG Program information, contact: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, CDBG Planner at (650) 329 2428 E mail: eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org E) Income Standards and Rent Limits (Palo Alto & Santa Clara County) Contact City staff for current income standards and rents. F) Price Guidelines for New BMR Units (Palo Alto) Contact City staff for current price guidelines for new ownership and rental BMR units. C!TY OF PA TO: FROM: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No. 25 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AGENDA DATE: AUGUST 17, 2015 ID#: 6001 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES TO PERMIT USE OF THE COMMERCIAL HOUSING FUND FOR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING UNITS With reference to Attachment B for Agenda Item No. 25 {Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines) the version that you received in your packet was the wrong version. Please find attached the corrected version. Thank you. Planning and Community Environment Attachment City of Palo Alto Affordable Housing Fund_ Guidelines Approved by the City Council on October 27, 2003 August 17, 2015 by Resolution No.�-- A. Definition of the City of Palo Alto's Affordable Housing Fund The Affordable Housing Fund is a local housing trust fund established by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, California to provide financial assistance for the development, acquisition and rehabilitation of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households that live or work in the City. The City currently administers five distinct Sub-Funds for affordable housing that together comprises the City's Affordable Housing Fund. The BMR Emergency Fund has the sole purpose of preservation of the BMR ownership housing stock, whereas the other four funds have the broader purposes listed above. 1) Commercial Housing Fund 2) Residential Housing Fund 3) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Housing Fund 4) Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Fund 5) Below Market Rate (BMR) Emergep.cy Fund These Administrative Guidelines summarize the City's goals, policies and priorities for both the overall Fund and the Sub-Funds. These Guidelines cover eligible projects, eligible and ineligible costs, funding criteria and priorities, typical loan terms, application process and administrative procedures. B. Program History. Summary and Descrintion 1. Commercial Housing Fund In 1977, the City of Palo Alto began requiring affordable housing mitigation payments on large industrial and commercial projects under its environmental review authority under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation payments were deposited into a separate account and the funds were used exclusively to assist in the development of new housing units, with most units affordable to very low and low-income households. Originally, this fund was named the Industrial -Commercial Account; later it was renamed the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund. It is now to be called the Commercial Housing Fund. In 1984, the City Council adopted Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requiring that all commercial, retail, hotel and industrial projects pay an affordable housing mitigation fee on net new square footage as a condition of project approval. In March 2002, the Council increased the fee rate from $4.21 to $15.00 based on updated nexus study findings; the current fee is much less than the full cost of affordable housing impacts. The fee rate is adjusted annually to reflect inflation and is currently $19.85 per square foot. Collection, administration and reporting concerning the commercial housing mitigation fee must complyis consistent with provisions of Page 1of14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] the State's Hmising Mitigation Fee Act (Sections 6600Q+ et seq. of the California Government Code).. The fees collected must be utilized in ways that preserve or increase affordable housing for Palo Alto's workforce. Since the Fund's inception, seven ne\v construction housing projects have been assisted from the Commercial Housing lhmd producing 377 new affordable rental units. All but 20 of the 377 new units assisted are restricted to very lovdncome and lo•+v income occupancy. Palo Alto's Commercial Housing Funds have been used by developers in combination with other State and federal housing programs in all seven projects, such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, project-based Section 8, HUD Section 202 and Section 811, HOME, AHP and the Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP). 2. Residential Housing Fund Starting in Sin:ee-1974, the City has-required developers of market-rate housing to include below market rate (BMR) housing units in housing developments containing more than a minimum number of units. (8ee Program H 35 the Below Market Rate Program of the City's adopted 1998 2006 liousing Element). At that time, Palo Alto also started collecting& housing in-lieu fees from small projects, for fractional units and for residential developments where it is infeasible to provide below market rate units on-site. Based on a court decision in f4attl2009, this inclusionary housing program and in lieu foe tsare currently applicable only to units produced for sale, rather than rental housing. (Like other jurisdictions, Palo Alto is seeking to address this issue by preparing a new nexus study, which will update impact fees for commercial and residential development projects where inclusionary units are not provided. It is also expected that legislation will be introduced to allow rental units to be subject to inclusionary requirements.) Residential +he-se fees, along with interest earnings of the Fund and other miscellaneous revenues .related to housing, are placed in the Residential Housing Fund. Examples of miscellaneous revenue sources have included proceeds from the sale of surplus public land, payments pursuant to housing development agreements, and repayment of loans made from the Residential Housing Fund. The Residential Housing Fund may be used to provide funding for new housing development or for the conversion of existing housing to affordable housing through acquisition. The Fund may also be used for the rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing. Throughout the history of the Fund, all housing assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low-income households. 3. CDBG Housing Fund The City has been an entitlement recipient of federal Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) since the creation of the program in 1974. Policies and priorities for the use of CDBG funds are stated in the HUD Consolidated Plan prepared by the City every five years. Historically, Palo Alto has allocated a large portion (typically 50%) of its. annual CDBG grant for housing development activities. Any use of CDBG funds for housing activities must comply with the federal CDBG regulations (see CPR Section 570.200) as the regulations apply to Palo Alto's grant. [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] CDBG funds have been provided by the City to non-profit organizations for housing activities such as land acquisition for housing construction, housing pre-development costs, acquisition of existing rental apartment buildings, rehabilitation of rental units, construction or rehabilitation of shelters and transitional housing facilities for homeless persons, preservation of HUD-assisted rental housing, and acquisition and rehabilitation Of group housing for persons with disabilities. 4. Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and Program Income Fund The City does not receive federal HOME funds on an entitlement basis from HUD. Hovlever, the City is eligible to apply for HOME funds from the California Departme11t of Housing a11d CommuRity Developrnent (8tate HCD) annually on a competitive basis. In 2014 the City joined the Santa Clara County Home Consortium (SCCHC) for the period July l, 2015 and June 30. 2018. Participation in the HOME consortium does not guarantee the City a direct allocation of HOME funds. Instead, through this effort the City of Palo Alto has become a participating jurisdiction and serves as a partner in bringing in additional funding into the County to help address regional affordable housing needs. Applications will be directly submitted through the County's request for proposal process for available HOME funds. It is anticipated that funding through the SCCHC for the first two years of the agreement will be available for pre-development, development, construction, acquisition, preservation and substantial rehabilitation of affordable, permanent or transitional, housing units. During the third year of the agreement, the SCCHC may choose to implement a Countywide Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program. The County will only fu nd a project that has the· local support of the City. Therefore before a project can be considered by the County for funding under the SCCHC, staff will present the proposed project as part of the CDBG annual action plan and budget. This will provide the City Council with the oppot1unity to dete1mine local support. Certain nonprofit organizations known as Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) may also apply for funding from State HCD for housing projects located within Palo Alto. The City received one HOME grant from 1992 HOME funding for the Barker Hotel project. Proceeds from HOME loan repayments must be deposited into a HOME Program Income Fund and used in accordance with the HOME program regulations. 5. Other Funds Redevelopment HousiRg Set /\side Fund: Palo Alto has established a redevelopment ageacy but has not adopted a projeet area. There are no taK increment funds available for housing from redevelopment projects. BMR Emergency Fund: On September 9, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4761 together with the "Assessment Loan Program: Criteria, Need, Priorities, Definitions and Loan Terms" to establish the "Below Market Rate Program (BMR) Emergency Fund". The Fund was created to preserve and maintain the City's stock ofBMR ownership units and to assist owners with low incomes and/or very limited assets pay for large mandatory assessments for capital repairs and improvements. An appropriation transfer of $150,000 from the Residential Housing ln.;.Lieu Fund provided the initial funding. [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] C. Eligible Housing Types. Projects and Activities 1. Housing Types Palo Alto's Affordable Housing Fund revenues will primarily be used to assist the following types of affordable housing: • Rental housing, typically apartments (new and existing) • Rental housing with supportive services for elderly and special needs populations • Single room occupancy (SRO) rental units • Transitional rental housing • Group homes serving special needs populations • Shared housing, co-housing, mobile home parks and other special or innovative housing products • Below Market Rate ownership housing with resale deed restrictions Some affordable housing activities such as down-payment assistance for home purchases and rehabilitation loans to low-income single-family homeowners are eligible, but either have never been offered, or in the case of rehabilitation loans, were discontinued. 2. Eligible Projects and Activities for Each Fund Commercial Housing Fund: Historically In accordance ·.vith City policy has restricted in effect since itn inception, the Commercial Housing Fund for use in is restricted to funding activities that increase Palo Alto's affordable housing stock through: • The construction of new housing units, • The addition of new units to existing buildings, or • The conversion of non-residential space to housing units. Effective in August 2015, the Commercial Housing Fund may also be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of existing housing that is deed restricted for use as BMR housing. Reasonable related administrative costs incurred by the City may also be paid from the Fund; examples of appropriate administrative costs include: • Direct staff costs for the collection of housing mitigation fees and the administration of the fund, • The cost of periodic consultant studies required to determine or update the fees charged, and • Direct costs for the City to implement the affordable housing new construction program. Residential Housing Fund: All housing types are eligible for assistance utilizing Residential Fund monies. This Fund may be used for new housing projects, for acquisition of existing housing and for rehabilitation of existing housing serving any household type. Because most of the monies deposited to the Fund are from in-lieu fees received pursuant to the City's BMR housing program requirements, a reasonable portion of the Fund's average annual revenue may be used for administrative costs of operating the BMR program. Historically, the City has used Residential [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] Housing Funds for the costs of an annual contract with an outside organization for the administration of certain aspects of the BMR program. CDBG Housing Fund: Uses of CDBG funds for housing must comply with the federal regulations, as stated previously. Broad funding priorities are established every five years as part of the City Council's adoption of the Consolidated Plan. The current plan covers the period from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005. Council also approves an Annual Action Plan with specific funding priorities and awards, usually in May. The annual CDBG funding cycle begins in the fall for funding for the fiscal year beginning the following July. HOME Program Funds: Housing assisted with HOME funds must comply with the federal regulations for the HOME program. Given the State's once per year funding cycle, the focus of Palo Alto's affordable housing programs and the local housing market, the City intends to seek HOME funds only for major rental housing projects. HOME program income will also be used only for rental housing activities. BMR Emergency Fund: This Fund may be used for activities related to the preservation of the City's BMR ownership housing stock. In September 2002, Council authorized: 1) An assessment loan program to provide deferred payment, low interest loans to assist BMR owners facing severe financial hardship in paying major capital assessments on their condominium homes. Regular monthly homeowner' s dues do not qualify for these loans. The Director of Planning and Community Environment establishes specific eligibility criteria and procedures within the general guidelines set by Council. 2). Protection and preservation of units within the program from loss due to foreclosure, typically by legal action and I or direct purchase by the City; 3) Repair, holding, and resale costs of BMR units acquired by the City; and 4) Short-term loans to correct deferred maintenance or rehabilitate older BMR units at resale Overall City Affordable Housing Loan Program Administrative Costs: From the inception of the City's affordable housing program in the late 1970's through 2003, the City has utilized the General Fund budget to cover staff administrative costs and third party direct costs, such as outside legal costs in administering and monitoring the loan program. The portion of the City's CDBG grant that may be used for staff costs is very limited and has historically been only sufficient to cover the cost of the CDBG program management staff. The General Fund has covered the cost of affordable housing activities, including staff work in the Planning Division, the City Attorney's Office and the Administrative Services Department. 3. Eligible Uses of Funds Commercial and Residential Housing Funds: All reasonable and necessary costs to the development of eligible affordable housing types may be funded from these two Funds. Examples of eligible costs are: feasibility studies, site evaluation, due diligence and environmental studies; all pre-development "soft" costs, including design, engineering, legal, costs necessary to apply for Page 5of14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 20151 and close the project's pennanent and construction financing and subsidies, demolition and clearance, land acquisition, acquisition of air rights or by long-tenn lease, acquisition of buildings, hard construction costs, rehabilitation, on and off-site improvements, developer fees, impact fees, pennit fees, marketing, initial funding of replacement and operating reserves, buy down of interest rates on pennanent and construction financing and furnishing of on-site facilities that will primarily serve project residents, such as community rooms, playgrounds and child care centers. City funding may be used at any stage of project development from site search to long-tenn pennanent loans. CDBG Housing Fund: The most commonly funded affordable housing activities in Palo Alto that are eligible under the federal regulations, are compatible with City housing priorities and the realities of the local housing market include: • Acquisition of land for housing construction • Acquisition of existing housing or buildings for conversion to housing • Rehabilitation and major repairs of existing affordable rental housing projects • Feasibility studies, environmental and pre-development activities related to the acquisition of land or buildings • Relocation studies and benefits • Pre-development costs for new housing (to the extent allowed under HUD rules) • Clearance & disposition of land or buildings • Construction of off-site utilities necessary for housing • Installation of accessibility improvements • Construction, acquisition and rehabilitation for transitional housing • Acquisition and I or rehabilitation of group homes for special needs populations 4. Specific Limitations, Restrictions and Ineligible Uses by Fund Commercial Fund: By Council policy, all costs must be directly related to the development of new housing units or to the preservation of existing housing-whose long term affordability will be protected through deed restriction or other mechanism.that is deed restricted as affordable. In addition, because the Fund's revenues are linked (as required by State law) to the affordable housing needs of Palo Alto's work force, funded projects should provide housing for households likely to be participating in the work force. Housing with occupancy restrictions for individuals with statistically low work force participation (such as the elderly) will only be eligible for these funds in proportion to the extent that the intended residents typically participate in the work force. Furthennore, housing projects assisted with this' Fund must be located within the City limits of the City of Palo Alto. Residential Housing Fund: There are no special limitations or restrictions on the use of this Fund. CDBG Housing Fund: Federal regulations prohibit the use of CDBG funds (except in unusual situations) for the actual construction costs of housing. Palo Alto is also very limited, by the way federal regulations are applied, in the amount of CDBG funds that can be provided for predevelopment costs of certain kinds of housing. [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] 5. Eligible Applicants; Project Sponsors; Developers The typical funding applicant and project sponsor is a nonprofit housing development organization, a social service nonprofit, or a public agency (such as a city, county or the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County). Eligible non-governmental applicants are nonprofit corporations and limited partnerships (in which an eligible applicant, or an affiliate of an applicant, is a controlling general partner), that have as part of its organizational purposes the development of housing or operation of housing programs for households of extremely low-, low ' very low-or moderate-income. The City will consider applications for funding from for-profit housing developers for the Commerchtl and Residential Funds on a case-by-case basis, providing provisions for long-term affordability can be met. All entities involved in a housing project, particularly the applicant, sponsor, consultants, developer, general partner, management entity, services provider and their principals or key staff, must have· appropriate experience in affordable housing relative to the complexity, scale and type of project for which funding is sought. The City may require that applicants with insufficient housing development ormanagement experience secure a joint venture partner and I or agree to ownership and I or management of the housing units by an experienced affordable housing organization appl'.oved by the City. The CDBG and HOME regulations should also be carefully reviewed by applicants for specific rules regarding the types of organizations that are eligible funding recipients. D. Funding Priorities. Housing and Household Types. and Evaluation Criteria 1. Priorities for Affordable Housing Funding (Commercial, Residential, CDBG and HOME �unds) Primary Priorities: • New construction of permanent rental housing, especially for households with children • Preservation of existing, federally subsidized rental housing from conversion to market-rate • New construction of permanent rental housing for households with special needs . or disabilities • New or existing permanent rental housing for homeless households or those at risk of homelessness linked with supportive services • Transitional rental housing linked with supportive services Secondary Priorities: • Acquisition and I or rehabilitation of existing affordable rental housing, including group and shared residential facilities, and mobile homes, especially for households with children and special needs households • New construction of permanent rental housing primarily serving Palo Alto's low- Page 7of14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015) income work force, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units • New construction of permanent rental housing primarily serving extremely low income elderly • Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing market rate rental housing for conversion to affordable housing for extremely low-income,_ -aflti-very low-income, and low income households Other Priorities To Meet the City's Housing Production Goals as Stated in the Adopted Housing Element: Palo Alto also has important unmet housing production needs for low and moderate-income households as described in the City's Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The BMR requirements are the City's principal method of addressing these housing needs. Developers must provide the required BMR units, and any BMR units that satisfy a public benefit agreement, within the market-rate project or off-site, without funding assistance from the City. However, the City could consider providing funding to assist a developer provide additional BMR units (above and beyond the required units) if there was a significant or unique opportunity to substantially increase low and moderate income housing production, as follows: • New construction of very low and low-income rental housing units within, or in connection with, market-rate housing projects under the City's BMR program requirements. • New construction of moderate-income homeownership units, including units within market-rate projects under the BMR program. Two groups of households will be served: those with incomes between 80 and 100% of median income and households with incomes between 100 and 120% of median income. 2. · Rent and Occupancy Standards: Income Targeting The primary objective of Palo Alto's affordable housing program is to increase the City's housing stock for those households with the most serious housing needs. To meet this objective, the City prioritizes and focuses the program and the available funding on serving extremely low, very-low and low-income households. Most rental housing projects funded with City Affordable Housing Funds also are funded by at least one, and often several, State, local or federal housing programs with rent and occupancy requirements. The City sets appropriate rent and occupancy requirements for each project giving consideration to factors such as: • Financial feasibility • Coordination with other funding rules, such as tax credits, HUD, State • Availability of rental subsidies such as Section 8 • Needs and income level of project's target population (for example, elderly, homeless, working families, etc.) A loan agreement, deed of trust, and note are prepared for all City housing loans. A long-term regulatory agreement is usually required and must be recorded against the property as a [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] condition of mest-any City housing loans. This regulatory agreement will include the City's affordability and occupancy requirements. Smaller rehabilitation loans (generally uHder $100�000) 1.vill usually be provided with just a loan agreement containing use and occupancy requirements and a note and deed of trust. If appropriate and allowed by other funding entitiesTo the extent consistent with fair housing laws, local occupancy preferences for households living or employed within the City of Palo Alto wil+-may be required. The City may also require that existing rental assistance contracts be renewed and that the owner seek and give preferences to households receiving Section 8 assistance. 3. Evaluation Criteria for Project Selection and Underwriting Standards The following factors will be considered in evaluating applications for City housing funds. All factors will be assessed in relationship to the type of project being proposed and the difficulty and risk involved: • Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines • Housing needs and priorities stated in the most recent Consolidated Plan • Relevant Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs • Provision of a significant number of units (at least 30% of total units) affordable to extremely low-income households • For family housing projects, whether there is a significant number of three or more bedroom units (at least 30% of total units) • For special needs housing and housing for the homeless, the coordinated provision of supportive services available to the residents • Lack of relocation of residential tenants and owners, especially low income tenants • Experience & staff capability of the development team and management entity • Financial strength and fiscal record of sponsor & developer • Project readiness & ability to meet a reasonable schedule • For major projects, the likelihood of securing other State, federal or local housing subsidies to leverage City housing funds • Matching of City housing funds including sponsor and developer commitments of equity funding, in-kind staff support, partial waiver or deferral of developer fees and other matching funds or resources committed • Reasonable cost per unit for type of housing proposed • Reasonable percentage of City funding to total development costs • Management plan and experience of management entity • Rehabilitation projects require specific information regarding the scope of work, specifications, inspections and written cost estimates. · In addition to the above factors, funding applications involving new housing construction, demolition or conversion of use, especially where a site will require a rezoning, will be subject to City review for site-related factors such as the following. The City may require that a formal feasibility study be completed and reviewed by Council prior to application for, or approval of, site acquisition funding or development subsidies. [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] • Compatibility of the proposed use, density, height and other features with the surrounding neighborhood • Suitability of the site for the proposed project • Environmental review issues including traffic, access, parking and historic preservation • Displacement and relocation issues • Soil or groundwater contamination, including costs of remediation • Provisions for site control, land acquisition costs and terms E. Loan Provisions and Terms Grants, Unsecured Loans: The City does not provide grants of housing funds, except for emergencies or very u�usual circumstances and then only for small amounts, generally under $50,000. Funding for preliminary feasibility studies may be provided subject to an unsecured loan, ifthe property, or site, is not owned by the applicant. The ap13licant may request that the City forgive the loan, if the proposed project does not proceed. Council, or the City Manager depending on the lom=1 amount, will make s1:1ch decisions on an individual basis. If the project dees-proceed�, then the feasibility loan will be combined with any further funding provided by the City into a permanent loan against the project. Non-profit organizations are the only entities eligible for grants and unsecured loans. Expenditure Limits: There are no per unit or per project expenditure limits. Leverage and Matching Funds: Project applicants should seek to maximize the leverage of the City funds and secure matching funds, to the extent feasible. ,S.ecurity: Nonnally, aAll loans must be secured against the real property with a promissory note and recorded deed of trust.. For projects v1ith direct HUD funding and operating budget controls (such as HUD 202 and 811 projects), the City will accept a HUD approved residual receipts note form and may •11aive the deed of trust security. Subordination of City Loan Documents and Regulatory Agreements: The City normally consents to subordinate its loan to the loans of construction and permanent lenders, when required for the developer to secure the necessary funding to complete the project. Subordination of the City's regulatory agreement to the loan documents and regulatory agreements of other lenders may also be approved, if absolutely necessary for the project to proceed to completion. All subordination agreements will be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office on a case-by-case basis. Typically, the City Council delegates the authority to approve subordination agreements to the City Manager, with the recommendation of the City Attorney. Applicants must provide the City with information as soon as possible about the subordination policies and requirements of the other lenders, funders and investors in the project. Loan Terms: Typical minimum City loan terms are: • 3% simple interest • Deferred payment of interest and principal until senior debts, such as commercial lender mortgages, are repaid, or [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] • Annual payments from residual receipts (surplus cash flow) • Principal and interest is-are due at sale, transfer, refinancing (depending on structure} or early termiHation of use restrictions or at the end of the affordability term • Projects with substantial numbers of Section 8 assisted units will usually require the funding of an affordability reserve fund Loan interest rates, repayment provisions, and subordination provisions are negotiated on each project. Lending terms are tailored to the project's cash flow and the specific requirements and legal regulations of other financing sources. Higher interest rates, loan amortization or other loan terms may be a condition of loan approval, depending on the specifics of the project. The Council must approve loan and regulatory agreements and other documents or specifically delegate such approval to the City Manager. Term of Affordability and Regulatory Agreements: Palo Alto's policy is that housing provided with City Affordable Housing Fund subsidies remain affordable for the longest possible period of time with the ultimate· goal of permanent affordability. The use and occupancy restrictions for affordability must be included in legal agreements between the applicant I developer, property owner and the City and in most situations will be recorded against the property. For City housing funds, regulatory agreements that survive repayment of the loan are required for funding exceeding $50,000. Where CDBG funds are used for housing, the federal regulations regarding the disposition or change in use of real property funded with federal assistance may apply when there is an early termination of the affordable housing use. The minimum term of the affordability controls are based on the source and amount of City funding, as follows: Minimum Affordability Terms for City Housing Funding Source of Loan Funds Term of Affordability and Use Other Provisions Restrictions -Commercial & Residential 55 years -With provisions for extended Housing Fund Loans; affordability, where possible -HOME & CDBG funding -Regulatory agreement (Loans of over $150,000) required -CDBG Housing Fund 30 years -Regulatory Agreement (Loans over $50,000) required -CDBG Housing Fund 5 years or more -Subject to CDBG regulations (Loans under $50,000) regarding the disposition or change in use of real property acquired with federal funds F. Administrative Procedures and Responsibilities The Department of Planning and Community Environment is responsible for administering the City's affordable housing programs and the Affordable Housing Fund. The Administrative Services Department provides financial management, accounting and reporting services for the Page 11of14 [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 20151 Fund. The Affordable Housing Fund is regularly audited by the City's outside auditor and may also be examined by the City Auditor's Office. Exceptions and Revisions to the Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines: The City Manager may approve revisions to these Guidelines, or exceptions for a particular project, in order to comply with the regulations or requirements of other housing funding sources or with the regulations for the CDBG or HOME program, as necessary. Significant permanent revisions to the Guidelines shall be presented to the City Council for review and approval. G. Application Process Applications for Affordable Housing Funds shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Environment for review and recommendation by the City Manager to the City Council. Funding applications may be submitted at any time throughout the year. Hov./ever, when possible applications should be submitted by the deadline for the annual CDBG funding cycle for funding awards in the next fiscal year. Staff will review an application and seek additional information/clarification, if required, 'tvithin 60 days. Staff will then schedule the application for internal management revie'liv. Housing funding applications are A:onnally taken to the CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for revie1N and comment, inch1:ding applications for funding from the Commercial and Residential Housing Funds. If a funding revie'tv and decision is needed more quickly than is possible under the CDBG cyele, thea tA:e application can be taken directly to CouA:cil, or to Council after CAC reviev¥. Applicants should allov1 at least 90 days for City revie\v and action on an application. [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 2015] City of Palo Alto Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines Appendix A) Definition of Income Categories and Limits The City of Palo Alto generally uses the income categories and definitions established in State law. These income categories are derived from the HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for a four person household. HUD publishes updated median income figures for major cities and 1!1etropolitan areas annually, usually in the early part of the year. HUD's median income figure for the San Jose PSMA covers all of Santa Clara County. The State HCD uses HUD's AMI figure to calculate income limits by household size for the following categories: • Extremely low income (up to 30% of AMI) • Very low income (up to 50% of AMI) • Lower income (This category is equal to HUD's low income limit for the CDBG program. The calculation is prescribed by federal regulations and varies from year to year; it has ranged from about 65% to 80% of AMI.) • Median Income (this category is equal to the 100% of median figure) • Moderate Income (up to 120% of AMI) • Above Moderate Income is a household with incomes exceeding the 120% of median income For the BMR program, the City of Palo Alto uses as its "Low" Income limit the actual 80% of AMI figures, rather than the CDBG program definition of low.income. Various State and federal housing assistance programs also target other income levels. City program staff should be contacted for information describing current income categories and the maximum income for each household size within each income category. B) Definition of Affordable Rents and Prices Affordable Rent: The City of Palo Alto generally using the methodology for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to calculate a maximum affordable monthly rent at various levels of affordable housing. The Tax Credit Program rents are updated each year based on changes in the HUD AMI. Rents are published for different unit types by the number of bedrooms. Normally, if a project is regulated by another funding program such as the Tax Credit program, then the rents required by that program will be acceptable to the City. Affordable Sales Prices: The City of Palo Alto sets price guidelines annually for newly built BMR units using the target income ranges for the program, current interest rates and estimates of other ownership costs such as homeowners dues, insurance, maintenance and property taxes. [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17, 20151 C) Application Forms The application forms to apply for funding from the Affordable Housing Fund are the same as the forms used for CDBG funding proposals together with the separate housing project proposal attachment. Contact City staff for copies of the forms and instructions or download them from the Internet at: Web Site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cdbg/application.html D) Program Staff Contact Information The Affordable Housing Fund is administered by: Planning Division, Department of Planning & Community Environment 8teve Emslie·.Hillary GiteJman, Director City of Palo Alto 5th Floor City Hall 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)321-2441 (Department's main information number) (650) 329-2154 (Fax) For information about the Guidelines, -aati-the Affordable Housing Fund, or the CDBG Program, please contact: Catherine 8iegel, Housing Coordinator at (650) 329 2108 E mail: cathy.siegel@cityofpaloalto.org For specific GDBG Program information, contact: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, CDBG Planner at (650) 329 2428 E mail: eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org E) Income Standards and Rent Limits (Palo Alto & Santa Clara CounM Contact City staff for current income standards and rents. F) Price Guidelines for New BMR Units (Palo Alto) Contact City staff for current price guidelines for new ownership and rental BMR units. I [Revisions Proposed for Adoption August 17. 2015] Page 14of14 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 17, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Discussion of Possible Adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan Update Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Recommendation Receive this status report on the composition and membership of the Comprehensive Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, and consider directing the City Manager to reopen applications and add 3-5 members to the committee by specific category. In addition, Council should review the attached schedule for the work of the CAC and provide direction as needed. Executive Summary On May 18, 2015, the City Council directed the City Manager to solicit applications for a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and provided parameters for selection of 17 voting members and three non-voting members. (A copy of the application form with the parameters is included as Attachment A.) The City received over 50 applications for the CAC, and the City Manager selected members on July 2, 2015. Some have criticized these appointments for not adequately representing a balance of perspectives or geography or other factors, and this agenda item provides the City Council with an opportunity to discuss this issue and make any adjustments Council deems necessary by adding members to the panel if desired. This agenda item also provides the City Council with an opportunity to review the draft schedule of CAC and City Council meetings about the Comprehensive Plan Update and provide direction to staff. The current draft schedule (attached) is based on two premises: that the City Council wishes to complete the Update in 2016; and that the current Comprehensive Plan needs updating to address some current/critical issues, but not wholesale revision. Background The City’s current Comprehensive Plan was anticipated to sunset in the year 2010, and the City has been actively working to update the plan since 2008. In early 2015, the City Council identified completing the Comprehensive Plan Update as one of its priorities, and a community “summit” was held on May 30, 2015 to discuss the critical issues of transportation, growth, and housing that will have to be addressed. On May 18, 2015, the City Council directed the City Manager to solicit applications for a CAC to help staff synthesize public input, policies and programs from the existing Comprehensive Plan, recommendations of the Planning & Transportation Commission, and City Council direction into a revised draft for City Council consideration. The Council envisioned an iterative process, where the C!C’s work would be informed by City Council input/direction and its work products would be reviewed by the Council. The attached CAC schedule attempts to align the Committee’s work with the Council’s ongoing guidance and review. 59 applications were received from people interested in serving on the CAC, and the City Manager made appointments considering a variety of factors, which were listed in the application form without specific weighting or priority. The appointed members are listed below. Voting Members Daniel Garber – Old Palo Alto Hamilton Hitchings – Duveneck Jared Jacobs – Evergreen Park Arthur Keller – Adobe Meadow Lydia Kou – Barron Park Steve Levy – Downtown South Don McDougall – Professorville Bonnie Packer – Palo Verde Lisa Peschcke-Koedt – Crescent Park Amy Sung – Green Gable Doria Summa – College Terrace Jason Titus – Downtown North Elaine Uang – Downtown North Ellen Uhrbrock – University South Alex Van Riesen – Midtown Bob Wenzlau – Crescent Park Mila Zelkha – Fairmeadow Non-Voting Members Adrian Fine – Planning and Transportation Commission Heidi Emberling – Palo Alto Unified School District Whitney McNair – Stanford University Page 2 Importantly, members were not appointed as representatives of their specific neighborhood association, but there was an attempt to achieve geographic diversity thru neighborhoods. Also, while applicant’s could self-identify interests and expertise, there is an expectation that members will not simply advocate their own particular perspectives, but work together and serve as trustees for the good of all Palo Alto. Nonetheless, the planning process will be most effective if the CAC is seen as balanced as possible in its representation of all geographic areas and interests. Given the pool of applicants we received and not having the capacity to elicit additional applications, staff made our recommendations attempting reconcile a range of factors. If Council sees value in adjusting the balance of the group, staff is recommending that this could be done by Council making 3-5 additional appointments or reopening applications and instructing the City Manager to select the additional members with targeted, explicit criteria for the additional members. In the later case, Council Members could reach out to different community members and encourage them to apply. Timeline The CAC had its first (organizing) meeting on July 14, 2015 and elected a chair/vice-chair, and adopted rules, including a meeting schedule. The C!C’s first substantive meeting is scheduled for August 11, and will include a discussion of the Community Services and Facilities Element; no action will be taken. If the City Council would like to appoint additional members, these members could be seated at the September meeting in time for the C!C’s first discussion of the Transportation Element. An important part of the C!C’s work will involve its receipt of City Council direction on the structure, goals, and vision statements for each element of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as critical issues related to transportation, land use, and growth management. A draft schedule for the CAC and Council interaction is included as Attachment B and indicates that the City Council will be asked to provide guidance on the Community Services and Facilities Element and the Transportation Element on August 31. Council may want to carefully review that schedule and request changes to the schedule or sequencing. As noted above, the draft schedule is based on the premise that the City Council wishes to complete the Update in 2016, and the City Council may also wish to affirm this objective. The result is an ambitious schedule of CAC meetings and City Council meetings which will only be possible if the Comprehensive Plan Update is truly just an update, and not a complete revision or rewrite of the current Comprehensive Plan. The CAC is expected to hold monthly public meetings, allowing Council members and the public to monitor and comment on their work as it proceeds. Council may see some extended periods between the Council initial review and direction on elements of the Comp Plan in the proposed schedule, and when the CAC returns their work on each element back to the Council. Council member monitoring of the CAC meetings may prove helpful in closing that gap, helping keep Council Members informed of the C!C’s progress along the way. The staff and consultant work Page 3 involved in supporting the CAC and City Council schedule of meetings is just a subset of the planning- and transportation-related items coming to the City Council in the time period shown. ATTACHMENTS: A: Comp. Plan CAC Application Form (PDF) B: Comp Plan Timeline (DOCX) C: Public Correspondence (PDF) Department Head: James Keene, City Manager Page 4 Page 5 Invitation to Apply to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee Applications are due by close of business on June 15, 2015 The City Manager invites individuals to apply to be part of a Citizens Advisory Committee that will assist with completion of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update. Background The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding preservation and development in Palo Alto. It builds on shared community values and aspirations to guide preservation and manage growth and change. The City has been working to update its current Comprehensive Plan since 2008 and the City Council has requested that the City Manager appoint a Citizens Advisory Committee to assist with completion of this effort. The Comprehensive Plan does not require wholesale revision, but requires updating to reflect changes and accomplishments since 1998, and to address new challenges that have arisen. Citizens Advisory Committee The CAC will consist of 17 community members appointed by the City Manager to represent a diversity of interests, as well as 3 ex officio (non-voting) members representing the Planning & Transportation Commission, the Palo Alto Unified School District, and Stanford University. The City Council will address critical issues, choices, and measures, providing guidance to the CAC, which will work on policies and programs based on vision statement s and guidance from the City Council. CAC will review Comprehensive Plan sections, recommendations of the Planning & Transportation Commission, and public input received during and in advance of the meetings. The CAC will assist staff with the evaluation of “open sourced” public input and with synthesizing all materials and inputs as they review plan language (policies/programs) and proposed revisions. Members of the CAC will be asked to review materials provided in advance of meetings, and will be primarily engaged in reviewing and commenting on (rather than writing) draft plan language. Term The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) will be subject to the Brown Act, California’s Open Meeting Law, and will hold regular, noticed and agendized public meetings. The CAC is expected to meet at least monthly, starting on or around July 14, 2015 and extending at least Page 1 of ϱ May 20, 2015 until April or May of 2016. The use of ad hoc subcommittees will be extremely limited. The CAC will meet periodically with the City Council in joint sessions, and will ultimately make a recommendation on adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Qualifications In anticipation of broad interest in this committee, candidates will be selected to ensure the group is representative of a diversity of community members including neighborhood, technical, and business perspectives. While all neighborhood representatives will be appointed “at large” to represent the interests of the entire City, members will be appointed to ensure participation by residents from a wide variety of Palo Alto neighborhoods across the City. Members will also be appointed to represent the interests of homeowners, renters, seniors, the disabled, businesses (including retail business owners), Palo Alto youth and parents at a variety of schools and levels of education. All voting members must be Palo Alto residents, and will be appointed to represent these interests or others desired as part of the group, which shall include those with interest/expertise related to the topics of: x Affordable housing x Natural resource conservation, open space, and habitat x Community health x Environmental sustainability x Real estate/development x Transportation and mobility x Architecture and urban design x Business & economics x Historic resources Applicants who address more than one area of interest/expertise will be favored. The City Manager will select candidates needed to ensure the desired diversity of interests and expertise, and who meet the following additional qualifications: Live in Palo Alto Have established connections and networks in the community, such as membership in an existing community organization, professional organization and/or local association, or have special expertise in one of the topics listed above Has energy and good ideas about the future of Palo Alto and a willingness to meet on a monthly basis Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively and effectively in a diverse group environment. Page 2 of ϱ May 20, 2015 Applicants who are not appointed to the CAC are nonetheless welcome to attend the CAC’s regular meetings and provide their input; they will also be considered for appointment if the City Manager needs to appoint a replacement for a member who resigns or who fails to attend at least 75% of the meetings. Page 3 of ϱ May 20, 2015 _________________________________________________________________________ Comprehensive Plan Update Community Advisory Committee Application Name: ________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________ Phone: ________________________________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________________________________ Are you a Palo Alto Resident? YES NO What neighborhood do you live in? ____________________________________________________ Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Board Members or Commissioners? YES NO Would you be able to attend the first CAC meeting at 5:30 PM on July 14, 2015 and are you available and committed to attend monthly meetings at least through mid-2016? YES NO Check any that apply to you: Member of the Comprehensive Plan Leadership Group Parent of School Aged Child or Student in Palo Alto Schools Please specify school and grade level: _________________________________________ Experience with Issues Relevant to Seniors or the Disabled Member of Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) Member of Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning (PASZ) Member of Palo Alto Forward Member of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Member of other local business/neighborhood/community organization (please specify) Foreign Language speaker (please specify) ______________________________________ Owner of a Palo Alto business Retail business owner Employee of a Palo Alto business Homeowner Renter Affordable housing experience Natural resource conservation/open space/habitat experience Page 4 of ϱ May 20, 2015 Community health experience Environmental sustainability experience Real estate/development experience Transportation and mobility experience Architecture/Urban Design experience Business & economics experience Historic resources experience Please describe your involvement/experience in community activities, volunteer work, civic organizations, and how you have connected with others in the community: Why are you interested in serving on the Citizens Advisory Committee? How did you learn about the Citizens Advisory Committee: (check all that apply) May 30 Summit Email from the City Palo Alto Weekly Social Media Other: __________________________ APPLICATIONS DUE JUNE 15, 2015 Submit to: Department of Planning and Community Environment Attention: Consuelo Hernandez 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org Page 5 of ϱ May 20, 2015 ‐‐ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: PaloAltoVille <info@paloaltoville.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 10:28 PM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Citizen's Advisory Committee for Comprehensive Plan Dear City Council, Jim Keene, and Hillary Gitelman We agree with the concerns about the Citizen's Advisory Committee expressed in the letter you received from the leaders of PAN and PASZ. We urge you to consider these ideas and reform the CAC in order to provide trustworthy, fair, and broad community representation. Wayne Martin wmartin46@yahoo.com Bryant Street ‐‐ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: PaloAltoVille <info@paloaltoville.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 8:30 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Citizen's Advisory Committee for Comprehensive Plan Dear City Council, Jim Keene, and Hillary Gitelman We agree with the concerns about the Citizen's Advisory Committee expressed in the letter you received from the leaders of PAN and PASZ. We urge you to consider these ideas and reform the CAC in order to provide trustworthy, fair, and broad community representation. Pat Markevitch Pat@magic.com 231 Emerson Street ‐‐ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: PaloAltoVille <info@paloaltoville.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 10:13 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Citizen's Advisory Committee for Comprehensive Plan Dear City Council, Jim Keene, and Hillary Gitelman We agree with the concerns about the Citizen's Advisory Committee expressed in the letter you received from the leaders of PAN and PASZ. We urge you to consider these ideas and reform the CAC in order to provide trustworthy, fair, and broad community representation. Richard & Jeanne Placone rcplacone@sbcglobal.net 601 Chimalus Drive/Barron Park ‐‐ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: PaloAltoVille <info@paloaltoville.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:12 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Citizen's Advisory Committee for Comprehensive Plan Dear City Council, Jim Keene, and Hillary Gitelman We agree with the concerns about the Citizen's Advisory Committee expressed in the letter you received from the leaders of PAN and PASZ. We urge you to consider these ideas and reform the CAC in order to provide trustworthy, fair, and broad community representation. robert roth bobroth7209@att.net 2015 middlefield road ‐‐ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: PaloAltoVille <info@paloaltoville.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:13 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Citizen's Advisory Committee for Comprehensive Plan Dear City Council, Jim Keene, and Hillary Gitelman We agree with the concerns about the Citizen's Advisory Committee expressed in the letter you received from the leaders of PAN and PASZ. We urge you to consider these ideas and reform the CAC in order to provide trustworthy, fair, and broad community representation. Michele Moran mmoran8@earthlink.net Dennis Dr. ‐‐ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: PaloAltoVille <info@paloaltoville.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:16 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Citizen's Advisory Committee for Comprehensive Plan Dear City Council, Jim Keene, and Hillary Gitelman We agree with the concerns about the Citizen's Advisory Committee expressed in the letter you received from the leaders of PAN and PASZ. We urge you to consider these ideas and reform the CAC in order to provide trustworthy, fair, and broad community representation. Enid Pearson enidpearson1@gmail.com 1019 Forest Ct ‐‐ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: PaloAltoVille <info@paloaltoville.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:43 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Citizen's Advisory Committee for Comprehensive Plan Dear City Council, Jim Keene, and Hillary Gitelman We agree with the concerns about the Citizen's Advisory Committee expressed in the letter you received from the leaders of PAN and PASZ. We urge you to consider these ideas and reform the CAC in order to provide trustworthy, fair, and broad community representation. Dorothy Dewing dodntoto7@yahoo.com 2427 Burnham Way City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: Clerk, City Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: FW: CAC From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:33 AM To: Daniel Garber; Arthur Keller Cc: Clerk, City Subject: CAC Dear Arthur and Dan, The August 5 9am deadline today slipped up on me and I did not post specific comments to the CAC. I want to present my broader concerns about the CAC and how it is folding. Due to personal issues I don’t have time to track upcoming CAC activities, so today I am making comments with incomplete information about CAC status quo. Later this fall I plan to participate as member of the general public if your process is extended. There is confusion now about the application of Brown Act and other public safeguards so I will make these comments publicly to the City Clerk and to your individual emails. My intent is to avoid placing you into a possible violation of the Brown Act and other transparency rules. Since the Council wants a limited, short-term examination of the Comp Plan, then the CAC is a quick and dirty way to satisfy that objective. I think this cursory approach is problematic. The CAC is important for gathering and compiling Comp Plan advice to the City Council and it is important to realize that public confidence is at stake if CAC process is befuddled. The next CAC meeting must address the confusion seems to be developing. IMO, the issue is whether or not all CAC members will understand and accept their roles and restrictions. I recommend a CAC process identical to well-understood official City Commissions…the difference being is that CAC has a defined life and is not permanent. The Council [not the City Manager] should control appointments for major initiatives such as CAC. There is inherent City Manager bias in the appointments and this already weakens public confidence and acceptance. Conflicts of interest and meeting process have not been fully vetted particularly if CAC hs quasi-responsibilities of an official City "commission". Co-chairs could be considered because differences of opinion are obvious. Co-chairs signal collaboration and accommodation. Staff and chair(s) could commence the CAC process with a welcoming of conflict. PA Process strives naively for impossible levels of collaboration and consensus. This is unwise. The CAC could immediately recognize “the value to openly agree and disagree” and unemotionally record the conflict so that City Council will understand the dilemmas that the CAC addressed. Meeting notes should not be scrubbed. An electronic whiteboard would be a leap forward. I am confident that amount of CAC agreement will be City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM - greater than disagreement, but disagreement must be managed proactively by the CAC chair(s). Based on my past observations of PA Process, City Staff to CAC will be very handicapped in managing conflict. Staff in any local government has a challenging, often impossible job. I have observed city staff closely during the past 3 years and staff struggles with their skill sets to engage and inform the public. Staff avoids obvious conflict and in good faith tries to protect City Council and the public too often. As a result, I think there is growing lack of confidence in city government…not only in Palo Alto but in nearby cities who are struggling with the consequences of sustained, “uncontrollable” boom. Our city staff is overwhelmed with workload and has not been able to adjust skill sets. Your role with CAC is an opportunity to change the modus operandi and improve outcomes. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Carnahan, David From: Keene, James Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 1:10 PM To: Furman, Sheri Cc: Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Re: Residents' Concerns About the Comp Plan CAC Thanks Sheri, I had scheduled an item on the CAC for the Council meeting on Aug 17 where Council will be discussing the CAC and schedule. James Keene | City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 E: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org Sent from my Macbook Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you On Jul 30, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> wrote: Please see the attached letter from several residents concerning the Comp Plan CAC. Note that many more residents share the concerns expressed in the letter. Sheri Furman <CAC Letter.docx> City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM Dear City Council, Jim Keene, Hillary Gittelman, We the undersigned have several concerns about the Citizen’s Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan, and are recommending remedies in order to provide trustworthy, fair, and broad community representation. 1. Dan Garber has both the appearance of and an actual material conflict of interest that makes him an inappropriate choice to serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee, particularly as its Chair, given that he recently worked for the city on design and planning issues for 27 University (the subject of a major Grand Jury report assailing the city's action), and stands to benefit professionally from decisions made by the CAC. Having those who work for the city then participate in citizen panels intended to be independent is the much- maligned "revolving door," which is illegal in many places. 2. Steve Levy is a paid advisor to ABAG and other government agencies and thus should not be on the Citizens’ Advisory Committee. He also frequently blogs on planning issues, which is a direct conflict of interest and also is likely to violate the Brown Act. 3. The CAC should have co-chairs who alternate leading the meetings rather than a chair and vice-chair. 4. The outcome of each meeting needs more transparency. The CAC Ground Rules state that “a brief summary of CAC meetings will be posted to the project website (www.paloaltocompplan.org) for any interested party to examine.” • Rather than a “brief summary,” full minutes should be provided within a week of the meeting so the public can understand and comment on the points discussed. • Minutes should also articulate dissenting as well as majority viewpoints and vote totals so that City Council will understand the challenges that the CAC addressed. • Ideally, meetings should be televised or at least taped and rebroadcast. 5. Public comments should be allowed at the beginning of and also before any vote at each meeting. To limit public comments to the end, AFTER decisions have been made or votes have been cast, ignores those attending who ask to have their viewpoints considered. And public comments should still be allowed at the end, so that any outstanding concerns that have not surfaced can be considered in following meetings. 6. Staff has stated they will allow anonymous online posts, but will not allow them to be seen by the CAC or the public. This is wrong: for staff to accept anonymous posts and not reveal the content publicly gives anonymous posters undue power to influence and distract staff. It diminishes the intention of the public forum, which is to support open conversation. No anonymous posts should be allowed. Also: • Is there a way to distinguish between Palo Alto residents and non-residents? • Can duplicate comments be identified? • Can the number of unique commentators be identified? 7. Open City Hall should not be the only way people can make comments. Email and letters should also be allowed. 8. The schedule seems overly rushed. Are all members of the CAC conversant on each section of the Comp Plan to be revised? Can 20+ people really cover all the land use issues in just 2 3-hour sessions? 9. The committee should be provided with high-level tools to analyze the impact of proposed policy changes on schools, traffic, parking, and the environment, such as Sim Palo Alto, so as to avoid wasting time discussing infeasible proposals. 10. There needs to be a better balance of people from north and south Palo Alto, as well as more representation from community groups other than Palo Alto Forward. City Council should have final approval of appointments. We can provide the names of several qualified persons. Note that the undersigned residents are in substantial agreement with the concerns expressed, although minor disagreements do exist. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/5/2015 1:19 PM - Sheri Furman, Midtown Cheryl Lilienstein, Barron Park Annette Glanckopf, Midtown Norm Beamer, Crescent Park Jeff Levinsky, Duvenek/St. Francis Peter Taskovich, Meadow Park Neilson Buchanan, Downtown North Tim Gray, Charleston Meadows Elaine Meyer, University South Mark Nadim, Palo Alto Hills Douglas Moran, Barron Park Becky Sanders, Ventura David Schrom, Evergreen Park Robin Bayer, Evergreen Park Joseph Hirsch, Barron Park CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: FROM: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER Agenda Item No. 26 AGENDA DATE: AUGUST 17, 2015 ID#: 6012 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) Several Council members have requested a copy of the qualifications council adopted to be used to select CAC members as well as a list of all of the applicants who were considered for appointment. These materials are attached and supplement those included in your packet of August 6th. Thank you. Attachment COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAC-LIST OF QUALIFICATIONS & APPLICANTS Proposal from the May 18, 2015 Staff Report (CMR #5782): The group shall consist of 17 voting members and 3 non-voting members representing PAUSD, the Planning & Transportation Commission, and Stanford. The 17 voting members "will be selected to ensure the group is representative of a diversity of community members including neighborhood, technical, and business perspectives. While all neighborhood representatives will be appointed 'at large' to represent the interests of the entire City, members will be appointed to ensure participation by residents from a variety of Palo Alto neighborhoods across the City. "Members will also be appointed to represent the interests of homeowners, renters, seniors, the disabled, businesses, Palo Alto parents and youth.. Non-residents may be members if needed to represent these interests or others desired as part of the group, which shall include those with interest/expertise related to the topics of: • Affordable housing • Natural resource conservation • Community health • Environmental sustainability • Real estate/development • Transportation and mobility • Architecture and urban design • Business & economics "The City Manager will select candidates needed to ensure the desired diversity of interests and expertise, and who meet the following additional qualifications: • .. • • Live or work in Palo Alto Have established connections and networks in the community, such as membership in an existing community organization, professional organization and/or local association, or have special expertise in one of the topics listed above Has energy and good ideas about the future of Palo Alto and a willingness to meet on a monthly basis Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively and effectively in a diverse group environment." Council Action/Adjustments, May 18, 2015: Approve the formation of a Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) representing diverse interests to assist with the Comprehensive Plan Update and direct the City Manager to solicit applications and appoint members of the Committee consistent with purpose and parameters recommended by Staff with additional requirements: Page 2 of 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAC-LIST OF QUALIFICATIONS & APPLICANTS a. Voting members must be Palo Alto residents; and b. Consideration for parents at a variety of schools and levels of education; and c. Individuals representing a wide variety of neighborhoods; and d. Add expertise in historic resources; and e. Add a retail business owner; and f. Favor participants that fit more than one interest I area of expertise; and g. Expand natural resources conservation category to include expertise in open space and habitat. . List of Applicants (appointed members shown in bold): NAME Kirsten A Joyce Beattie Justine Burt Emily Cao Tony Carrasco Rachel Croft Bill Daul Samina Faheem Mark Fleischmann James Fox Daniel Garber Curtis Golden Offir Gutelzon Michelle Haghpanah Ve red Hermannoff Kranz Hamilton Hitchings Terry Holzemer Mary Holzer John Hotson Jared Jacobs Kathy Johnson Alan C. Johnston Edie Keating Arthur Keller Shani Kleinhaus Lydia Kou Michelle Kraus Joseph Landers Stephen Levy NEIGHBORHOOD Ventura South Palo Alto Crescent Park South Palo Alto Green Meadow Southgate Addison Evergreen Midtown Fairmeadow Old Palo Alto Palo Verde Midtown Palo Verde Charleston Meadows Duve neck Mayfield/ Cal Ave Duveneck/Green Gables Old Palo Alto Evergreen Park Crescent Park University South South Palo Alto Adobe Meadow Adobe Meadow Barron Park Downtown Barron Park Downtown South Page 3 of 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAC-LIST OF QUALIFICATIONS & APPLICANTS NAME NEIGHBORHOOD Adina Levin N/A Clinton Lewis Adobe Meadow Marc Lewis Dwntwn/Univ. South Helen Li Palo Verde Cheryl Lilienstein Barron Park Lee Lippert Downtown North Victoria Liu College Terrace Drew Maran Professorville Karen Marincovich North Downtown Robert McDiamid Downtown Don McDougall Professorville Shannon McEntee Mayfield Robert McGrew N/A Bonnie Packer Palo Verde Christian Pease Evergreen Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Crescent Park Jackie Schoelerman Palo Verde/Midtown Sandra Slater Professorville Kevin Stern Midtown South Doria Summa College Terrace Amy Sung Green Gable /Duveneck Jason Titus Downtown North Elaine Uang Downtown North Ellen Uhrbrock University South Alex Van Riesen Midtown Judith Wasserman Leland Manor Bob Wenzlau Crescent Park Elizabeth Wong Old Palo Alto Daniel Zall es Palo Verde Mila Zelkha Fairmeadow Ex-Officio Members Heidi Emberling PAUSD Representative Adrian Fine PTC Representative Whitney McNair Stanford Representative Page 4 of 4 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 17, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual 2015 Conference The City Council should designate Council Member Pat Burt, Council Member Tom DuBois, or Council Member Cory Wolbach as a voting delegate, and up to two as alternate delegates, for the 2013 League of California Cities Annual Conference. BACKGROUND: The League’s 2015 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 30-October 2, 2015 in San Jose. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting scheduled for noon on Friday, October 2, at the San Jose Convention Center. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. The resolutions will be agendized for Council consideration prior to the conference. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must delegate a voting delegate and could appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. Attached please find correspondence received from the League of California Cities. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: League of Cities Voting Delegate (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6063) City Council Staff Report City of Palo Alto Page 1 Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/17/2015 Summary Title: Draft City of Palo Alto Transportation Funding Position Letter Title: Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Letter Regarding Palo Alto’s Position on New Funding For State and Local Transportation Infrastructure From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorizes the Mayor to sign a letter regarding the City of Palo Alto’s position on new funding for state and local transportation infrastructure. Executive Summary City of Palo Alto staff and the City’s state legislative advocate have been actively participating in various discussions in Sacramento related to the Legislature’s special session on transportation. During the week of August 10-14 the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the California Chamber of Commerce, and a select group of transportation advocacy and labor groups held a press conference to put forward their priorities for a transportation funding proposal. To a large extent, these priorities track closely with Senator Jim Beall’s SB 16 that was introduced this year, as well as with his companion bill in the Special Session, SBX 1X. Senator Beall’s legislation is focused on providing funding, in the range of $6 billion per year, for road maintenance and rehabilitation. While funding for public transit projects is currently not a part of any of the proposals, there is a significant movement by various groups to have some public transportation funding included; however, whether or not that happens is still very speculative. At this time there are a number of political issues related to the passage of a transportation funding proposal including what to include and what to leave out, the issue of tax increases, and demands that safeguards are in place to ensure that funding goes towards what it is intended to. Also worth noting, at this time it is a real possibility that to obtain the necessary Republican votes to pass a transportation funding proposal compromises may need to ITEM # 28 City of Palo Alto Page 2 be made that would ultimately lead to a reduction in the strength of certain elements of CEQA. The Legislature returns to Sacramento on Monday, August 17 to begin the final month of the 2015 legislative session. The Assembly Speaker’s Office is now working with the coalition mentioned above along with the “10 Big California Cities” mayors on the details of this proposal. Staff will present a draft letter to Council for the Mayor’s signature. This letter will outline eight position statements the City of Palo Alto believes any funding package should contain. Our City legislative advocate recommends the City lay out our priorities, rather than take a position on a specific proposal. Normally, the City comments on specific legislation once it is in draft form, but in this case waiting to do so may jeopardize the City’s ability to influence the legislation. Attachments: Attachment: Letter Attachment A - League of CA Cities Transportation Extraordinary Session Resolution_7-16-2015 (PDF) Attachment: Letter Attachment B - Fix Our Roads Coalition Letter_8-7-2015 (PDF) 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org A RESOLUTION URGING THE STATE TO PROVIDE NEW SUSTAINABLE FUNDING FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE WHEREAS, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. has called an extraordinary session to address the immense underfunding of California’s transportation infrastructure; and WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to the bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities has participated in efforts with the California State Association of Counties and California’s Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to study unmet funding needs for local roads and bridges, including sidewalks and other essential components; and WHEREAS, the resulting 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network’s condition and funding needs, indicates that the condition of the local transportation network is deteriorating as predicted in the initial 2008 study; and WHEREAS, the results show that California’s local streets and roads are on a path of significant decline. On a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average pavement condition index (PCI) is 66, placing it in the “at risk” category where pavements will begin to deteriorate much more rapidly and require rehabilitation or rebuilding rather than more cost-effective preventative maintenance if funding is not increased; and WHEREAS, if funding remains at the current levels, in 10 years, 25 percent of local streets and roads in California will be in “failed” condition; and WHEREAS, cities and counties need an additional $1.7 billion just to maintain a status quo pavement condition of 66, and much more revenue to operate the system with Best Management Practices, which would reduce the total amount of funding needed for maintenance in the future; and WHEREAS, models show that an additional $3 billion annual investment in the local streets and roads system is expected to improve pavement conditions statewide from an average “at risk” condition to an average “good” condition; and WHEREAS, if additional funding isn’t secured now, it will cost taxpayers twice as much to fix the local system in the future, as failure to act this year will increase unmet funding needs for local transportation facilities by $11 billion in five years and $21 billion in ten years; and WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system provides well-paying construction jobs and boosts local economies; and WHEREAS, the local street and road system is also critical for farm to market needs, interconnectivity, multimodal needs, and commerce; and WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to react quickly to emergency calls and a few minutes of delay can be a matter of life and death; and WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; and WHEREAS, in addition to the local system, the state highway system needs an additional $5.7 billion annually to address the state’s deferred maintenance; and WHEREAS, in order to bring the local system back into a cost-effective condition, at least $7.3 billion annually in new money going directly to cities and counties; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES strongly urges the Governor and Legislature to identity a sufficient and stable funding source for local street and road and state highway maintenance and rehabilitation to ensure the safe and efficient mobility of the traveling public and the economic vitality of California. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES strongly urges the Governor and Legislature to adopt the following priorities for funding California’s streets and roads. 1. Make a significant investment in transportation infrastructure. Any package should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually and should remain in place for at least 10 years or until an alternative method of funding our transportation system is agreed upon. 2. Focus on maintaining and rehabilitating the current system. Repairing California’s streets and highways involves much more than fixing potholes. It requires major road pavement overlays, fixing unsafe bridges, providing safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians, replacing storm water culverts, as well as operational improvements that necessitate the construction of auxiliary lanes to relieve traffic congestion choke points and fixing design deficiencies that have created unsafe merging and other traffic hazards. Efforts to supply funding for transit in addition to funding for roads should also focus on fixing the system first. 3. Equal split between state and local projects. We support sharing revenue for roadway maintenance equally (50/50) between the state and cities and counties, given the equally-pressing funding needs of both systems, as well as the longstanding historical precedent for collecting transportation user fees through a centralized system and sharing the revenues across the entire network through direct subventions. Ensuring that funding to local governments is provided directly, without intermediaries, will accelerate project delivery and ensure maximum accountability. 4. Raise revenues across a broad range of options. Research by the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation California shows that voters strongly support increased funding for transportation improvements. They are much more open to a package that spreads potential tax or fee increases across a broad range of options, including fuel taxes, license fees, and registration fees, rather than just one source. Additionally, any package should move California toward an all-users pay structure, in which everyone who benefits from the system contributes to maintaining it – from traditional gasoline-fueled vehicles, to new hybrids or electric vehicles, to commercial vehicles. 5. Invest a portion of diesel tax and/or cap & trade revenue to high-priority goods movement projects. While the focus of a transportation funding package should be on maintaining and rehabilitating the existing system, California has a critical need to upgrade the goods movement infrastructure that is essential to our economic well- being. Establishing a framework to make appropriate investments in major goods movement arteries can lay the groundwork for greater investments in the future that will also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 6. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers’ investment. Voters and taxpayers must be assured that all transportation revenues are spent responsibly. Local governments are accustomed to employing transparent processes for selecting road maintenance projects aided by pavement management systems, as well as reporting on the expenditure of transportation funds through the State Controller’s Local Streets and Roads Annual Report. 7. Provide Consistent Annual Funding Levels. Under current statute, the annual gas tax adjustment by the Board of Equalization is creating extreme fluctuations in funding levels -- a $900 million drop in this budget year alone. A transportation funding package should contain legislation that will create more consistent revenue projections and allow Caltrans and transportation agencies the certainty they need for longer term planning. While this change would not provide any new revenue to transportation, it would provide greater certainty for planning and project delivery purposes. ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2015. Stephany Aguilar, President Christopher McKenzie Council Member, City of Scotts Valley Executive Director August 7, 2015 Governor Jerry Brown Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff Assembly Minority Leader Kristin Olsen Re: Coalition Framework to Increase Funding for Transportation in Special Session Dear Governor Brown and California Legislative Leaders: Our organizations representing local government, business, labor and transportation advocates believe it is imperative that a legislative solution be reached during the special session that results in a robust and meaningful dent in California’s transportation funding shortfall. It is a critical issue that cannot wait to be addressed. Our roads continue to deteriorate as inadequate funding to deal with deficiencies creates safety hazards, costs motorists money and leaves Californians stuck in gridlock. Our broad coalition has come together in support of the following priorities and funding sources inextricably linked with accountability and reform measures, which we believe should be the basis for legislation addressing this critical issue for California. We urge you to support these priorities as you debate policies and funding sources for California’s streets and roads. 1. Make a significant investment in transportation infrastructure. If we are to make a meaningful dent that demonstrates tangible benefits to taxpayers and drivers, any package should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually and should remain in place for at least 10 years or until an alternative method of funding our transportation system is agreed upon. 2. Focus on maintaining and rehabilitating the current system. Repairing California’s streets and highways involves much more than fixing potholes. It requires major road pavement overlays, fixing unsafe bridges, providing safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians, replacing storm water culverts, as well as operational improvements that necessitate, among other things, the construction of auxiliary (More) lanes to relieve traffic congestion choke points and fixing design deficiencies that have created unsafe merging and other traffic hazards. Efforts to supply funding for transit in addition to funding for roads should also focus on fixing the system first. 3. Invest a portion of diesel tax and/or cap & trade revenue to high-priority goods movement projects. While the focus of a transportation funding package should be on maintaining and rehabilitating the existing system, California has a critical need to upgrade the goods movement infrastructure that is essential to our economic well-being. Establishing a framework to make appropriate investments in major goods movement arteries can lay the groundwork for greater investments in the future that will also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4. Raise revenues across a broad range of options. Research by the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation California shows that voters strongly support increased funding for transportation improvements. They are much more open to a package that spreads potential tax or fee increases across a broad range of options rather than just one source. Additionally, any package should move California toward an all-users pay structure in which everyone who benefits from the system contributes to maintaining it - from traditional gasoline-fueled vehicles, to hybrids, alternative fuel and electric vehicles, to commercial vehicles. Our coalition supports: Reasonable increases in: o Gasoline and diesel excise taxes. o Vehicle registration and vehicle license fees. Dedicating a portion of the cap and trade revenue paid by motorists at the pump to transportation projects that reduce greenhouse emissions. Ensuring existing transportation revenues are invested in transportation- related purposes (i.e. truck weight fees and fuel taxes for off-road vehicles that are currently being diverted into the general fund). User charge for electric and other non-fossil fuel powered vehicles that currently do not contribute to road upkeep. 5. Equal split between state and local projects. We support sharing revenue for roadway maintenance equally (50/50) between the state and cities and counties. Funding to local governments should be provided directly (no intermediaries) to accelerate projects and ensure maximum accountability. 6. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers’ investment. Voters and taxpayers must be assured that all transportation revenues are spent responsibly. Authorizing legislation should: (More) Constitutionally protect transportation revenues for transportation infrastructure only. Time and again (Prop 42, 2002; Prop 1A, 2006; Prop 22, 2010), voters have overwhelmingly supported dedicating and constitutionally protecting transportation dollars for those purposes. We strongly support protections that prohibit using transportation dollars for other purposes. Repay existing transportation loans and end ongoing diversions of transportation revenues, including approximately $850 million in loans to the general fund and the annual loss of approximately $140 million in off- highway vehicle fuel taxes. Establish performance and accountability criteria to ensure efficient and effective use of all funding. All tax dollars should be spent properly, and recipients of new revenues should be held accountable to the taxpayers, whether at the state or local level. Counties and cities should adopt project lists at public hearings and report annually to the State Controller’s Office regarding all transportation revenues and expenditures. Local governments should also commit to ensuring any new revenues supplement revenues currently invested in transportation projects. Both Caltrans and local governments can demonstrate and publicize the benefits associated with new transportation investments. Caltrans reform and oversight. To increase Caltrans effectiveness, provide stronger oversight by the state transportation commission of the programs funded by new revenues and establish an Inspector General office to provide accountability. Reduce Caltrans administrative budgets through efficiency reviews with all savings to be spent on road improvements. Expedite project delivery. More should be done to streamline project delivery, including but not limited to: o Establishing timelines for actions required by state agencies and eliminating other permit delays. o Increased implementation of alternative delivery systems that encourage more investment from the private sector. o Reforms to speed project completion. 7. Provide Consistent Annual Funding Levels. Under current statute, the annual gas tax adjustment by the Board of Equalization is creating extreme fluctuations in funding levels -- a $900 million drop in this budget year alone. A transportation funding package should contain legislation that will create more consistent revenue projections and allow Caltrans and transportation agencies the certainty they need for longer term planning. While this change would not provide any new revenue to transportation, it would provide greater certainty for planning and project delivery purposes. We believe these priorities represent a solution to begin to address our transportation funding shortfalls, resulting in real projects at both the state and local level. We look forward to working with you over the coming weeks as a transportation package is finalized. (More) Sincerely, Jim Earp Executive Consultant California Alliance for Jobs Matt Cate Executive Director California State Association of Counties Chris McKenzie Executive Director League of California Cities Cesar Diaz Legislative Director State Building and Construction Trades Council of California Bob Alvarado Executive Officer Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Oscar De La Torre Business Manager Northern California District Council of Laborers Russ Burns Business Manager Operating Engineers Local 3 Brad Diede Executive Director American Council of Engineering Companies - California Dave Sorem President Engineering Contractors Association Mark Watts Interim Executive Director Transportation California Allan Zaremberg President and CEO California Chamber of Commerce Robert Lapsley President California Business Roundtable Rex Hime President and CEO California Business Properties Association Richard Lyon Senior Vice President California Building Industry Association Gary W. Hambly President and CEO California Construction and Industrial Materials Association Tom Holsman CEO Associated General Contractors of California Gary Toebben President and CEO Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce James Camp President NAIOP CA, The Commercial Real Estate Development Association Chuck Shaw Western Regional Director International Council of Shopping Centers Mark Breslin CEO United Contractors Lucy Dunn President and CEO Orange County Business Council (More) Carl Guardino President and CEO Silicon Valley Leadership Group Jerry Barton Chair California Rural Counties Task Force Bill Higgins Executive Director California Association of Councils of Governments Lisa Davey-Bates Chair North State Super Region Paul Smith Senior Legislative Advocate Rural County Representatives of California Mike Ghilotti President Ghilotti Bros., Inc. James Halloran Manager, State Government Affairs – Western Region Caterpillar Daryl K. Halls Executive Director Solano Transportation Authority Dan Himick Director C.C. Myers, Inc. Mike Fuller CEO Mountain Cascade Craig Anderson Director Solar Turbines Steve Clark Vice President, Labor Relations Granite Construction Co. Rich Gates President DeSilva Gates Construction