Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-05-16 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. May 16, 2016 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 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 6:00-7:00 PM 1. Prescreening of a Proposed District Map Amendment (“Rezone”) From Planned Community (PC) Zoning District to Downtown Commercial (CD-C (P)) Zoning District at 550 Hamilton Avenue Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:25-7:30 PM 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the May 2, 2016 Council Meeting 2 May 16, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Consent Calendar 7:30-7:35 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Staff Recommendation That the City Council Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase a Portion of the City’s Natural Gas Requirements From Certain Prequalified Natural Gas Suppliers Under Specified Terms and Conditions During Calendar Years 2016 Through 2022, Inclusive, With a $100 Million Maximum Aggregate Transaction Limit; and Adopt an Ordinance Repealing Ordinance Number 4936, the Council's Prior Authorization for Natural Gas Purchases 4. Approval of a Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $3,980,143 for the FY 2016 Asphalt Paving, Capital Improvements Program Project PE-86070 5. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File an Application for 2016/2017 Transportation Development Act Funds in the Amount of $203,463 for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 6. Approval of Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Contract With MNS Engineers, Inc./GHD, Inc. for a Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $325,875, for Partner Funding Agreements With the Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Mountain View, and a Budget Amendment in the Wastewater Treatment Fund 7. Approval of a Contract Amendment With SoftwareOne, Inc., (Formerly CompuCom Systems, Inc.,) in the Amount of $179,028 for Annual Microsoft Licensing True-Up, $39,119 for Additional Office 365 Licenses and $17,903 for a Contract Contingency - Contract Number C12144913 8. Approval of a Vehicle Lease and Purchase Option With Altec Capital in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $602,847 for two Model Year 2017 Articulating Aerial Device Bucket Trucks and Approval of Budget Amendments in the Electric Fund and Vehicle Equipment and Replacement Fund 9. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C14150694 in the Amount of $1,019,123 With Mark Thomas & Company for Final Design Services for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, Capital Improvements Program Project (PE-13011), and Approve a Budget Amendments in the Capital Fund and Developer Impact Fee Fund 3 May 16, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 10. Preliminary Approval of the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 2016 in Connection With the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District and Adoption of a Resolution Declaring its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2017 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on June 6, 2016 at 6:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:35-8:35 PM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and Adopt an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Sections 12.32.010 (Water Use Restrictions) and 12.32.020 (Enforcement) 8:35-10:45 PM 12. Direction on the Fifth Scenario Proposed for Analysis in the Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Approval of Amendment Number 5 to Placeworks Contract Number C08125506 for the Analysis, and Approval of a Related Budget Appropriation Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 May 16, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings SP. Finance Committee May 17, 2016 6:00 PM Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Proclamation Recognizing National Public Works Week May 15-21, 2016 Storm Drain Oversight Committee Review of FY 2015 Storm Drainage Fund Expenditures City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Report for the First and Second Quarters of Fiscal Year 2016 Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6822) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 550 Hamilton Avenue: Prescreening for Zone Change Title: Prescreening of a Proposed District Map Amendment (“Rezone”) From Planned Community (PC) Zoning District to Downtown Commercial (CD-C (P)) Zoning District at 550 Hamilton Avenue From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a prescreening review and provide comments regarding the applicant’s request to rezone the subject property from its existing PC-2545 zoning designation to a CD-C (P) zoning designation. No formal Council action is required at this time. Executive Summary The applicant seeks preliminary feedback from the City Council concerning a proposal to rezone 550 Hamilton Avenue from a PC zoning designation to a CD-C (P). A prescreening review is required for this type of legislative change prior to application submittal. The project also includes the demolition of existing office building improvements and construction of a new mixed-use development. Table 1. Summary of Existing & Proposed Development at 550 Hamilton Avenue Existing Development Preliminary Proposal Net Change Site Size 57,500 sq. ft. 57,500 sq. ft. 0 Zoning Designation PC-2545 CD-C(P) N/A Approx. Building Height 56 feet 50 feet -6 feet Approx. Office Square Footage 43,272 sq. ft. 57,475 sq. ft. 14,203 sq. ft. Residential Square Footage 0 57,292 sq. ft. 57,292 sq. ft. Total Building Square Footage 43,272 sq. ft. 114,767 sq. ft. 71,495 sq. ft. Total Off-Street Parking 115 spaces 297 spaces 182 spaces Number of Dwelling Units 0 TBD (35-50) TBD (35-50) Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, May 2016 Background City of Palo Alto Page 2 The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street and is currently zoned as a Planned Commercial (PC) zoning designation. The parcel is 1.3 acres located just outside of the Downtown Parking Assessment District and the Office Annual Growth interim ordinance boundary. The property is relatively flat and has 300 feet of frontage along Hamilton Avenue and 200 feet of frontage along Webster Street. There are mature redwood and oak trees on the property, which would either require removal and replacement or preservation through a redesign of the proposed site plan. The property was developed in 1971 with a three-story, 56-foot tall office building with approximately 43,000 square foot. There is a 115 space surface parking lot accessed from Webster Street and Hamilton Avenue. The project was entitled using the City’s Planned Community zoning process. The property was zoned from R4 and CS-2:S to the PC zoning. There were no identified community benefits stated in the adopting ordinance. Properties to the north across Hamilton Avenue are developed with office use in the CD-C (P) zone and a two-story, multiple unit residential structure in the RM-40 zone at the Northwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. Also the First United Methodist Church is located directly to the Northeast on the Corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. Across Webster Street to the Southeast are primarily one-story residential structures located in the RM-30 zone. Directly adjacent to the parking lot and to the south is a mix of residential structures in the RM-30 zone. Along the southwest property line there is a mix of developments in a PC zone, such as a 12-story residential structure and office uses in the CD-C-(P) zone. Project Description The applicant seeks to rezone the property from a PC zoning designation to a CD-C (P) zoning designation. The CD district is the commercial downtown district and the C designation is a ‘community’ subdistrict. The P designation is to establish a pedestrian shopping combining district. The proposed zoning is consistent with other properties along Hamilton Avenue to the southwest. Proposed is a new 57,475 sf office building, resulting in a net increase in office space of 14,203 sf. The project also includes a new 57,292 sf residential building with an identified range of 35 to 50 dwelling units separated from the office building by an at-grade courtyard. The applicant indicates a tract map would be processed to create condominium units. As ownership units, the project would be subject to the City’s affordable housing program, which requires 15% of the units to be dedicated to below market housing. Both buildings would be served by a two-level, 297 space subterranean parking garage, accessed from Hamilton Avenue. The new ramp to the subterranean garage would be located in close proximity to the existing driveway access from Hamilton Avenue, while the two existing driveway ingress and egress points along Webster Street would be closed off and replaced with a new curb, street trees, and sidewalk. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 3 The subject site is a relatively flat parcel and approximately 57,500 sf in size, with dimensions of 300 feet along Hamilton Avenue and 200 feet along Webster Avenue. The parcel is developed with a 43,272 sf professional office building covering approximately 25% of the existing parcel. The remainder of the parcel is open to the sky and is used for surface parking. Throughout the surface parking lot, several mature redwood trees are present. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of residential uses, including one-story, single-unit dwellings and two-story, multiple unit dwellings, a religious institution, and commercial uses including professional office. Although the residential zoning in the surrounding area is medium to high density housing, many properties, especially those along the east side of the Webster Street, from Hamilton Avenue to Forest Street, are not built to the maximum allowable zoning standards including height and density. Many of the homes along Webster Avenue are potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, but are not listed on the Historic Inventory. Parcel sizes in the immediate vicinity range from 3,750 sf to 25,000 sf. with frontages between 45 feet and 100 feet. The subject parcel is roughly two times larger than the largest lot in the area and has longer frontage dimensions on both Hamilton Avenue and Webster Avenue than any of the nearby parcels. The existing lot size, combined with the fact that the lot is only developed with a 25% building lot coverage, would alter the neighborhood context if the property were fully redeveloped. Redevelopment would result in a much different visual environment from the current development pattern with properties along Webster Avenue being more impacted by the loss of mature redwood trees and proposed residential building. Homes adjacent to Webster Avenue include a mix of one and two story homes ranging from 16 to 23 feet in height. District Map Amendment To implement the project, the applicant would file formal applications to both rezone the property and to redevelop the site with a mix of office space and residential units. The applicant believes that the proposed CD-C (P) zoning would be appropriate given the zoning of surrounding properties, which are primarily CD-C (P), RM-30, and RM-40. The proposed CD-C (P) zoning would set forth the requisite development standards such as height, floor area ratio, setbacks, building articulation, daylight plane requirements, and landscaping coverage. The subject property is proposed to be rezoned to a commercial use and is located within 150 feet of residential uses. Typically, such conditions would restrict the height of the building to 40 feet. This is illustrated on the city’s zoning map with the hatched area shown below. However, the CD-C mixed use development standards includes an exception to this condition, which allows the height to extend up to 50 feet if the property abuts a residential Planned Community District (PAMC 18.18.060 (b) Table 3, Footnote 4), also illustrated below. The abutting PC zoned property (PC-2130) is a 118 unit residential building. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The floor area ratio would be 2.0:1, with no more than a 1.0:1 ratio for the residential component. However, as the Council has previously discussed on other projects, these standards represent maximum potential, which may not be achieved based on required project findings. Figure 1. Zoning Map Showing Subject Parcel and Surrounding Parcels Source: City of Palo Alto, May 2016 If Council does not support the idea of the proposed rezone, the applicant could request an amendment to the existing PC development approval, thereby allowing for the creation of specific development standards in response to the proposed site plan, building orientation, mix of uses, and intensity of the proposed development. While the City Council is not considering any new PC zoning applications, the opportunity to amend existing PC zoned properties was not precluded from the Council’s earlier deliberations on the matter. City Council Prescreening Considerations The preliminary schematic drawings are somewhat vague but communicate a concept plan as is appropriate for this stage of project consideration. However, it may be difficult understand overall mass and scale from a neighborhood context perspective, particularly along Webster Avenue. On Webster Avenue there is a mix of one and two story homes and multifamily residential ranging from 16 to 23 feet in height. The maximum permitted height limit if these properties were redeveloped would be 35 feet. It is unclear from the applicant’s drawings what the contemplated height would be along Webster Avenue, though it appears there is some setback shown on the section drawing. Another area of concern along Webster Avenue is the length of building frontage toward that street. This large of a building along Webster Avenue reflects a different development pattern Subject Property: 550 Hamilton City of Palo Alto Page 5 than exists on the other side of the street and along the block. Creating a transition in scale that balances a future development on the subject property to the existing neighborhood context and development potential of those properties along with the city’s expressed interest in providing additional housing units are some of the opportunities to explore during the prescreening discussion. Further, the loss of the existing redwood trees as a result of a future development should be explored and consideration given to providing a planting depth that can support future mature trees, which may affect the subterranean parking plan. If the project moves forward, it is anticipated there would be further discussion regarding the courtyard concept plan as well as enhancing pedestrian-orientation from a building design and land use perspective. Community members will likely be concerned about the physical changes to the area. While this is not a reason not to consider a future development, the City Council does have broad discretion as this project moves through the entitlement process, which requires a legislative change for which the Council can exercise its full discretion. Moreover, any future amendment of the PC zoning, if that were pursued, would also be subject to a legislative action by the Council. In this regard, it would be most helpful to the community and applicant if the Council were able to provide guidance as to the expectation of any future development. It is anticipated the Council will also hear concerns from the public regarding a future project as it relates to the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District; unit density; architectural style; net increase in office development; traffic and parking impacts; and, a need for consideration of construction-related impacts. Webster Avenue is a recognized and encouraged school route to and from Addison Elementary School. These and other considerations are welcome discussion points during the prescreening discussion. Comprehensive Plan Policies The subject property is located in the Regional/Community Commercial Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the Regional/Community Commercial land use designation is intended to “allow larger shopping centers and districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village, and University Avenue/Downtown. Non-residential floor area ratios range from 0.35 to 2”. While this site is not proposed to be developed at the scale of a major shopping center, several Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to the site and the neighborhood including, but not limited to: Land Use Policy L-5 Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Land Use Policy L-6 Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas City of Palo Alto Page 6 of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. which indicates to avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities, Land Use Policy L-12 Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Land Use Policy L-14 Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. Housing Policy H1.4 Ensure that new developments provide appropriate transitions from higher density development to single-family and low-density residential districts to preserve neighborhood character. Housing Policy H2.1 Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. Housing Policy H2.2 Continue to support the redevelopment of suitable lands for mixed uses containing housing to encourage compact, infill development. Optimize the use of existing urban services, and support transit use. Housing Program H2.2.7 Explore requiring minimum residential densities to encourage more housing instead of office space when mixed-use sites develop, and adopt standards as appropriate. Housing Policy H3.1 Encourage, foster, and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low-low-, and moderate income households. Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Program Guideline On October 26, 2015, Council adopted Ordinance 5357 to implement an annual limit on Office/R&D development. The annual limit was adopted on an interim basis for two years and expires November 26, 2017. This limit requires that no more than 50,000 gross square feet of new Office/R&D development can be approved within a given fiscal year in a subset of the City shown in Attachment A and adopted as Exhibit A of Ordinance 5357, shown below. City of Palo Alto Page 7 The current proposal would add just over 14,000 new square feet of office space, however the subject property is located just outside the office growth boundary. Absent any change to the interim ordinance, development of this site would proceed outside of this regulatory framework. However, the Council in its review of a future application for legislative action would have broad discretion to act on the proposal, and could simultaneously modify the interim office growth boundary to include the site or address concerns related future office development another way. Next Steps Following the prescreening review, the applicant will consider options and determine how they want to proceed. Formal applications and public hearings before the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council would be required to advance the proposed conceptual project. Environmental Review This prescreening is a preliminary review process in which Councilmembers may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required at this time. A full review under CEQA would be initiated with the formal filing of a development application. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant's Request letter (PDF) Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) 120-04-032 120-04-014 120-03-036 120-04-083 120-04-037 120-03-061 120-04-031 120-04-025 120-03-059 120-03-055 120-04-067 120-04-022 120-04-109 003-32-089 120-04-076 120-04-075 120-04-074 120-04-003 120-04-028 120-04-023 120-03-065 120-03-062 120-04-002 120-16-009 120-04-024 120-04-026 120-04-006 120-04-008 120-03-060 120-03-057 120-03-038 120-03-041 003-32-025 120-04-104 120-04-103 120-54-009 120-54-010 DowninHo CowperInn First United Methodist Church Alain Pinel Realtor HA MILTO N AVENUE C O W PER STREET FOR EST AVENUE W EBSTER STRE ET W EBSTER STREET C O W H O M ER AVENUE BYRO N STREET W EBSTER STR EET MIDDLEFIELD ROA D HAMILTON AVENUE FOREST AVENUE LANE 39 PC-2130CD-C (P) 3007RM- 40 PC- 2545 RM-40 PC-3995 PC-4173 RM-30 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Zone District Labels 0'148' 550 Hamilton Avenue CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto jgerhar, 2016-05-04 14:13:29 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Site Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Hardcopies to Council members and Libraries only Project plans can be reviewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52215 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 16, 2016 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the May 2, 2016 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 05-02-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting May 2, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:09 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Study Session 1. Safe Routes to School 10-year Anniversary Update. Special Orders of the Day 2. Proclamation of the City Council Honoring Kathy Durham. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to hear Agenda Item Number 9- Finance Committee Recommends Adoption… after Agenda Item Number 12- Colleagues' Memo From Council Members… MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the April 18, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to approve the Action Minutes for the April 18, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/2/16 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-7. 4. Approval of the Final Fire Insurance Settlement and Payment to Frank Benest for his Ownership Interest for Property Located at 2257 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California and Approval an Amendment to the Budget in the General Fund. 5. Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number C15159225 in the Amount of $60,000 With Municipal Resource Group for Council Appointed Officers Evaluations to add Services and Increase the Total Amount Not-to-Exceed From $123,000 to $183,000. 6. Approval of a Contract for the Joint Purchase, Maintenance and use of a Tractor Drawn Trailer Aerial Ladder Truck With the City of Mountain View Fire, With a Purchase Amount Not-to-exceed $630,543. 7. Review and Approve Walk and Roll Maps for Addison, El Carmelo, Fairmeadow, Hoover, JLS Middle, Jordan Middle, Nixon, Palo Alto High, Walter Hays Public Schools and the Monroe Park Neighborhood. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 12. Colleagues' Memo From Council Members DuBois, Filseth, Holman and Schmid Regarding the Creation of an Evergreen Parking Permit Program. Council Member Kniss advised she will not participate in this Agenda Item because she owns real property near the proposed Parking Permit Program. Council Member Kniss left the meeting at 6:22 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to continue this Agenda Item to May 9, 2016, to be included with Agenda Item Number 10- Direction to Staff Regarding Implementation Priority… DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/2/16 MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss not participating 9. Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of the 2016-17 Action Plan and Associated 2016-17 Funding Allocations and Resolution 9583 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Consistent With the Finance Committee’s Recommendation.” Council Member Kniss returned to the meeting at 6:45 P.M. Council Member Schmid advised he will not be participating in this Agenda Item due to the fact that one of his family members works for an agency that receives Community Development Block Grant funds from the City. Council Member Schmid left the meeting at 6:48 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Adopt a Resolution allocating Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding as recommended in the draft 2016/2017 Action Plan and as described in the Staff Report; and B. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the 2016/2017 CDBG Application and 2016/2017 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the Application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; and C. Direct Staff to submit the 2016/2017 Action Plan to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the May 15, 2016 deadline. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid not participating 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 202 Homes Within the Royal Manor Tract Number 1556 by Amending the Zoning Map to Re-Zone the Area From R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1 (7,000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000)(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. The Proposed Royal Manor Single Story Overlay Rezoning Boundary DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/2/16 Includes 202 Properties Addressed as Follows: Even Numbered Addresses on Loma Verde Avenue, Addresses 984-1058; Even and Odd-Numbered Greer Road Addresses, 3341-3499; Even and Odd-Numbered Kenneth Drive Addresses, 3301-3493; Even and Odd-Numbered Janice Way Addresses, 3407 to 3498; Even and Odd-Numbered Thomas Drive addresses, 3303-3491; Odd-Numbered Addresses on Stockton Place, 3315-3395; and Odd-Numbered Louis Road Addresses, 3385 to 3465. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15305. (Continued from April 18, 2016). Council Member Schmid returned to the meeting at 6:53 P.M. Council Member Wolbach advised he would not be participating in this Agenda Item because he owns real property within the proposed Single-Story Overlay District. Council Member Schmid advised he would not be participating in this Agenda Item because he owns real property within the proposed Single-Story Overlay District. Council Members Schmid and Wolbach left the meeting at 6:54 P.M. Public Hearing continued from April 18, 2016. Public Hearing closed at 8:06 P.M. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Direct Staff to return to Council with an evaluation of an Eichler zone or strengthening the Individual Review (IR) Guidelines to incorporate Eichler compatibility where appropriate, and depending on the context of the lot, make allowance for: i. Second stories; and ii. Adjustments to setbacks; and iii. Possibly other accommodations; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/2/16 B. Adopt an interim Single Story Overlay District (SSO) for one year to return for potential renewal if the Eichler zone discussion is not completed. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Parts A and B, “zone” with “overlay.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return to Council with options regarding the petition and voting process.” (New Part C) Motion split for the purpose of voting. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part C, “for SSOs and overlays.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “design and privacy” after “incorporated Eichler.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part A, “an evaluation” with “a preliminary evaluation.” MOTION PARTS A AND C RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Direct Staff to return to Council with a preliminary evaluation of an Eichler overlay or strengthening the Individual Review (IR) Guidelines to incorporate Eichler design and privacy compatibility where appropriate, and depending on the context of the lot, make allowance for: iv. Second stories; and v. Adjustments to setbacks; and vi. Possibly other accommodations; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/2/16 C. Direct Staff to return to Council with options regarding the petition and voting process for SSOs and overlays. MOTION PARTS A AND C AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Schmid, Wolbach not participating MOTION PART B RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: B. Adopt an interim Ordinance establishing a Single Story Overlay District (SSO) for one year to return for potential renewal if the Eichler overlay discussion is not completed. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion Part B, “interim.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part B, “up to” after “(SSO) for.” MOTION PART B RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: B. Adopt an Ordinance establishing a Single Story Overlay District (SSO) for up to one year to return for potential renewal if the Eichler overlay discussion is not completed. MOTION PART B AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-4 DuBois, Holman, Kniss yes, Schmid, Wolbach not participating Council took a break from 9:30 P.M. to 9:40 P.M. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Updates to the Energy Reach Code: an Ordinance Repealing and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt the 2016 California Energy Code, Title 24, Chapter 6, of the California Code of Regulations, and Local Amendments. Council Members Schmid and Wolbach returned to the meeting at 9:40 P.M. Public Hearing opened at 10:34 P.M. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/2/16 Public Hearing closed at 10:39 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to adopt an Ordinance repealing and restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to adopt and amend the 2016 California Energy Code, Title 24, Chapter 6, of the California Code of Regulations. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 11. Receipt of First Poll Results on Possible Local Transportation Funding Tax Measure and Direction to Staff. MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to refer this to the Local Transportation Funding Committee to work with Staff and the pollster to develop a second set of questions and conduct outreach with stakeholders. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Kniss reported on the distribution of letters by bay area refinery workers relating to her role as Vice Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board. The letters pertained to a proposed rule regulating pollution generated by refineries. The Board has adopted the rule. She explained that this rule follows California regulations, which are stricter than those of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Council Member Wolbach reported his attendance at a Project Sentinel event this past Tuesday. He announced he spent last Wednesday in Sacramento with the City’s lobbyist, Niccolo De Luca, Townsend Public Affairs, speaking with numerous government officials. Mayor Burt reported his attendance at the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation’s 45th Anniversary Celebration. He also attended the Water Conservation Walk and Roll event on Saturday. He announced that Caltrain Policy Maker Committee, on which he serves, will be taking a larger part in setting the DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/2/16 agenda for its meetings. The Committee will begin making advisory motions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain). He reported that the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) received bids for the San Francisco Bay-Highway 101 project. The bids came in $3.5 million more than anticipated by the JPA. Part of this additional cost was attributed to the discovery of Clapper Rail birds along the creek. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:19 A.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6802) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Purchase Natural Gas Title: Staff Recommendation That the Council Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase a Portion of the City’s Natural Gas Requirements From Certain Prequalified Natural Gas Suppliers Under Specified Terms and Conditions During Calendar Years 2016 Through 2022, Inclusive, With a $100 Miliion Maximum Aggregate Transaction Limit; and Adopt an Ordinance Repealing Ordinance Number 4936, the Council's Prior Authorization for Natural Gas Purchases From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the attached resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager or his designee to purchase a portion of the City’s natural gas requirements from certain prequalified natural gas suppliers under specified terms and conditons (“Master Agreements”) during calendar years 2016 through 2022, inclusive, subject to the following limitations: a. The date for natural gas delivery for each transaction shall not exceed 36 months from the date the transaction is executed; b. The delivery date for any transaction shall not extend beyond December 2022; c. The maximum aggregate transaction limit under each Master Agreement shall be $100 million; d. All transactions are subject to the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and e. All transactions are subject to the City’s Energy Risk Management Policy, Guidelines and Procedures; and 2. Repeal Ordinance 4936 which authorized the City Manager to purchase a portion of the City’s natural gas requirements from certain prequalified natural gas suppliers under specified terms and conditions during calendar years 2007-2022, inclusive. (Attachment B) City of Palo Alto Page 2 Executive Summary An active set of creditworthy counterparties is essential to ensure that the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“City”) meets its obligation to meet customers’ natural gas demands. In 2007, via Ordinance 4936, Council authorized the City Manager to transact with a set of prequalified natural gas suppliers for the purchase and sale of natural gas via North American Energy Standards Board, Inc. Contracts (“NAESB Contracts”, or “Master Agreements”. Ordinance 4936 authorized the City Manager to transact with those counterparties under specified terms and conditions including a maximum expenditure of $65 million per Master Agreement. An increase in the $65 million maximum expenditure is needed to continue to purchase natural gas for the City’s retail load. Adopting the proposed resolution will realign the City Manager’s authority with the current set of counterparties and establish adequate expenditure limits. Repealing Ordinance 4936 and instead completing the proposed actions via resolution streamlines the City’s administrative process as well. Staff will seek Council approval prior to execution of any transaction outside of the above limitations. Counterparties with valid gas Master Agreements include: 1. BP Energy Company; 2. ConocoPhillips Company 3. Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C. 4. Powerex Corp; and 5. Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. Background Approved Counterparties In 2007, Council approved a set of gas Master Agreements (via adoption of Ordinance 4936) enabling the City to transact for natural gas and gas-related products. The approved Master Agreements were with the following counterparties: 1. BP Energy Company; 2. Coral Energy Resources, L.P.; 3. Sempra Energy Trading Corporation; 4. ConocoPhillips Company; 5. J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation; and 6. Powerex Corporation. Between 2007 and 2015, Coral Energy Resources, L.P. merged into parent company Shell Energy North America U.S. L.P., and Sempra Energy Trading Corporation was sold to J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, which was then sold to Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C. The current set of counterparties includes: 1. BP Energy Company; 2. ConocoPhillips Company 3. Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C. 4. Powerex Corp; and 5. Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Expenditure Limits On April 19, 2012, Council adopted Resolution 9244 amending the Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation Plan to discontinue the laddering purchase strategy and implement gas supply rates that change monthly according to market prices as noted in Staff Report 2552. With the exception of a few de minimis fixed-price transactions executed in the summer months to monetize excess pipeline capacity, all transactions are priced at the short-term monthly and daily market indices. Therefore, the City does not have any exposure to market price changes and does not have a need to diversify purchases across multiple counterparties to minimize credit risk. Under Ordinance 4936, Council delegated authority to the City Manager to transact under Master agreements subject to certain conditions and restrictions including a $65 million expenditure limit applied to each Master Agreement. Only two of the City’s counterparties, Shell and Mercuria, are active bidders for the City’s index-based purchases, and only $7.5 million out of the $65 million approved expenditure remains for Mercuria as of February 29, 2016. Discussion All transactions under the Master Agreements will be executed by staff in accordance with the Council-approved Energy Risk Management Policy, and internally-approved Energy Risk Management Guidelines and Procedures. Council is provided with an update of all executed transactions under the Master Agreements in the quarterly Energy Risk Management reports. The cost of natural gas purchased under the Master Agreements is a function of market prices and the City’s actual gas use. The City’s expected gas commodity cost is $8.3 million in fiscal year (FY) 2017 and is forecasted to increase to $12.6 million by FY 2025, however gas prices are volatile and unpredictable and actual costs incurred and passed through to ratepayers could be different. While the City has five enabled gas suppliers, it is likely that most transactions will be executed with the two suppliers that have been most active over the past several years. Staff recommends a maximum transaction limit of $100 million for each Master Agreement. This increased limit will leave enough headroom, under the most heavily used contract, for an estimated five years of gas purchases. Efforts are underway to expand the number of counterparties enabled under gas Master Agreements. Any new Master Agreements will be presented to Council for approval with recommended conditions and restrictions including a maximum expenditure limit for each Master Agreement. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Alternatives Council could elect to approve different expenditure limits, however lower limits could reduce staff’s ability achieve the lowest cost for gas supplies. Resource Impact Approval of the recommendation will not impact the FY 2016 budget nor the FY 2017 proposed budget request. Policy Implications Authorizing the City Manager to buy and sell natural gas to meet load obligations under the Master Agreements conforms to existing Council-approved Energy Risk Management Policy and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Further, the recommendation is consistent with the Council- approved GULP Objectives and Utilities Strategic Plan objective to manage supply cost by negotiating supply contracts to minimize financial risk. Environmental Review Council’s authorization for the City Manager to purchase natural gas from prequalified suppliers does not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus environmental review is not required. Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Repealing Gas NAESB Authority (PDF) Attachment B: Resolution Extending Authority for Master Agreements (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 160414 jb 6053732 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Ordinance No. 4936, Which Authorized the City Manager to Purchase a Portion of the City’s Natural Gas Requirements from Certain Prequalified Natural Gas Suppliers Under Specified Terms and Conditions During Calendar Years 2007-2022, Inclusive The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On March 12, 2007, the City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to purchase a portion of the City’s natural gas requirements from certain prequalified natural gas suppliers under specified terms and conditions during calendar years 2007-2022, inclusive, with a maximum expenditure limit of $65 million in for each Master Agreement. B. Since Council’s approval of Ordinance No. 4936, two counterparties, Shell Energy North America (U.S.) L.P., and Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C., have been active bidders for the City’s index-based gas purchases, and only $7.5 million of the approved $65 million expenditure limit remains for Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C. as of February 29, 2016. An increase in the maximum expenditure limit is needed to continue to purchase natural gas for the City’s retail load. C. The Council intends to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase natural gas from one or more pre-qualified suppliers for delivery during calendar years 2016 through 2022, inclusive, so long as the supplier with whom the City negotiates a specific purchase transaction continues to be qualified and otherwise eligible to transact with the City. Increasing the expenditure limit will provide for an estimated five years of gas purchases. D. Implementing this change via Council’s approval of a resolution rather than an ordinance, as was done in prior years, will streamline the City’s administrative processes. Therefore, staff recommends that Council repeal Ordinance 4936, and instead adopt a resolution to be recommended for Council approval on May 16, 2016, outlining the terms and conditions under which the City Manager can purchase a portion of the City’s natural gas requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Ordinance 4936, Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase a Portion of the City's Natural Gas Requirements from Certain Prequalified Natural Gas Suppliers under Specified Terms and Conditions During Calendar Years 2007 Through 2022, Inclusive is repealed in its entirety. ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED 160414 jb 6053732 2 SECTION 2. The Council hereby finds and determines that the repeal of this Ordinance does not constitute a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus no California Environmental Quality Act assessment is required. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day after its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 160414 jb 6053733 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase a Portion of the City’s Natural Gas Requirements from Certain Prequalified Natural Gas Suppliers Under Specified Terms and Conditions during Calendar Years 2016 through 2022, Inclusive RECITALS A. On April 19, 2012, the Council adopted Resolution #9244 amending the Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP) Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation Plan to discontinue the laddering purchase strategy and implement gas supply rates that change monthly according to market prices, as described in Staff Report #2552. B. In accordance with GULP, the City must purchase and, incidental to purchases, sell gas to meet the needs of its gas customers by contracting for terms varying from less than one month to one month. The City's Energy Risk Management Policies, described in Staff Report #5026, provide that the City will purchase only that quantity of gas meeting its load requirements at the time a transaction is executed. C. By Ordinance No. 4936, adopted March 12, 2007, Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and sign new, amended, or restated North American Energy Standards Board, Inc. contracts (each a “NAESB Contract” or “Master Agreement”) with BP Energy Company, Coral Energy Resources, L.P., Sempra Energy Trading Corporation, ConocoPhillips Company, J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, and Powerex Corporation, and further authorized the City Manager or his designee, the Director of Utilities, to negotiate one or more individual transactions, including, but not limited to, negotiating contracts, addenda, confirmations and transactions. The authorization extended to individual transactions executed under any number of NAESB Contracts with the referenced suppliers; provided, however, (a) the maximum expenditure under any NAESB Contract shall not exceed $65 million in the aggregate; and (b) the maximum term of any transaction shall not exceed three years, commencing on the delivery date of the transaction. D. Since Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 4936, three approved counterparties have undergone changes in corporate structure or ownership: a.On June 1, 2008 Coral Energy Resources, L.P. was merged into parent company Shell Energy North America (U.S.) L.P. b.On December 1, 2010 Sempra Energy Trading Corporation was sold to J.P. Morgan Ventures energy Corporation. c.In October, 2014 J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation sold to Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C. the portion of its gas trading business with which the City transacts. On September 21 Council adopted ATTACHMENT B NOT YET APPROVED 160415 jb 6053733 2 Resolution 9545 approving an Assignment, Assumption and Consent Agreement (Assignment Agreement) and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute the Assignment Agreement, effectively assigning the City’s NAESB with J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation to Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C. E. The current list of Council-approved counterparties includes: BP Energy Company, ConocoPhillips Company, Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C., Powerex Corporation, and Shell Energy North America (U.S.), L.P. F. Since Council’s approval of Ordinance No. 4936, two counterparties, Shell Energy North America U.S. L.P., and Mercuria Energy Gas Trading L.L.C., have been active bidders for the City’s index-based gas purchases, and only $7.5 million of the approved $65 million expenditure limit remains for Mercuria Energy Trading L.L.C. as of February 29, 2016. An increase in the maximum expenditure limit is needed to continue to purchase natural gas for the City’s retail load. G. The City intends to purchase natural gas from one or more of these pre- qualified suppliers for delivery during calendar years 2016 through 2025, inclusive, so long as the supplier with whom the City negotiates a specific purchase transaction continues to be qualified and otherwise eligible to transact with the City. H. Increasing the expenditure limit will provide for an estimated five years of gas purchases. Further, effecting this change via Council’s approval of a resolution rather than an ordinance, as was done in prior years, will streamline the City’s administrative processes. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee, the Director of Utilities, to purchase a portion of the City’s natural gas requirements from the prequalified suppliers by negotiating one or more individual transactions, including, but not limited to, contracts, addenda, confirmations and transactions. The authorization shall extend to individual transactions executed under any number of NAESB Contracts or Master Agreements with the suppliers referenced in Recital F. SECTION 2. The purchases negotiated under Section 2 shall conform to the following requirements: a. The maximum expenditure under any Master Agreement will be $100 million; b. The maximum term of any transaction shall not exceed three years, commencing on the delivery date of the transaction. The sentence preceding notwithstanding, the City may enter into a transaction greater than three years, if the Council grants prior approval to such transaction. c. No transaction entered into with any of the referenced suppliers shall extend beyond December 31, 2022. NOT YET APPROVED 160415 jb 6053733 3 SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus no California Environmental Quality Act assessment is required. INTRODUCED and PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: _____________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _____________________________ ______________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services ______________________________ Director of Utilities City of Palo Alto (ID # 6821) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract for FY 16 Asphalt Paving Project Title: Approval of a Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $3,980,143 for the FY 2016 Asphalt Paving, Capital Improvements Program Project PE-86070 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. (Attachment A) in an amount not to exceed $3,980,143 for Palo Alto FY 2016 Asphalt Paving Project (Capital Improvement Program projects PE-86070, OS-09001, PL-05030, PL- 04010, PL-00026, PF-14004, PE-09003, PO-89003) 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $398,014. 3. Amend the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Appropriation for the Capital Fund by: a. Increasing the California Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements CIP PF-14004 appropriation by $49,850; and, b. Decreasing the California Avenue Parking Permit Fund by $49,850; Background Public Works Engineering Services Division manages construction contracts for concrete repair, preventive maintenance, resurfacing, and reconstruction of various City streets on an annual basis. In more recent years, due to the complexity of the anticipated construction and the benefit of being included in a City of Palo Alto Page 2 larger project many other Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) are being built through the annualized resurfacing contracts. All City of Palo Alto streets are surveyed biannually by Public Works Engineering staff and rated by a computerized pavement maintenance management system (PMMS) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) pavement analysis program Street Saver. All streets have been coordinated with the City’s Utilities Department and Planning and Community Environment Department’s Transportation Division to eliminate the cutting of newly resurfaced streets. Extensive public outreach will be conducted before and during the construction phase to keep the community informed throughout the process, including sending flyers to adjacent residences and businesses and posting notices on Nextdoor and the City’s website. Discussion Project Description The $3,980,143 expenditure for this contract will be used to repave 7.2 lane miles of backlog streets with PCI scores less than 60. In addition to poor surfaces, many street segments have areas of significant ponding or lifted curbs and sidewalks. The scope of work includes the replacement of approximately 8,000 lineal feet (1.5 miles) of curbs and gutters, almost 16,000 square feet of driveway (220 driveways), and over 12,000 square feet of sidewalks. The sidewalk and driveway repair work in this contract is funded through CIP PO-89003, Sidewalk Repairs. Additionally, 49 curb ramps will be replaced with ADA compliant ramps, and 21 existing ramps will be retrofitted will truncated dome panels to make them ADA compliant. The streets and other work sites in this contract are listed in Attachment B. Additional maps of the FY 2016 Street Maintenance Program and current 5-year plan for street repaving are available on the Street Maintenance Program homepage located at www.cityofpaloalto.org/streets. The California Avenue Parking District will receive significant improvements in this project with the resurfacing of parking lots 1, 2 and 8. This parking lot improvement work is funded through CIP PF-14004, California Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements. In conjunction with this work, sections of Sedro City of Palo Alto Page 3 Lane, Jacaranda Lane, New Mayfield Lane, and Mimosa Lane will be milled and paved with new asphalt, including minor concrete curb improvements as needed. The contract provisions state only one parking lot may be closed at a time. Staff will coordinate with the California Avenue merchants group prior to scheduling the parking lot work. To take advantage of this contract’s quantity of scale as well as obtain a competitive price for work, the resurfacing of the back parking lot of Fire Station 5 has been included. This work is funded through CIP PE-09003, City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance. The vehicle detection system at the intersection of Homer Avenue and Middlefield Road is being upgraded from in-ground detector loops to vehicle detection cameras. Necessary equipment is being funded through CIP PL-05030, Traffic Signals and Intelligent Transportation Systems Upgrades. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements As part of continuing efforts to create complete streets and implement the Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the City seeks to improve accommodations for active transportation users when resurfacing city streets, while systematically improving roadways by leveraging regularly programmed maintenance activities. This project provides an opportunity for improvements along North California Avenue between Alma and Bryant Streets, as well as Park Boulevard from Stanford Avenue to California Avenue. One Safe Routes to School project is being implemented at the Georgia Avenue exit from Gunn High School. Funds from CIP PL-00026, Safe Routes to School, are being used to install new ramps and bulb-outs to facilitate access to the newly widened bike/pedestrian pathway, as well as the addition of signage and striping to improve motorist awareness of street crossings. The entrance to the Bol Park Bike and Pedestrian Pathway is being enhanced with funding from CIP OS-09001, Off Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair. Other significant bicycle and pedestrian improvements included in this contract are funded through CIP PL-04010, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation, and include: City of Palo Alto Page 4 1. A new landscaped traffic circle at the Cowper/Coleridge intersection 2. A new landscaped traffic circle at the Stanford/Park intersection 3. A new speed table along with rebuilt speed tables on N. California Avenue Bid Process A notice inviting formal bids (IFB), with a 21-day bidding period, for the Palo Alto FY 2016 Asphalt Paving Project was posted at City Hall on March 22, 2016, as well as sent to five builder’s exchanges and twenty-one contractors. Bids were received from two contractors on April 12, 2016 as listed on the Bid Summary (Attachment C). Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Palo Alto FY 2016 Asphalt Paving Project Proposed Length of Project 200 calendar days Number of Bid Packages Sent to Builder’s Exchanges 5 Number of Bid Packages Sent to Contractors 21 Total Days to Respond to Bid 21 Pre-Bid Meeting? No Number of Bids Received: 2 Bid Price Range $4,361,423 to $4,672,406 The apparent low bidder was deemed based upon the total of the base bid plus add alternates 1, 2 and 3. Bids ranged from $4,361,423 to $4,672,406 and from 11% to 19% above the engineer’s estimate of $3,917,404. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends the base bid, and alternative number three, Transportation Improvement Projects totaling $3,980,143, submitted by O’Grady City of Palo Alto Page 5 Paving, Inc. be accepted, and O’Grady Paving, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The contingency amount of $398,014, representing ten percent of the total contract amount, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project. Staff reviewed other similar projects performed by the lowest responsible bidder, O’Grady Paving, Inc., including projects performed for the City and did not find any significant complaints with their previous work. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and confirmed the contractor has an active license on file. Staff believes the large size of the project and high demand of construction projects in the Bay Area with similar scope, are contributing factors to the low volume of bidders and higher prices. Staff believes the resulting higher expenditure is acceptable, as it allows the City’s pavement condition goal to remain on schedule and will repair these sections of roadway with minimal inconvenience to Palo Alto residents. The Portland Cement Concrete slab replacement defined in add alternates 1 and 2 has not been included in the proposed contract. Staff now plans to include this work in the scope of the upcoming University Circle Concrete Slab Replacement Project in Fiscal Year 2017. Resource Impact Funding for the FY 2016 Asphalt Paving Project is available in Capital Improvement Program projects PE-86070 Street Resurfacing Program; PO-89003 Sidewalk Repairs; PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance; PF-14004 California Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements; PL-00026 Safe Routes to School; PL-04010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation Project; PL-05030 Traffic Signals and Intelligent Transportation System Upgrades and OS-09001 Off- Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair. The funding allocation is as follows: Funding Source Contract Contingency Total Encumbrance PE-86070 $2,977,690 $297,769 $3,275,459 PO-89003 $453,910 $45,391 $499,301 PE-09003 $40,175 $4,017 $44,192 PF-14004 $214,773 $21,477 $236,250 PL-00026 $55,920 $5,592 $61,512 City of Palo Alto Page 6 PL-04010 $191,115 $19,112 $210,227 PL-05030 $35,000 $3,500 $38,500 OS-09001 $11,560 $1,156 $12,716 Total $3,980,143 $398,014 $4,378,157 An additional appropriation of $49,850 is required for CIP project PF-14004 California Avenue Parking District Parking Improvements, to provide sufficient funding for repaving Lots 1, 2 and 8. Policy Implications This project is in conformance with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review Street resurfacing projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines, as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: Attachment A - IFB Construction Contract (PDF) Attachment B - FY16 OVERLAY BID SUMMARY (PDF) Attachment C - FY16 OVERLAY STREET LIST (PDF) Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ATTACHMENT A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C16163377 City of Palo Alto FY 16 ASPHALT PAVING Project Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS……………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on May 16, 2016 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and O'GRADY PAVING INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a General Contractor duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 201696 and Department of Industrial Relations Registration No. 1000003381. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On March 22, 2016, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB163377) to contractors for the Fy 16 Asphalt Paving (“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 FY 16 ASPHALT PAVING Project, located at VARIOUS STREETS, Palo Alto, CA. ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . within Two Hundred calendar days (200) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Three Million Nine Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($3,980,143). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates 3.] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Holly Boyd AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: O'grady Paving Attn: Craig E. Young 2513 Wyandotte Street Mountain View, Ca 94043 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: ____________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ FY16 PAVING PROJECT BID SUMMARY UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST 1 Asphalt Overlay:8,790 TON 105.00$ 922,950.00$ 108.00$ 949,320.00$ 118.81$ 1,044,339.90$ 2 PCC Slab Repair, also includes AC patching to grade:23,200 SF 15.00$ 348,000.00$ 16.00$ 371,200.00$ 18.00$ 417,600.00$ 3 AC Base Repair 3”:120 TON 165.00$ 19,800.00$ 190.00$ 22,800.00$ 212.00$ 25,440.00$ 4AC Milling:565,480 SF 0.38$ 214,882.40$ 0.55$ 311,014.00$ 0.53$ 299,704.40$ 5 Wedge Cut:6,100 LF 3.00$ 18,300.00$ 2.50$ 15,250.00$ 3.11$ 18,971.00$ 6 Interlayer Membrane:11,000 LF 4.00$ 44,000.00$ 3.00$ 33,000.00$ 4.39$ 48,290.00$ 7 Crack Sealing:60,000 LF 0.50$ 30,000.00$ 0.45$ 27,000.00$ 0.48$ 28,800.00$ 8 Reset Utility Box:136 EA 350.00$ 47,600.00$ 600.00$ 81,600.00$ 339.00$ 46,104.00$ 9 Utility Box Bolt on Riser:37 EA 150.00$ 5,550.00$ 250.00$ 9,250.00$ 339.00$ 12,543.00$ 10 Manhole Riser Ring:13 EA 200.00$ 2,600.00$ 350.00$ 4,550.00$ 339.00$ 4,407.00$ 11 Reset Manhole:52 EA 550.00$ 28,600.00$ 850.00$ 44,200.00$ 471.00$ 24,492.00$ 12 Reset Catch Basin:37 EA 1,750.00$ 64,750.00$ 1,600.00$ 59,200.00$ 1,600.00$ 59,200.00$ 13 New Catch Basin:3 EA 3,700.00$ 11,100.00$ 2,700.00$ 8,100.00$ 2,700.00$ 8,100.00$ 14 12” HDPE:250 LF 100.00$ 25,000.00$ 50.00$ 12,500.00$ 110.00$ 27,500.00$ 15 Remove and Replace Type A Curb and Gutter, 1’ Buried Pan:4,547 LF 65.00$ 295,555.00$ 75.00$ 341,025.00$ 73.00$ 331,931.00$ 16 Remove and Replace Type A Curb and Gutter, 1’ Pan:450 LF 65.00$ 29,250.00$ 75.00$ 33,750.00$ 75.00$ 33,750.00$ 17 Remove and Replace Type A Curb and Gutter, 2’ Pan:546 LF 70.00$ 38,220.00$ 85.00$ 46,410.00$ 90.00$ 49,140.00$ 18 Remove and Replace Type A Curb and Gutter, 2.5’ Pan:460 LF 75.00$ 34,500.00$ 87.00$ 40,020.00$ 87.00$ 40,020.00$ 19 Remove and Replace Type A Curb and Gutter, 3’ Pan:616 LF 76.00$ 46,816.00$ 90.00$ 55,440.00$ 90.00$ 55,440.00$ 20 Remove and Replace Type B Rolled Curb and Gutter, 3’ Wide:470 LF 80.00$ 37,600.00$ 90.00$ 42,300.00$ 90.00$ 42,300.00$ 21 Remove and Replace Type A Curb and Gutter, 7’ Pan:412 LF 120.00$ 49,440.00$ 170.00$ 70,040.00$ 180.00$ 74,160.00$ 21 Remove and Replace Concrete Driveway:15,685 SF 13.00$ 203,905.00$ 16.00$ 250,960.00$ 17.00$ 266,645.00$ 22 Remove and Replace Concrete Sidewalk:12,230 SF 11.00$ 134,530.00$ 15.00$ 183,450.00$ 16.00$ 195,680.00$ 23 Remove and Replace Valley Gutter, 4’ Wide:380 LF 150.00$ 57,000.00$ 150.00$ 57,000.00$ 150.00$ 57,000.00$ 24 Demo Concrete/Asphalt:595 SF 4.00$ 2,380.00$ 9.00$ 5,355.00$ 10.00$ 5,950.00$ 25 Curb Ramp:49 EA 3,500.00$ 171,500.00$ 4,100.00$ 200,900.00$ 4,300.00$ 210,700.00$ 26 ADA Dome Upgrade:21 EA 625.00$ 13,125.00$ 450.00$ 9,450.00$ 470.00$ 9,870.00$ 27 Traffic Loops:8 EA 1,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 350.00$ 2,800.00$ 700.00$ 5,600.00$ 28 Recycling of Inert Solid Materials:8,657 TON 3.00$ 25,971.00$ 5.00$ 43,285.00$ 3.00$ 25,971.00$ 29 Remove and Replace Blue Pavement Markers:40 EA 26.00$ 1,040.00$ 30.00$ 1,200.00$ 30.00$ 1,200.00$ 30 Curb Paint:2,700 LF 4.00$ 10,800.00$ 2.00$ 5,400.00$ 2.00$ 5,400.00$ 31 Thermoplastic Striping, Caltrans Detail 22:460 LF 2.00$ 920.00$ 2.00$ 920.00$ 5.00$ 2,300.00$ 32 Thermoplastic Striping, Caltrans Detail 1:1,500 LF 2.00$ 3,000.00$ 1.00$ 1,500.00$ 2.00$ 3,000.00$ 33 Thermoplastic Striping, Caltrans Detail 38C:100 LF 1.25$ 125.00$ 4.00$ 400.00$ 5.00$ 500.00$ 34 Thermoplastic Striping, Caltrans Detail 39/39A:4,000 LF 1.50$ 6,000.00$ 1.00$ 4,000.00$ 2.00$ 8,000.00$ 35 Thermoplastic Striping, White, 4” Wide/Parking Stalls:5,000 LF 1.50$ 7,500.00$ 1.00$ 5,000.00$ 3.00$ 15,000.00$ 36 Thermoplastic Striping, Yellow, 12” Wide:100 LF 4.00$ 400.00$ 4.00$ 400.00$ 5.00$ 500.00$ 37 Thermoplastic Striping, White, 12” Wide:1,280 LF 4.00$ 5,120.00$ 4.00$ 5,120.00$ 5.00$ 6,400.00$ 38 Thermoplastic Paving Legends:302 EA 55.00$ 16,610.00$ 22.00$ 6,644.00$ 40.00$ 12,080.00$ BORTOLOTTOOGRADY PAVINGBASE BID APPROX. QTY.UNIT ENGINEERS ESTIMATEBID ITEM FY16 PAVING PROJECT BID SUMMARY 39 Traffic Control:1 LS 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 155,000.00$ 155,000.00$ 139,139.09$ 139,139.09$ 40 Tree Trimming:50 CREW HOURS 200.00$ 10,000.00$ 250.00$ 12,500.00$ 150.00$ 7,500.00$ 41 Project Notification:1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 42 Planter Area Conform Work:1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 19,000.00$ 19,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 43 Utility Tie Out Submittal:1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 44 Miscellaneous Transportation Improvements:1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 45 Leveling Course 3/8”500 TONS 150.00$ 75,000.00$ 60.00$ 30,000.00$ 139.00$ 69,500.00$ 46 Offhaul and disposal of Inert Solid Materials containing Petromat: 3500 TONS 6.00$ 21,000.00$ 1.00$ 3,500.00$ 9.00$ 31,500.00$ 47 Traffic Signal Video Equipment (Furnish only)1 LS 27,000.00$ 27,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 39,000.00$ 39,000.00$ TOTAL 3,285,439.40$ TOTAL 3,731,753.00$ TOTAL 3,897,667.39$ UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST 1 PCC Slab Repair with no Asphalt patching:15,000 SF 14.00$ 210,000.00$ 15.00$ 225,000.00$ 17.00$ 255,000.00$ 2 Remove and Replace Type A Curb and Gutter, 2’ Exposed Pan:500 LF 70.00$ 35,000.00$ 90.00$ 45,000.00$ 90.00$ 45,000.00$ 3 Planter Area Conform Work 1 LS 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 4 Remove and Replace Concrete Driveway:500 SF 13.00$ 6,500.00$ 16.00$ 8,000.00$ 17.00$ 8,500.00$ 5 Remove and Replace Sidewalk:250 SF 11.00$ 2,750.00$ 15.00$ 3,750.00$ 17.00$ 4,250.00$ 6 Thermoplastic Striping, Caltrans Detail 39/39A:500 LF 1.50$ 750.00$ 1.00$ 500.00$ 3.00$ 1,500.00$ 7 Thermoplastic Paving Legends:8 EA 55.00$ 440.00$ 25.00$ 200.00$ 50.00$ 400.00$ 8 Traffic Control:1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 39,000.00$ 39,000.00$ 9 Tree Trimming:4 CREW HOURS 200.00$ 800.00$ 250.00$ 1,000.00$ 250.00$ 1,000.00$ 10 Project Notifications 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 11 Thermo Plastic Pavement Legends 16 EACH 55.00$ 880.00$ 30.00$ 480.00$ 50.00$ 800.00$ 12 Thermoplastic 12” White 40 LF 4.00$ 160.00$ 5.00$ 200.00$ 10.00$ 400.00$ TOTAL 266,780.00$ TOTAL 298,130.00$ TOTAL 365,850.00$ UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST 1 PCC Slab Repair with no Asphalt patching:3,000 SF 14.00$ 42,000.00$ 15.00$ 45,000.00$ 17.00$ 51,000.00$ 2 Remove and Replace Type A Curb and Gutter, 2’ Exposed Pan:250 LF 70.00$ 17,500.00$ 90.00$ 22,500.00$ 90.00$ 22,500.00$ 3 Planter Area Conform Work 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 4 Remove and Replace Concrete Driveway:250 SF 13.00$ 3,250.00$ 16.00$ 4,000.00$ 18.00$ 4,500.00$ 5 Remove and Replace Sidewalk:250 SF 11.00$ 2,750.00$ 15.00$ 3,750.00$ 18.00$ 4,500.00$ 6 Thermoplastic Paving Legends:8 EA 55.00$ 440.00$ 25.00$ 200.00$ 50.00$ 400.00$ 7 Traffic Control:1 LS 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 8 Thermoplastic 12” White 40 LF 4.00$ 160.00$ 5.00$ 200.00$ 10.00$ 400.00$ 9 Tree Trimming:4 CREW HOURS 200.00$ 800.00$ 250.00$ 1,000.00$ 150.00$ 600.00$ 10 Project Notifications 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ TOTAL 70,900.00$ TOTAL 83,150.00$ TOTAL 99,900.00$ BORTOLOTTO BORTOLOTTOOGRADY PAVING OGRADY PAVING BID ITEM ADD ALTERNATE # 1 APPROX. QTY.UNIT ENGINEERS ESTIMATE BID ITEM ADD ALTERNATE # 2 APPROX. QTY.UNIT ENGINEERS ESTIMATE FY16 PAVING PROJECT BID SUMMARY UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST UNIT COST COST 1 Demo asphalt/concrete/grade to 2 feet depth:750 SF 10.00$ 7,500.00$ 10.00$ 7,500.00$ 25.00$ 18,750.00$ 2 Bike lane channelizers per transportation drawing:2 EA 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 110.00$ 220.00$ 3 Grade form pour bench pad:100 SF 15.00$ 1,500.00$ 15.00$ 1,500.00$ 20.00$ 2,000.00$ 4 Remove relocate bench:1 EA 500.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 5 12” HDPE Pipe:24 LF 300.00$ 7,200.00$ 200.00$ 4,800.00$ 150.00$ 3,600.00$ 6 New Catch Basin:1 LF 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 2,700.00$ 2,700.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 7 Adjust Catch Basin:2 LF 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 1,600.00$ 3,200.00$ 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 8 Speed Tables:3 EA 4,500.00$ 13,500.00$ 8,000.00$ 24,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 9 Chevron Striping:4 EA 350.00$ 1,400.00$ 200.00$ 800.00$ 300.00$ 1,200.00$ 10 Procure and install signs per the Transportation drawings 18 EA 300.00$ 5,400.00$ 400.00$ 7,200.00$ 400.00$ 7,200.00$ 11 Trench Drain 1’ Wide:70 LF 300.00$ 21,000.00$ 300.00$ 21,000.00$ 400.00$ 28,000.00$ 12 Caltrans Type A ADA Ramp:13 EA 4,500.00$ 58,500.00$ 4,100.00$ 53,300.00$ 4,300.00$ 55,900.00$ 13 6” Sidewalks:1465 SF 15.00$ 21,975.00$ 17.00$ 24,905.00$ 18.00$ 26,370.00$ 14 Vertical Curb:550 LF 35.00$ 19,250.00$ 55.00$ 30,250.00$ 55.00$ 30,250.00$ 15 Yield Lines:4 EA 250.00$ 1,000.00$ 70.00$ 280.00$ 200.00$ 800.00$ 16 12” Yellow Thermo:175 LF 6.00$ 1,050.00$ 5.00$ 875.00$ 5.00$ 875.00$ 17 12” White Thermo:360 LF 6.00$ 2,160.00$ 5.00$ 1,800.00$ 5.00$ 1,800.00$ 18 Decomark thermo green panels 4’x5’:40 each 350.00$ 14,000.00$ 300.00$ 12,000.00$ 300.00$ 12,000.00$ 19 Curb Paint Traffic Rated:100 LF 10.00$ 1,000.00$ 2.00$ 200.00$ 3.00$ 300.00$ 20 Rolled Curbs at traffic Circles per the transportation drawings :120 LF 100.00$ 12,000.00$ 85.00$ 10,200.00$ 90.00$ 10,800.00$ 21 Modified Rolled Curb at Georgia Avenue and at Bollard locations 40 LF 50.00$ 2,000.00$ 130.00$ 5,200.00$ 140.00$ 5,600.00$ 22 6” White Thermo:60 LF 3.00$ 180.00$ 2.00$ 120.00$ 3.00$ 180.00$ 23 Demo (e) Metal Rails AT Bol park entrance:1 EA 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 24 Thermo Legends:58 EA 75.00$ 4,350.00$ 30.00$ 1,740.00$ 58.00$ 3,364.00$ 25 Mountable Bollards:2 EA 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 26 AC Plug 6” depth:540 SF 13.00$ 7,020.00$ 8.00$ 4,320.00$ 17.00$ 9,180.00$ 27 Traffic Control:1 LS 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 23,000.00$ 23,000.00$ 28 Tree Trimming:4 CREW HOURS 200.00$ 800.00$ 250.00$ 1,000.00$ 150.00$ 600.00$ 29 Project Notifications:1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 30 Topsoil installation at traffic circles 40 CY 50.00$ 2,000.00$ 100.00$ 4,000.00$ 150.00$ 6,000.00$ 31 Traffic Circle landscaping per Transportation Drawings 1 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ TOTAL 294,285.00$ TOTAL 248,390.00$ TOTAL 308,989.00$ GRAND TOTAL 3,917,404.40$ GRAND TOTAL 4,361,423.00$ GRAND TOTAL 4,672,406.39$ OVER 11%OVER 19% BASE BID + ALT 3 3,579,724.00$ 3,980,143.00$ 4,206,656.39$ BORTOLOTTO APPARENT LOW BIDDER OGRADY PAVINGBID ITEM ADD ALTERNATE # 3 APPROX. QTY.UNIT ENGINEERS ESTIMATE FY 16 ASPHALT PAVING PROJECT STREET LIST/LOCATIONS ATTACHMENT C STREET FROM TO 1 Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Lytton Avenue 2 Garland Drive Middlefield Road Louis Road 3 Homer Avenue Middlefield Road Boyce Street 4N. California Avenue Alma Street Bryant Street 5 Oregon Avenue Waverley Avenue Middlefield Road 6 Park Boulevard Stanford Avenue California Avenue 7 Ross Road Garland Drive Oregon Expressway 8 Ruthven Avenue Waverley Avenue Webster Street 9 Tennyson Avenue Alma Street Middlefield Road 10 Washington Avenue Alma Street Emerson Street 11 Jacaranda Lane Ash Street Peral Lane 12 Sedro Lane Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane 13 New Mayfield Lane Mimosa Lane Birch Street 14 Mimosa Lane Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane 15 Tasso Street Palo Alto Avenue Hawthorne Avenue 16 Vernon Terrace Loma Verde Avenue Loma Verde Avenue 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 Cowper/Coleridge Intersection North California Avenue Speed tables FY 16 OVERLAY ADD ALT # 3 FY 16 OVERLAY BASE BID Fire Station 5 back parking Lot Cal Avenue parking Lots 1, 2, 8 Georgia Avenue Improvements Bol Park Improvements Park Blvd Improvements City of Palo Alto (ID # 6824) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 Summary Title: Resolution-Transportation Dev. Act Funds Application Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File an Application for 2016/2017 Transportation Development Act Funds in the Amount of $203,463 for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing submittal of Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant application documents for Fiscal Year 2016-17 requesting $203,463 for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects. Background The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) issued a call for bicycle and pedestrian projects on March 3, 2016 for the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Transportation Development Act - Article 3 funding program. The deadline to submit project applications to VTA was on April 8, 2016 (with which staff complied). A Resolution adopted by the City Council supporting the project submittals is due to VTA on May 27, 2016. VTA staff will review the project proposals for eligibility, completeness and compliance. The resulting countywide list of projects will be reviewed by the VTA Advisory Committees before adoption by the Board of Directors in June. The countywide list will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and MTC will issue funding allocations in the fall. There are two components to the Transportation Development Act - Article 3 funding program in Santa Clara County: 1. Bicycle Expenditure Program Per VT! oard policy, 25% of Santa lara ounty’s TD! fund is dedicated for projects that are on the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 Countywide Bicycle Plan Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) list. Last year, VTA received two applications for BEP projects requesting the entire amount. The VT! oard programmed last year’s EP set-aside funding for one of those projects and dedicated this year’s EP funding to the second project. Therefore, VTA is not accepting applications for BEP set-aside projects this year. City of Palo Alto Page 1 2. Guarantee Funds The remaining 75% of this year’s TD! funds ($1,962,399) will be assigned to the Guarantee Fund. The monies in the Guarantee Fund are distributed to local jurisdictions on a population-based apportionment formula. These monies are available to local jurisdictions exclusively for eligible projects of their choosing as per TDA guidelines. There is no competition amongst local jurisdictions to acquire these funds for eligible projects. Palo !lto’s total guaranteed amount, including banked funds from previous years, is $203,463, the amount of funding requested for this project. Discussion Staff proposes to request an allocation of $203,463 in TD! funds this year from the ity’s Guarantee share for the implementation of bicycle boulevards on Bryant Street, Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue, Maybell Avenue, Park Boulevard, Stanford Avenue, and other corridors as identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. City Council approved concept plans for these projects in 2015. As required by the MTC grant application policies, the projects mentioned below were reviewed by Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and the committee supports these projects and effort to secure funding for their implementation. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension - on Bryant Street, the bicycle boulevard will be expanded to the southern limits of the city at San Antonio Avenue via Nelson Drive and MacKay Drive. Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard – this bicycle boulevard provides a new east-west bicycle connection between El Camino Way and Arastradero Road. The route begins on El Camino Way and West Meadow Drive and continues on Maybell Avenue to Donald Drive and Georgia Avenue. The route will serve both commuter bicyclists to the Stanford Research Park and students at Gunn High School, Terman Middle School, Juana Briones Elementary School, and Barron Elementary School. Park Boulevard-Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard - on Park Boulevard, the bicycle boulevard will be expanded to Charleston Road. The existing Park Boulevard bicycle boulevard is the ity’s most highly used bicycle corridor. The route services students as well as commuter bicyclists and provides a direct connection to the California Avenue business district. The project includes Stanford Avenue between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard – this bicycle boulevard connects Wilkie Way with the Park Boulevard bicycle boulevard via MacLane Street, providing a continuous north-south route from Palo Alto High School to the south city limits via Miller Avenue. The route services both commuter bicyclists and student bicyclists providing a more convenient alternative to both the Alma Street and City of Palo Alto Page 2 El Camino Real corridors. TDA Grant Requirements The TDA grant funds are allocated on a three-year basis. The funds are claimed by the City on a reimbursement basis. MTC requires that City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing staff to submit applications requesting TDA funding. The findings attached to the resolution as Exhibit A are required by MTC; this staff report provides the background supporting those findings. Resource Impact No local match is required for TDA Guarantee funds. However, because TDA funds are disbursed on a reimbursement basis, the City will have to spend the budgeted funds and then apply for reimbursement by TDA funds. There are sufficient resources in Capital Improvement Project PL-04010, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation Project, to cover these costs. Overall, there will be $203,463 in revenue realized from the approval of this item. Policy Implications The recommended actions in this report are consistent with Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Transportation Strategic Plan. Environmental Review The Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bicycle and Transportion Plan. The proposed implementation of bicycle boulevards is a minor upgrade to existing residential and commercial street right-of-way and would not result in any new impacts to the existing environment. This project is considered as a minor alteration to the existing street system, and is therefore categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines section15301(c). Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution 2016-2017 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (PDF) Attachment B: TDA Article 3 Project Application Form (PDF) Attachment C: Memorandum from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachment A - NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to File an Application for 2016/2017 Transportation Development Act Funds in the Amount of $203,463 for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects R E C I T A L S A. Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists. B. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No.4108, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA Article 3” funding. C. MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region. D. The City of Palo Alto desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; now, therefore, be it NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code. SECTION 2. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Palo Alto to carry out the project. SECTION 3. The project has been reviewed by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) of City of Palo Alto. SECTION 4. The City of Palo Alto attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution. SECTION 5. A certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, Page 1 countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case may be, of Santa Clara County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager 160502 jb 0131519 Page 2 Findings 1. That the City of Palo Alto is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Palo Alto legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in “Attachment B” of this resolution. 2. That the City of Palo Alto has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B. 3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s). 4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested. 5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). 6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s). 7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or design engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of Palo Alto within the prior five fiscal years. 8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B is included in a locally approved bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, complete streets, or other relevant plan. 9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a bikeway meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual. 10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed before the funds expire. 11. That the City of Palo Alto agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public. 160502 jb 0131519 Page 3 Project Eligibility: YES?/NO? A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate date approval is anticipated). Approval is anticipated on May 16th No B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page. No C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via: http://www.dot.ca.gov). Yes D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)? (If "NO," provide an explanation). Enter date the project was reviewed by the BAC: August 4th, 2015 (Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way) June 2nd, 2015 (Bryant Street) November 4th, 2014 (Maybell Avenue) Yes E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only for projects that include construction). No F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of project (month and year) December 2018 Yes G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name: ) Yes October 2014 Model resolution for TDA Article 3 County Administrators Page 2 Please note that an agency’s total applications cannot exceed its guarantee share listed in the following table: Table 1: 2016/17 TDA ARTICLE 3 ESTIMATE FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY Agency Guarantee Amount (Includes banked and rescinded funds from prior years.) Campbell $32,543 Cupertino $156,926 Gilroy $79,816 Los Altos $45,429 Los Altos Hills $6,485 Los Gatos $79,848 Milpitas $108,083 Monte Sereno $9,028 Morgan Hill $32,482 Mountain View $117,137 Palo Alto $203,463 San Jose $790,288 Santa Clara $94,054 Saratoga $23,945 Sunnyvale $115,088 Santa Clara County $67,782 Total $1,962,399 Rescind/Reallocation Requests Agencies may only allocate up to their estimate in any given year. Sponsors may rescind prior year projects, but VTA cannot reallocate them until the next TDA funding cycle. Funds rescinded in 2015 will be added to the sponsor’s guarantee in 2016. It is the project sponsor's responsibility to monitor project expiration deadlines and to apply for rescind/reallocation of funds in a timely manner. Failure to do so will result in the sponsor losing the funds. Agencies must inform VTA of intent to rescind/reallocate, and failure to do so means that the funds revert to the countywide pool in the next cycle. Banking Funds TDA Article 3 funds may be banked for up to two years plus one year to program funds. To bank TDA funds, project sponsors must submit a letter or email stating that funds will be banked. If banked funds are not programmed by the end of the 3rd Year, they will be redistributed to the countywide TDA Article 3 pool for the following fiscal year. If you are planning to bank funds, please send a letter or email to that effect to Bill Hough at the address below. A member agency must inform VTA in writing of its intent to either claim or bank its TDA3 guarantee funds; failure to do so means that the funds revert to the countywide pool in the next cycle. Page 2 of 5 Project Types and Guidelines Your TDA Article 3 project must be ready to implement within ONE year of the application cycle. Eligible Project Types The following project types are eligible for TDA Article 3 Funding: 1. Construction and/or engineering of a bicycle or pedestrian capital project 2. Maintenance of a multi-purpose path which is closed to motorized traffic 3. Bicycle safety education program (no more than 5 % of county total). 4. Development of a comprehensive bicycle or pedestrian facilities plans (allocations to a claimant for this purpose may not be made more than once every five years). 5. Restriping Class II bicycle lanes. Other Eligibility & Procedural Issues Environmental clearance is required for construction projects only. If you are submitting an application for design, you are not required to submit a County stamped notice. Additional information on the TDA Article 3 policies and procedures can be found in the MTC TDA Article 3 Policies and Procedures, which is available on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission website at: http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/RES-4108.pdf Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Plan Requirement Cities and counties may not receive TDA Article 3 funds for bicycle projects unless the jurisdiction has established a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and the project is included in an adopted plan as stipulated in the MTC TDA Article 3 Rules and Procedures. This requirement does not apply to pedestrian projects. VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines The VTA Board of Directors adopted the revised VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines on December 13, 2012. The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide a uniform set of optimum standards for the planning, design, and construction of bicycle facilities that are part of the countywide bicycle system. Bicycle projects funded by TDA Article 3 funds must comply with the Guidelines. For a copy of this document, please contact VTA staff. Page 3 of 5 Application Submittals MTC’s TDA Article 3 Project Application Form and resolution boilerplate is located at: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/tools-and-resources/digital-library/tda-article-3-bicycle-and- pedestrian-application Project sponsors must use this form to submit applications. Late applications will not be accepted. Complete one application for each project. PLEASE NOTE: VTA should receive 2 copies of each project application. 2016/17 TDA Article 3 Detailed New Project Submittal Requirements Number of Copies Item 1 per agency Cover letter: the cover letter must include a statement that the project must be ready to implement within ONE year of the application cycle. 2 per agency Governing body resolution wording and Council Resolution supporting the project(s) (due on May 27, 2016). The required “model resolution” is on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission website at link above. Do not modify MTC’s boilerplate. 2 per project MTC’s TDA Article 3 Application (See Application Form at link above.) 2 per project A vicinity map showing the project’s general location in your jurisdiction 2 per project A detail map showing the project and phases where applicable 2 per project Documentation of environmental clearance (for applicable projects). The county clerk must stamp the environmental document. Completed project applications or notification of intent to bank funds should be submitted to VTA by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 8, 2016. Please send applications to: Bill Hough, Transportation Planner Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Programming & Grants 3331 North 1st Street, Bldg. B2 San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Page 4 of 5 Evaluation Process, Programming and Drawing Programmed Funds VTA staff will review project applications. The resulting countywide program will be reviewed by the VTA advisory committees before adoption by the VTA Board of Directors at its June 2016 meeting. The VTA Board-adopted project priorities will be forwarded to MTC for review and adoption. Once MTC has adopted the program, MTC’s Finance Section will issue allocation instructions to your agency. Please read these instructions carefully because they contain guidance on invoicing, expiration of funds, and annual audit requirements. All project invoicing goes directly to MTC. TDA Audit Information In accordance with MTC Resolution 875, all claimants that have received an allocation of TDA funds are required to submit an annual fiscal and compliance audit to MTC and to the Secretary of Business and Transportation Agency within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year. All TDA audits are due to MTC by December 31 of each year. Failure to submit the audit will prohibit MTC from making a new TDA allocation. If no TDA funds were expended during the fiscal year, the applicant should file a statement to that effect with MTC. Please contact MTC’s TDA program manager Cheryl Chi, at 510-817- 5939 or cchi@mtc.ca.gov, for additional information on audit requirements. Page 5 of 5 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6458) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approve Advanced Water Purification System and Agreements with SCVWD and Mountain View Title: Approve Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Contract With MNS Engineers, Inc./GHD, Inc. for a Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $325,875, Partner Funding Agreements With the Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Mountain View, and a Budget Amendment in the Wastewater Treatment Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with MNS Engineers, Inc./GHD, Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount not to exceed $325,875 for the Advanced Water Purification Feasibility Study and 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve partner funding agreements with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for up to $500,000 (Attachment B) and the City of Mountain View (Attachment C) for up to $50,000. 3. Amend Fiscal Year 2016 budget appropriation for the Wastewater Treatment Fund by: a. Increasing the recycled water operations appropriation in the amount of $325,875; and b. Decreasing the Wastewater Treatment Fund reserve in the amount of $325,875, which will be offset with an 80% reimbursement from the Santa Clara Water District and a 10% reimbursement from City of Mountain View per the aforementioned funding agreements, for a total reimbursement of $298,127. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto or City) currently supplies tertiary-treated recycled water City of Palo Alto Page 2 to several City-owned parks and facilities, Caltrans, commercial truck-fill standpipes at the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and City of Mountain View. To expand the use of recycled water to include cooling towers and irrigation of salt-sensitive landscaping, it is advantageous to reduce the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration to approximately 450 parts per million (ppm). Consequently, the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View, in collaboration with Santa Clara Valley Water District are proposing a jointly funded feasibility study on the installation of an advanced water purification system (AWPS) at RWQCP. The AWPS would produce virtually TDS-free water, which would be blended with current recycled water to achieve a TDS concentration of 450 ± 50ppm. Background The RWQCP’s Recycled Water Program began in the early 1980s and consists of three phases. Phase I of the recycled water delivery system provided recycled water to Shoreline Golf Links in Mountain View and later expanded to serve other uses, including maintenance of the duck pond, enhancement of Emily Renzel Marsh, processes at the RWQCP and irrigation at City facilities. In 1991 and 1992, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and partners of the RWQCP examined the feasibility of expanding the use of recycled water to serve additional City and commercial customers in the RWQCP service area. This examination concluded with the publication of the April 1992, “Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant” (Recycled Water Master Plan). Although Council certified the Program Environmental Impacts Report (CMR:217:95) for the projects identified in the Recycled Water Master Plan in April 1995, they also agreed with staff recommendation not to move forward as the new projects were not cost- effective at that time. Instead, Council decided staff should re-evaluate the projects if and when changes such as: The RWQCP discharge permit requirements; Increased mass loading to the RWQCP; Partner or other local agencies requests; Federal or other funding availability; or Supply-side issues were to develop, potentially increasing the value of recycled water including, cost, availability, regulatory or legislative initiatives and/or advanced treatment for potable reuse. As the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the City’s primary water supplier, embarked on their Water System Improvement Project, SFPUC water supply rates began to steadily increase. In response to this change, in July 2006, the City completed a Recycled Water Market Survey to update the Master Plan and re-examine the feasibility of Phase III, an extension of the recycled water system to end-users in Palo Alto. The survey identified a total potential demand of about 1,700 acre-feet per year in Palo Alto and identified a project to serve about 840 acre-feet per year of City of Palo Alto Page 3 recycled water demand. The survey also showed that the estimated cost of the recycled water from the project was still higher than the expected future cost of water from the SFPUC. Without outside funding, the project was not cost-effective and additional planning and design was required before state or federal funds could be sought. Specifically, applying for state grant funds required the completion of a Recycled Water Facility Plan. In November 2006 Council approved development of a facility plan and environmental documentation for expanding the recycled water distribution system in Palo Alto. Proposals to complete such a plan were solicited, staff submitted an application for a planning grant of $75,000 (CMR:415:06) from the State Water Resources Control Board and were awarded the grant. In April 2007, Council approved the execution of a contract with RMC Water & Environment, Inc. for completion of a Recycled Water Facilities Plan and preparation of environmental documents for Phase III expansion (CMR:191:07). In analyzing essential components for expanding the system to serve additional users in Palo Alto the consultant engaged in site investigations, analysis of project alternatives, preparation of a financial plan, environmental documentation, public outreach, development of user agreements or use ordinances and preparation of facility plan reports. A Recycled Water Facility Plan was completed in December 2008. The plan identified Stanford Research Park as a “target area” for expansion, but again the cost of water was significantly higher than that provided by SFPUC and outside funding would be needed to justify the project. Potential state and federal grants and low- or no-interest loans from the State Revolving Loan Fund required completion of environmental documentation. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued in March 2009 and contained a checklist evaluating environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Phase II expansion, an extension of RWQCP’s recycled water system to Mountain View. Comments were received during the 30-day public comment period and staff submitted their response in May. Phase II was completed the same year. Due to public concerns regarding the irrigation of redwood trees and sensitive species with recycled water, the City initiated an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on recycled water quality issues, salinity in particular. In January 2010, Council approved the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy (CMR 111:10, Resolution 9035), including the goal of reducing TDS of recycled water to 600 ppm. Since that time, the RWQCP’s partner agencies have taken steps to reduce salinity intrusion into the sewer system. The increasing cost for SFPUC water and severe statewide drought have raised awareness of the importance of recycled water as part of the City’s water supply mix and need for the Phase III expansion project. As the original environmental City of Palo Alto Page 4 documentation had grown stale, a new program EIR was completed and certified by Council in September 2015 (CMR 5962). Discussion Staff are moving forward with a Request For Proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant to update the Recycled Water Strategic Plan and Groundwater Assessment for the RWQCP service area. An update on recycled water planning efforts is located in Attachment D. To improve the quality of recycled water, staff drafted and released another RFP to hire a consultant to conduct an Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study, in which a variety of options will be analyzed. In December 2015 staff received proposals from two consulting teams, Carollo/RMC and MNS Engineers, Inc./GHD, Inc. Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study Proposed Length of Project December 2017 Number of Vendors Notified of RFP via PlanetBids 133 Total Days to Respond to Bid 30 Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes Number of Bids Received: 2 Bid Price Range $296,250 to $412,000 An evaluation committee consisting of RWQCP staff, City of Mountain View and Santa Clara Valley Water District reviewed the proposals. Both teams were invited to participate in oral interviews on January 27, 2016. The proposals were judged by the following criteria: Quality and completeness of the proposal Customer service and experience Financial stability Quality control/quality assurance Innovative/creative approach to system design and communication skills City of Palo Alto Page 5 Compliance with regulatory requirements Cost to the City Following oral interviews the consultant team MNS Engineers, Inc./GHD, Inc. was selected as the preferred team due to their demonstrated strong technical knowledge of advanced water purification systems and ability to meet program budgets. Timeline Immediately upon execution of the contract, MNS Engineers, Inc./GHD, Inc. will begin collecting information. The study will be completed by December 31, 2017. Resource Impact The contract with MNS Engineers, Inc./GHD, Inc. will be in the amount not to exceed $325,875. Included in that not to exceed amount is $141,750 for optional tasks listed in the scope that may or may not be conducted based on the results of the core tasks and only at the direction of the project manager and ten percent for additional services. Funding will be provided by the funding agreements with the Santa Clara Valley Water Distict, City of Mountain View and Wastewater Treatment Fund. A budget amendment is necessary to amend Fiscal Year 2016 budget appropriation for the Wastewater Treatment Fund, increasing the recycled water operations appropriation in the amount of $325,875 and decreasing the Wastewater Treatment Fund reserve in the amount of $325,875, which will be offset with an 80% reimbursement from the Santa Clara Water District and a 10% reimbursement from City of Mountain View per the aforementioned funding agreements, for a total reimbursement of $298,127. Policy Implications Improving the quality of recycled water will help expand the use of recycled water in Palo Alto and is consistent with Council policy. Additionally, Council approved the Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) Guidelines in December 2003 (CMR:547:03), specifically, WIRP Guideline #3: Actively participate in development of cost-effective regional recycled water plans. Council’s Sustainability Policy supports the development of recycled water, specifically in the policy’s statement to “reduce resource use and pollution in a cost-effective manner while striving to protect and enhance the quality of the air, water, land, and other natural resources.” The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains Natural Environment Goal N-4: Water resources that are prudently managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities and protect public health and safety. Specifically, Program N-26 addresses the use of recycled water: Implement incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation. City of Palo Alto Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Following completion of the study, staff will confer with the RWQCP partners and develop a recommendation on whether to proceed to design and construction of an advanced water purification system. Staff will bring the recommendation to Council for action. Attachments: Attachment A: MNS Engineers C16161973-Final (PDF) Attachment B: Final Feasibility Study Cost Share Agreement with SCVWD_PA April2016 (PDF) Attachment C: Mountain View Feasibility Study Cost Share 2016 (PDF) Attachment D: Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts March 2016 (PDF) Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16161973 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MNS ENGINEERS, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 2nd day of March , 2016, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MNS ENGINEERS,INC., a California corporation, located at 201 N Calle Cesar Chavez Ste 300, SANTA BARBARA,CA 93103("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to conduct a feasibility study for installation of an advanced water purification system at the RWQCP to produce recycled water with lower TDS that can be blended with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water in order to achieve an instantaneous TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L. (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide professional 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, 2017 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two hundred ninety six thousand two hundred fifty Dollars ($296,250.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Three hundred twenty five thousand eight hundred seventy five Dollars ($325,875.00). 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, DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: GHD, INC., Located at 175 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Irvine CA, 92618 USA Website: www.ghd.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. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Julia Aranda as DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and 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 Samantha Engelage, Public Works Department, Environmental Compliance Division, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329- 2123. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT agrees to, 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 reasonable 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: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in 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, 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager (Required on contracts over $85,000) APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney (Required on Contracts over $25,000) MNS, ENGINEERS, INC. By:_________________________ Name:______________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 James A. Salvito President and CEO Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES BACKGROUND: The City of Palo Alto (City) Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) produces approximately 234 million gallons of tertiary-treated recycled water annually with the majority of the demand occurring May - August. Recycled water is a sustainable alternative to potable water for various uses such as landscape irrigation, soil compaction, and dust control. To expand use of recycled water to include cooling towers and irrigation of salt- sensitive vegetation, it is desirable to reduce the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration to 400 – 500 ppm; a significant decrease from the formally adopted goal of 600 ppm. Consequently, the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District are looking for a consultant to conduct a feasibility study for installation of an advanced water purification system at the RWQCP to produce recycled water with lower TDS that can be blended with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water in order to achieve an instantaneous TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L. The City, as the lead, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City of Mountain View as “Clients” have prepared a scope of services, found below, that includes necessary tasks for completion of the project. SCOPE OF SERVICES: CONSULTANT shall provide the services listed below: 1.0 Project Administration and Schedule CONSULTANT shall complete all services for Tasks 2.0 – 6.0 within 6 months of the Notice to Proceed. CONSULTANT shall complete all work for this project by December 31, 2017. CONSULTANT shall provide updated schedules upon request from the City and Clients as well as at the presentations described under Task 5.0. 2.0 Data & Information Collection CONSULTANT shall meet with City and Client Staff to collect key data and information pertaining to this study. CONSULTANT shall attend three (3) in-person meetings with City and Client Staff for data and information collection. CONSULANT shall utilize the pilot data collected by Stanford University during two recent study periods as well as results from the Long Range Facilities Plan (2012) and the Biosolids Facility Plan (2014). The Long Range Facilities Plan evaluated future mainstream wastewater treatment processes through year 2062, associated space planning, as well as projected flows and loads; similarly the Biosolids Facility Plan evaluated future solids treatment processes needed through year 2045 and associated space planning. Projected recycled water demands to be provided to the CONSULTANT by the City and Clients. DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CONSULTANT shall collect information on desirable TDS concentrations for the expected major uses of this recycled water (e.g., cooling towers, irrigation, dual plumbing, etc.). CONSULTANT shall provide meeting attendees with summary minutes and electronic copies of any supplemental materials used during the meeting no later than seven (7) calendar days from the meeting. 3.0 Feasibility Study CONSULTANT shall conduct a feasibility study of an advanced water purification system (microfiltration followed by reverse osmosis or equivalent) located at the RWQCP to produce sufficient purified water with an instantaneous TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L after blending with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. 3.1 Near Term Recycled Water Demands (2019) CONSULTANT shall include at a minimum the following evaluations conducted for near term (2019) projected flows and loads, as determined under Task 2.0, to the City’s recycled water program: 3.1.1 Technology Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate different treatment options available and recommend the treatment option best suited to the RWQCP requirements and space limitations. CONSULTANT shall include a disinfection step per Title 22 requirements as part of the advanced water purification system; CONSULTANT shall evaluate current disinfection facilities for potential use in meeting these requirements. 3.1.2 Location and Storage Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate size requirements and different locations within the footprint of the existing RWQCP property for siting of the proposed advanced water purification system. CONSULTANT shall include an evaluation of RWQCP existing facilities, including the ultraviolet disinfection channel, for transport and temporary storage of flow for the system. CONSULTANT shall include any and all facilities (including additional storage and in-situ instrumentation) needed to blend the purified water with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. CONSULTANT shall provide schematics illustrating size requirements and potential locations. 3.1.3 Scalability Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate the ability for the proposed advanced water purification system to be scaled up to meet long term, as well as interim, demands for increased recycled water production. 3.1.4 Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Disposal Evaluation CONSULTANT shall coordinate any reverse osmosis concentrate evaluation with that of the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Management Plan project. CONSULTANT shall qualitatively evaluate at least three (3) different reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate disposal options including the RWQCP final effluent outfall DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 and adjacent salt-water wetlands. CONSULTANT shall include an evaluation of any potential impacts to NPDES Permit compliance and RWQCP influent and effluent nutrient loads from the RO concentrate disposal options. 3.1.5 Cost Estimate CONSULTANT shall calculate and provide a Class 5 cost estimate per the AACE International classification system. The cost estimate shall be appropriate for a feasibility study for a project definition of 0 – 2 percent and an expected accuracy of -50 to +100 percent. CONSULTANT shall include in the cost estimate the disposal of RO concentrate via the RWQCP final effluent outfall. 3.1.6 Sensitivity Analysis CONSULTANT shall analyze changes to Tasks 3.1.1 – 3.1.5 for a comparable system that meets an instantaneous TDS concentration of 600 ± 50 mg/L in place of the 450 ± 50 mg/L TDS goal concentration. 3.1.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate the proposed advanced water purification system for impacts to the RWQCP’s greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. 3.1.8 Nutrient Load Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate the proposed advanced water purification system for impacts to the RWQCP’s influent and effluent nutrient loads. CONSULTANT shall account for any increases in nutrient loads from the proposed RO concentrate disposal method within this evaluation. 4.0 CEQA & Other Regulatory Requirements CONSULTANT shall evaluate any CEQA and other potential regulatory requirements that may apply to the future construction and operation of the proposed advanced water purification system. CONSULTANT shall include a CEQA checklist and a list of permits required. 5.0 Presentation of Results CONSULTANT shall present progress and results to the City and Clients at 50, 80, and 100 percent project completion. At which point the Cities and District will provide feedback that the CONSULTANT will incorporate into the project and summary report. CONSULTANT shall provide presentation attendees with summary minutes and electronic copies of any supplemental materials used during the presentations no later than seven (7) calendar days from the presentation. 6.0 Deliverables 6.1 Schedules CONSULTANT shall provide updated project schedules per Task 1.0. DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 6.2 Meeting Minutes CONSULTANT shall provide meeting minutes and associated supplemental materials per Tasks 2.0 and 5.0 (and Task 7.1 if conducted). 6.3 Draft & Final Reports CONSULTANT shall compile and summarize the results from Tasks 2.0 - 5.0 (and Tasks 7.2 -7.5 if conducted) into a report and submit that report to the City and Clients. CONSULTANT shall provide draft reports at 50, 80, and 95 percent project completion to the City for review at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the corresponding presentations. The City and Clients will review and provide feedback which the CONSULTANT shall incorporate into subsequent drafts and presentation materials. 6.4 Schematics & Site Plans CONSULTANT shall provide schematics and preliminary site plans per Tasks 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 (and Tasks 7.2 – 7.5 if conducted) within the final report under Task 6.3. 7.0 Optional Tasks CONSULTANT shall perform the optional tasks described in the section below only if authorized by the City’s project manager. This decision will be based on the results of the core tasks. The City’s project manager shall notify CONSULANT in writing of the decision to conduct optional tasks. 7.1 Stakeholder Meetings CONSULTANT shall present results to stakeholders at 80 and 95 percent project completion. CONSULTANT shall incorporate feedback provided by the City and Clients after the 80 percent project completion presentation under Task 5.0 prior to the 80 percent project completion stakeholder meeting. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to, residents, nongovernmental organizations, the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant partner cities, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 7.2 Feasibility Study - Long Term Recycled Water Demands (2040) CONSULTANT shall include at a minimum the following evaluations conducted for long term (2040) projected flows and loads to the City’s recycled water program. CONSULTANT shall account for expected increases in TDS due to such issues as water conservation, population growth, and economic growth. 7.2.1 Technology Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate different treatment options available and recommend the treatment option best suited to the RWQCP requirements and space limitations. CONSULTANT shall include a disinfection step per Title 22 requirements as part of the advanced water purification system; CONSULTANT shall evaluate current disinfection facilities for potential use in meeting these requirements. DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 7.2.2 Location and Storage Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate size requirements and different locations within the footprint of the existing RWQCP property for siting of the proposed advanced water purification system. In addition, CONSULTANT shall evaluate whether off-site locations would more suitable. CONSULTANT shall include an evaluation of the use of existing RWQCP facilities, including the ultraviolet disinfection channel, for transport and temporary storage of flow for the system. CONSULTANT shall include any and all facilities (including additional storage and in-situ instrumentation) needed to blend the purified water with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. CONSULTANT shall provide schematics illustrating size requirements and potential locations. 7.2.3 Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Disposal Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate whether the RO Concentrate disposal options discussed under Task 3.1.4 are sufficient to meet the future projected demand or if other options should be considered. 7.2.4 Cost Estimate CONSULTANT shall calculate and provide a Class 5 cost estimate per the AACE International classification system. The cost estimate shall be appropriate for a feasibility study for a project definition of 0 – 2 percent and an expected accuracy of -50 to +100 percent. CONSULTANT shall include in the cost estimate the disposal of RO Concentrate via the RWQCP final effluent outfall. 7.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate the proposed advanced water purification system for impacts to the RWQCP’s greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. 7.2.6 Nutrient Load Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate the proposed advanced water purification system for impacts to the RWQCP’s influent and effluent nutrient loads. CONSULTANT shall account for any increases in nutrient loads from the proposed RO Concentrate disposal method within this evaluation. 7.3 Alternative Comparisons to Near Term Feasibility Option 7.3.1 Potable Water Blending Alternative CONSULTANT shall include a comparison of the results from Task 3.1 to the facilities needed, associated costs, and other impacts if the RWQCP were to blend its existing tertiary-treated recycled water to an instantaneous TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L with potable water in place of the water from the advanced water purification system. Blending locations are to include the following: RWQCP, Stanford Research Park, and City of Mountain View. 7.3.2 No Project Alternative DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CONSULTANT shall include a comparison of the results from Task 3.1 to the facilities needed, associated costs, and other impacts of the no project alternative of utilizing potable water to meet the projected increase in recycled water demand (anything above the current, 2014, recycled water demand). 7.4 Pre-Design CONSULTANT shall produce design parameters and associated schematics for 10 percent project definition for the proposed advanced water purification system to achieve an instantaneous TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L after being blended with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. CONSULTANT shall define these parameters for the following projections: 7.4.1 Near Term – 2019: incorporates estimated near term increases in recycled water demand (mainly from Mountain View and the Water District) 7.4.2 Long Term – 2040: incorporates estimated long term increases in recycled water demand due to Palo Alto expansions and other sources of demand 7.4.3 Scalability Evaluation CONSULTANT shall include in the pre-design the ability for the system to be scaled up to meet the long term, as well as interim, demands for increased recycled water production. 7.4.4 Cost Estimate CONSULTANT shall calculate and provide a Class 4 cost estimate per the AACE International classification system. The cost estimate shall be appropriate for a feasibility study for a project definition of 1 – 15 percent and an expected accuracy of -30 to +50 percent. 7.4.5 Schematics & Site Plans CONSULTANT shall provide schematics and preliminary site plans indicating sizing requirements, locations, and process connections needed for systems evaluated under Task 7.4. 7.5 Indirect & Direct Potable Reuse Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate facilities needed and associated cost estimates to expand the proposed advanced water purification system to produce indirect and direct potable reuse water. EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Months/ Date from NTP Task 1 Completed by December 31, 2017 (Project Administration and Schedule) Task 2 6 months (Data and Information Collection) Task 3 6 months (Feasibility Study) Task 4 6 months (CEQA and Regulatory Compliance) Task 5 and Task 6 6 months (Presentation and Results) Optional: Task 7.1 TBD (Stakeholder Meetings) Optional: Task 7.2 TBD (Feasibility Study Long Term Recycled Water Demands (2040)) Optional: Task 7.3 TBD (Alternative Comparisons to Near-Term Feasibility Option) Optional: Task 7.4 TBD (Preliminary Design) Optional: Task 7.5 TBD (Indirect and Direct Potable Reuse Evaluation) DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $296,250.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation for Services, Reimbursable expenses and Additional Services shall not exceed $325,875.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $296,250.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $29,625.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $22,040.00 (Project Administration and Schedule) Task 2 $11,980.00 (Data and Information Collection) Task 3 $65,880.00 (Feasibility Study) Task 4 $18,160.00 (CEQA and Regulatory Compliance) Task 5 and Task 6 $36,440.00 (Presentation and Results) Task 7.1-Optional $4,640.00 (Stakeholder Meetings) Task 7.2- Optional $37,560.00 (Feasibility Study - Long Term Recycled Water Demands (2040)) DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Task 7.3- Optional $15,730.00 (Alternative Comparisons to Near-Term Feasibility Option) Task 7.4- Optional $70,580.00 (Preliminary Design) Task 7.5-Optional $13,240.00 (Indirect and Direct Potable Reuse Evaluation) Sub-total Basic Services $296,250.00 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $ 296,250.00 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $ 29,625.00 Maximum Total Compensation $325,875.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES Est. Hours Hourly Rate Extended Rate 1 - Project Administration and Schedule MNS Principal Engineer - Rincon 24 $220 $ 5,280 MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 40 $220 $ 8,800 GHD - Jamal Awad 20 $250 $ 5,000 GHD - Rick Guggianna (Elect.) 8 $210 $ 1,680 GHD - Admin 16 $80 $ 1,280 Total Not to Exceed Task 1 108 $ 22,040 2 - Data and Information Collection MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 12 $220 $ 2,640 MNS Senior Project Engineer - Panofsky 16 $170 $ 2,720 GHD - Jamal Awad 12 $250 $ 3,000 GHD - Pat Collins (Env) 4 $205 $ 820 GHD - Process Engineer 12 $180 $ 2,160 GHD - Admin 8 $80 $ 640 Total Not to Exceed Task 2 64 $ 11,980 3 - Feasibility Study MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 40 $220 $ 8,800 MNS Senior Project Engineer - Panofsky 40 $170 $ 6,800 MNS Assistant Engineer - Packard 16 $115 $ 1,840 GHD - Jamal Awad 40 $250 $ 10,000 GHD - Pat Collins (Env) 112 $205 $ 22,960 GHD - Process Engineer 58 $180 $ 10,440 GHD - Richard Mackenzie (Elect/I&C) 12 $180 $ 2,160 GHD - Rick Guggianna (Elect.) 0 $210 $ - GHD - CAD 16 $120 $ 1,920 GHD - Admin 12 $80 $ 960 Total Not to Exceed Task 3 346 $ 65,880 4 - CEQA and Regulatory Compliance MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 8 $220 $ 1,760 GHD - Pat Collins (Env) 80 $205 $ 16,400 Total Not to Exceed Task 4 88 $ 18,160 5 - Presentation of Results MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 32 $220 $ 7,040 MNS Senior Project Engineer - Panofsky 32 $170 $ 5,440 MNS Assistant Engineer - Packard 60 $115 $ 6,900 GHD - Jamal Awad 20 $250 $ 5,000 GHD - Pat Collins (Env) 8 $205 $ 1,640 GHD - Process Engineer 20 $180 $ 3,600 GHD - Richard Mackenzie (Elect/I&C) 14 $180 $ 2,520 GHD - Rick Guggianna (Elect.) 6 $210 $ 1,260 GHD - CAD 20 $120 $ 2,400 GHD - Admin 8 $80 $ 640 Total Not to Exceed Task 5 220 $ 36,440 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED (TASKS 1-6) 826 $ 154,500 Task 6 costs are included in the above DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 7.1 - Stakeholder Meetings MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 12 $220 $ 2,640 GHD - Jamal Awad 8 $250 $ 2,000 Total Not to Exceed Task 7.1 20 $ 4,640 7.2 - Feasibility Study - Long Term Recycled Water Demands (2040) MNS Principal Engineer - Rincon 0 $220 $ - MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 14 $220 $ 3,080 MNS Senior Project Engineer - Panofsky 56 $170 $ 9,520 MNS Assistant Engineer - Packard 16 $115 $ 1,840 GHD - Jamal Awad 20 $250 $ 5,000 GHD - Pat Collins (Env) 20 $205 $ 4,100 GHD - Process Engineer 56 $180 $ 10,080 GHD - Richard Mackenzie (Elect/I&C) 8 $180 $ 1,440 GHD - Rick Guggianna (Elect.) 2 $210 $ 420 GHD - CAD 12 $120 $ 1,440 GHD - Admin 8 $80 $ 640 Total Not to Exceed Task 7.2 212 $ 37,560 7.3 - Alternative Comparisons to Near-Term Feasibility Option MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 8 $220 $ 1,760 MNS Senior Project Engineer - Panofsky 32 $170 $ 5,440 MNS Assistant Engineer - Packard 32 $115 $ 3,680 GHD - Jamal Awad 12 $250 $ 3,000 GHD - Pat Collins (Env) 2 $205 $ 410 GHD - Process Engineer 8 $180 $ 1,440 Total Not to Exceed Task 7.3 94 $ 15,730 7.4 - Preliminary Design MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 64 $220 $ 14,080 MNS Senior Project Engineer - Panofsky 112 $170 $ 19,040 MNS Assistant Engineer - Packard 72 $115 $ 8,280 GHD - Jamal Awad 22 $250 $ 5,500 GHD - Process Engineer 56 $180 $ 10,080 GHD - Richard Mackenzie (Elect/I&C) 32 $180 $ 5,760 GHD - CAD 52 $120 $ 6,240 GHD - Admin 20 $80 $ 1,600 Total Not to Exceed Task 7.4 430 $ 70,580 7.5 - Indirect and Direct Potable Reuse Evaluation MNS Principal Engineer - Aranda 24 $220 $ 5,280 GHD - Jamal Awad 8 $250 $ 2,000 GHD - Pat Collins (Env) 8 $205 $ 1,640 GHD - Process Engineer 24 $180 $ 4,320 Total Not to Exceed Task 7.5 64 $ 13,240 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED (TASK 7) 820 $ 141,750 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. 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: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: D0102B87-9891-4DB3-8283-47147A968BC2 COST SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO AL TO AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT REGARDING THE ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT This ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY COST SHARING AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") is made and entered into this __ day of , 2016, by and between the City of Palo Alto, a chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. an independent special district located in the state of California, duly organized, existing, and acting pursuant to the laws thereof ("District"). City and District may be referred to in this AGREEMENT individually as a ''Party" or collectively as the "Parties". RECITALS A. WHEREAS, District develops, stores, manages, distributes, sells and delivers water for domestic, industrial and agricultural uses, as the primary water supply and groundwater management agency in Santa Clara County; and B. WHEREAS, City owns and operates the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and manages a recycled water program ("Recycled Water Program"), and C. WHEREAS, City operates the RWQCP in compliance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board recycled water requirements; and D. WHEREAS, the City is interested in evaluating the feasibility of an advanced water purification system by conducting a Feasibility Study for the Recycled Water Program ("Feasibility Study''); and E. WHEREAS, City and District desire to financially support the production and use of recycled water in Santa Clara County consistent with each Party's separate and distinct interests: for wastewater treatment and disposal for the City, and water quality and supply for the District, as well as to coordinate and cooperate to achieve the most cost effective, environmentally beneficial utilization of recycled water to meet both water supply and wastewater treatment and disposal needs; and F. WHEREAS, the potential beneficiaries of the Feasibility Study include the City of East Palo Alto and other minor areas in the San Mateo County tributary to the RWQCP; and G. WHEREAS, the City's cost sharing obligation under this AGREEMENT covers the benefits to be derived by East Palo Alto, and other member agencies of the East Palo Alto Sanitary District that are outside of Santa Clara County; and H. WHEREAS, the City, acting as the lead agency, intends to award a consultant contract for one or more qualified consultants or firms to provide professional services for preparation of the Feasibility Study for the advanced water purification system ("Consultant Contract"); and I. WHEREAS, District and City acknowledge the mutual benefit of this project and agree to share in the financial costs and leadership responsibilities to support qualified consultants or firms for professional services in the preparation of the Feasibility Study to assist in evaluating advanced water purification as a component of the Recycled Water Program. Cost Sharing Agreement Between City Of Palo Alto and Santa Clara Valley Waler District Regarding the Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study Project Page 1 of 5 J . Funding provided under this AGREEMENT does not include construction work tasks and is for planning and design purposes only, and is therefore not subject to CEQA review. AGREEMENT PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the City and District hereby agree as follows: SECTION I SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 The consultant scope of work ("Consultant Services") that will be funded as by this AGREEMENT consists of a feasibility study for an advanced water purification system (microfiltration followed by reverse osmosis or equivalent) located at the RWQCP to produce sufficient purified water with a total dissolved solids (''TDS") concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L after blending with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. A copy of the draft consultant scope of work is attached to this AGREEMENT as Attachment A ("Scope of Work"). 1.2 The City as the lead agency for the Feasibility Study will be responsible for managing the procurement process for procuring the Consultant Services in adherence with the City procurement procedures and policies. 1.3 The District will provide review and technical support to the City who will prepare the above mentioned Feasibility Study. 1.4 The District approves the City entering into a Consultant Contract for the scope of work as Attachment A 1.5 City agrees to confer with the District regarding any issues of contract performance raised by the City or the District. If the consultant breaches the contract or substantially fails to perform and the City elects not to pursue contract remedies, the City agrees to confer in good faith with the District regarding potential assignment of contractual rights to the District. 1.6 The City agrees that the District shall have an irrevocable license to use all contract deliverables, including but not limited to documentation, reports, recommendations, and all other work product developed as part of the Scope of Work. The City agrees that the District and City may both have access to and use of all work product developed under the Scope of Work. 1.7 The completion of the Feasibility Study will be performed by a Consultant Contract awarded by competitive bid in accordance with the applicable law and adm inistered by the City pursuant to its contract documents and policies. The Feasibility Study will be completed to the City and District's satisfaction. 1.8 Both Parties agree that cost sharing of the Feasibility Study will be funded 80% by the District, ____ witb the. remainder 20% funded by the City of-Palo Alto and the-Gity of MountaiA-View under a -- separate cost ·sharing agreement. The City has completed their consultant procurement process and the estimated cost for this Feasibility Study is $325,875. The City shall not approve any expenditures exceeding this amount without the District's written consent. Cost Sharing Agreement Between City Of Palo Alto and Santa Clara Valley Water District Regarding the Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study Project Page 2 of 5 Background Attachment A Consultant Scope of Work Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study Scope Summary The City of Palo Alto (City} Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) produces approximately 234 million gallons of tertiary-treated recycled water annually with the majority of the demand occurring May -August. Recycled water is a sustainable alternative to potable water for various uses such as landscape irrigation, soil compaction, and dust control. To expand use of recycled water to include cooling towers and irrigation of salt-sensitive vegetation, it is desirable to reduce the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration to 400 to 500 parts per million (ppm}; a significant decrease from the formally adopted goal of 600 ppm. Consequently, the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) are looking for a consultant (CONSUL TANT} to conduct a feasibility study for installation of an advanced water purification system at the RWQCP to produce recycled water with lower TDS that can be blended with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water in order to achieve an instantaneous TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L. The City, as the lead, the District and the City of Mountain View as "Clients" have prepared a scope of work, found below, that includes necessary tasks for completion of the project. The scope of work shall be used by the CONSUL TANT as a basis for preparation of the proposals. Additional tasks or modifi cations to the scope of work that the CONSUL TANT feels will produce a more useful and/or cost effective project should be included in the proposal for the City and Clients to consider. CONSUL TANT chosen to perform work under this contract will not be precluded from participating in future design or construction services that may result from this work. Scope of Work 1.0 Project Administration & Schedule CONSUL TANT shall include in their proposal a draft schedule with key milestones from Tasks 2.0-6.0 below. CONSULTANT shall complete all work for Tasks 2.0-6.0 within 6 months of the Notice to Proceed. CONSUL TANT shall complete all work for this project by December 31 , 2017. CONSUL TANT shall provide updated schedules upon request from the City and Clients as well as at the presentations described under Task 5.0. 2.0 Data & Information Collection CONSUL TANT shall meet with City and Client Staff to collect key data and information pertaining to this study. CONSUL TANT shall include in their proposals attendance in at least three (3) in-person meetings with City and Client staff for data and information collection. CONSULTANT shall utilize the pilot data collected by Stanford University during two recent study periods as well as results from the Long Range Facilities Plan (2012) and the Biosolids Facility Plan (2014). The Long Range Facilities Plan evaluated future mainstream wastewater treatment processes through year 2062, associated space planning, as well as projected flows and loads; similarly the Biosolids Facility Plan evaluated future solids treatment processes needed through year 2045 and associated space planning. Projected recycled water demands to be provided to the CONSULTANT by the City and Clients. CONSULTANT shall collect information on desirable TDS _g_oncentrations for the expected.m.ajor uses of this recycled water (e.g.,_cooling towers, irr:igation, dual plumbing;-etc:-). CONSUL "lANT shall provide meeting attendee-s-with-summary minutes and electronic copies of any supplemental materials used during the meeting no later than seven (7) calendar days from the meeting. Page 1 of 5 3.0 Feasibility Study CONSUL TANT shall conduct a feasibility study of an advanced water purification system (microfiltration followed by reverse osmosis (RO) or equivalent) located at the RWQCP to produce sufficient purified water with an instantaneous TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L after blending with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. 3.1 Near Term Recycled Water Demands (2019) CONSULTANT shall include at a minimum the following evaluations conducted for near term (2019) projected flows and loads, as determined under Task 2.0, to the City's recycled water program: 3.1.1 Technology Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate different treatment options available and recommend the treatment option best suited to the RWQCP requirements and space limitations. CONSUL TANT shall include a disinfection step per Title 22 requirements as part of the advanced water purification system; CONSUL TANT shall evaluate current disinfection facilities for potential use in meeting these requirements. 3.1.2 Location and Storage Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate size requirements and different locations within the footprint of the existing RWQCP property for siting of the proposed advanced water purification system. CONSUL TANT shall include an evaluation of RWQCP existing facilities, including the ultraviolet disinfection channel, for transport and temporary storage of flow for the system. CONSULT ANT shall include any and all facilities (including additional storage and in-situ instrumentation) needed to blend the purified water with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. CONSUL TANT shall provide schematics illustrating size requirements and potential locations. 3.1.3 Scalability Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate the ability for the proposed advanced water purification system to be scaled up to meet long term, as well as interim, demands for increased recycled water production. 3.1.4 RO Concentrate Disposal Evaluation CONSUL TANT shall coordinate any RO concentrate evaluation with that of the District's RO Concentrate Management Plan project. CONSUL TANT shall qualitatively evaluate at least three (3) different RO concentrate disposal options including the RWQCP final effluent outfall and adjacent salt-water wetlands. CONSUL TANT shall include an evaluation of any potential impacts to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit compliance and RWQCP influent and effluent nutrient loads from the RO concentrate disposal options. 3.1.5 Cost Estimate CONSULTANT shall calculate and provide a Class 5 cost estimate per the AACE International classification system. The cost estimate shall be appropriate for a feasibility study for a project definition of 0 -2 percent and an expected accuracy of -50 to +100 percent. CONSUL TANT shall include in the cost estimate the disposal of RO concentrate via the RWQCP final effluent outfall. 3.1.6 Sensitivity Analysis CONSULLA~lLsbalLanalyze changes to Tasks 3.1.1 -3J~5-for-a-comparable- system that-meetscin instantaneous TDS concentration of 600 ± 50 mg/L In place of the 450 ± 50 mg/L TDS goal concentration. 3.1.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate the proposed advanced water purification system for impacts to the RWQCP's greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. Page 2 of 5 3.1.8 Nutrient Load Evaluation CONSUL TANT shall evaluate the proposed advanced water purification system for impacts to the RWQCP's influent and effluent nutrient loads. CONSUL TANT shall account for any increases in nutrient loads from the proposed RO concentrate disposal method within this evaluation. 4.0 CEQA & Other Regulatory Requirements CONSUL TANT shall evaluate any CEQA and other potential regulatory requirements that may apply to the future construction and operation of the proposed advanced water purification system. CONSUL TANT shall include a CEQA checklist and a list of permits required. 5.0 Presentation of Results CONSULTANT shall present progress and results to the City and Clients at 50, 80, and 100 percent project completion. At which point the Cities and District will provide feedback that the CONSULTANT will incorporate into the project and summary report. CONSUL TANT shall provide presentation attendees with summary minutes and electronic copies of any supplemental materials used during the presentations no later than seven (7) calendar days from the presentation. 6.0 Deliverables 6.1 Schedules CONSULTANT shall provide updated project schedules per Task 1.0. 6.2 Meeting Minutes CONSUL TANT shall provide meeting minutes and associated supplemental materials per Tasks 2.0 and 5.0 (and Task 7.1 if conducted). 6.3 Draft & Final Reports CONSULTANT shall compile and summarize the results from Tasks 2.0 -5.0 (and Tasks 7.2 -7.5 if conducted) into a report and submit that report to the City and Clients. CONSUL TANT shall provide draft reports at 50, 80, and 95 percent project completion to the City for review at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the corresponding presentations. The City and Clients will review and provide feedback which the CONSUL TANT shall incorporate into subsequent drafts and presentation materials. 6.4 Schematics & Site Plans CONSUL TANT shall provide schematics and preliminary site plans per Tasks 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 (and Tasks 7.2 -7.5 if conducted) within the final report under Task 6.3. 7 .0 Additional Tasks CONSUL TANT shall conduct the additional tasks only at the discretion of the City and Clients. The City and Clients shall notify CONSUL TANT in writing of the decision to conduct additional tasks. 7 .1 Stakeholder Meetings CONSUL TANT shall present results to stakeholders at 80 and 95 percent project completion. CONSUL TANT shall incorporate feedback provided by the City and Clients after the 80 percent project completion presentation under Task 5.0 prior to the 80 percent project completion stakeholder meeting. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to, residents,-Aongovernmental-organizations, the Gity's RWQ6P-p9rtner cities, and-the-San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 7 .2 Feasibility Study -Long Term Recycled Water Demands (2040) CONSULTANT shall include at a minimum the following evaluations conducted for long term (2040) projected flows and loads to the City's recycled water program. Page 3 of 5 CONSUL TANT shall account for expected increases in TDS due to such issues as water conservation, population growth, and economic growth. 7.2.1 Technology Evaluation CONSUL TANT shall evaluate different treatment options available and recommend the treatment option best suited to the RWQCP requirements and space limitations. CONSUL TANT shall include a disinfection step per Title 22 requirements as part of the advanced water purification system; CONSUL TANT shall evaluate current disinfection facilities for potential use in meeting these requirements. 7.2.2 Location and Storage Evaluation CONSUL TANT shall evaluate size requirements and different locations within the footprint of the existing RWQCP property ror siting of the proposed advanced water purification system. In addition, CONSULTANT shall evaluate whether off-site locations would more suitable. CONSUL TANT shall include an evaluation of the use of existing RWQCP facilities, including the ultraviolet disinfection channel, for transport and temporary storage of flow for the system. CONSUL TANT shall include any and all facilities (including additional storage and in-situ instrumentation) needed to blend the purified water with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. CONSUL TANT shall provide schematics illustrating size requirements and potential locations. 7.2.3 Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Disposal Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate whether the RO Concentrate disposal options discussed under Task 3.1.4 are sufficient to meet the future projected demand or if other options should be considered. 7.2.4 Cost Estimate CONSULTANT shall calculate and provide a Class 5 cost estimate per the AACE International classification system. The cost estimate shall be appropriate for a feasibility study for a project definition of 0 -2 percent and an expected accuracy of-50 to +100 percent. CONSULTANT shall include in the cost estimate the disposal of RO Concentrate via the RWQCP final effluent outfall. 7.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy Evaluation CONSULT ANT shall evaluate the proposed advanced water purification system for impacts to the RWQCP's greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. 7 .2.6 Nutrient Load Evaluation CONSUL TANT shall evaluate the proposed advanced water purification system for impacts to the RWQCP's influent and effluent nutrient loads. CONSUL TANT shall account for any increases in nutrient loads from the proposed RO Concentrate disposal method within this evaluation. 7.3 Alternative Comparisons to Near Term Feasibility Option 7.3.1 Potable Water Blending Alternative CONSUL TANT shall include a comparison of the results from Task 3.1 to the facilities needed, associated costs, and other impacts if the RWQCP were to blend its existing tertiary-treated recycled water to an instantaneous TOS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L with potable water in place of the water from the advanced water purification system. Blending locations are to include the following: RWQCP, Stanford Research Park, and City of Mountain View. 7~l.2 No ProjectAlternatiY_e CONSUL TANT shall include a comparison of the results from Task 3.1 to the facilities needed, associated costs, and other impacts of the no project alternative of utilizing potable water to meet the projected increase in recycled water demand (anything above the current, 2014, recycled water demand). Page 4 of 5 7 .4 Pre-Design CONSULTANT shall produce design parameters and associated schematics for 10 percent project definition for the proposed advanced water purification system to achieve an instantaneous TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L after being blended with the existing tertiary-treated recycled water. CONSUL TANT shall define these parameters for the following projections: 7.4.1 Near Term -2019: incorporates estimated near term increases in recycled water demand (mainly from City of Mountain View and the District) 7.4.2 Long Term -2040: incorporates estimated long term increases in recycled water demand due to Palo Alto expansions and other sources of demand 7.4.3 Scalability Evaluation CONSUL TANT shall include in the pre-design the ability for the system to be scaled up to meet the long term, as well as interim, demands for increased recycled water production. 7.4.4 Cost Estimate CONSULTANT shall calculate and provide a Class 4 cost estimate per the AACE International classification system. The cost estimate shall be appropriate for a feasibility study for a project definition of 1 -15 percent and an expected accuracy of -30 to +50 percent. 7.4.5 Schematics & Site Plans CONSULTANT shall provide schematics and preliminary site plans indicating sizing requirements, locations, and process connections needed for systems evaluated under Task 7.4. 7 .5 Indirect & Direct Potable Reuse Evaluation CONSULTANT shall evaluate facilities needed and associated cost estimates to expand the proposed advanced water purification system to produce indirect and direct potable reuse water. Page 5 of 5 GAH/7/PSD 761-03-31-16AG-E 1 of 5 COST SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW FOR A RECYCLED WATER ADVANCED TREATMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY This COST SHARING AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT), dated _______________ for identification between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California Charter City and municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as PALO ALTO) and the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California Charter City and municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as MOUNTAIN VIEW), sets forth the respective roles of PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN VIEW in regard to PALO ALTO s Recycled Water Advanced Treatment Feasibility Study (hereinafter referred to as STUDY). RECITALS WHEREAS, MOUNTAIN VIEW is a partner in and receives recycled water from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP); and WHEREAS, PALO ALTO owns and operates the RWQCP and manages the recycled water program; and WHEREAS, PALO ALTO operates the RWQCP recycled water program in compliance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; and WHEREAS, PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN VIEW are interested in conducting a feasibility study of a recycled water advanced treatment system; and WHEREAS, PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN VIEW desire to financially support the production and use of recycled water in Santa Clara County consistent with each agency s separate and distinct interests; and WHEREAS, PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN VIEW desire to coordinate and cooperate to achieve the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial utilization of recycled water; and WHEREAS, PALO ALTO, acting as the lead agency, intends to award a contract (CONTRACT) for one (1) or more qualified consultants or firms to provide professional services for preparation of the STUDY; and WHEREAS, MOUNTAIN VIEW and PALO ALTO acknowledge the mutual benefit of this project and agree to share in the costs and responsibilities to support qualified consultants or firms for professional services in the preparation of the STUDY; and GAH/7/PSD 761-03-31-16AG-E 2 of 5 WHEREAS, funding provided under this AGREEMENT does not include construction work tasks and is for planning and design purposes only, and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA review; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN VIEW hereby agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The purpose of this AGREEMENT is to fund the cost of a feasibility study for a recycled water advanced treatment system (microfiltration followed by reverse osmosis or equivalent) located at the RWQCP to produce advanced treated water to blend with existing tertiary-treated recycled water and produce a final product with a TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 mg/L. The complete scope of work is included as Attachment A. 2 Term. The term of the AGREEMENT is from March 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, until funds are depleted, or until the STUDY is accepted by PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN VIEW, whichever occurs first. The term of the AGREEMENT may be extended by mutual consent of the parties in writing. 3. MOUNTAIN VIEW s Responsibilities: a. Review and approve the scope of work prior to award of CONTRACT by PALO ALTO. b. Provide review and technical support to PALO ALTO during the course of the STUDY. c. Review project invoices and determine if tasks are adequately completed. Pending acceptance of the work, remit payment to PALO ALTO within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the invoice was received. d. Fund ten percent (10%) of the costs of the STUDY, to a maximum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000). The Santa Clara Valley Water District will fund eighty percent (80%) of the costs of the STUDY, to a maximum of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000), through a separate agreement with PALO ALTO. 4. PALO ALTO s Responsibilities: a. Serve as the lead agency for the STUDY and be responsible for managing the procurement process for the consultant(s) in adherence with PALO ALTO s procurement procedures and policies. GAH/7/PSD 761-03-31-16AG-E 3 of 5 b. Fund ten percent (10%) of the costs of the STUDY, to a maximum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000). The Santa Clara Valley Water District will fund eighty percent (80%) of the costs of the STUDY, to a maximum of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000), through a separate agreement with PALO ALTO. c. Invoice MOUNTAIN VIEW in arrears for the tasks described in the scope of work and completed by the consultant(s), on a monthly basis. 5. Mutual Indemnification. In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro-rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a party shall not be shared pro rata, but instead, PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN VIEW agree that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other parties, their officers, board members, employees, and agents harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage, or liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to such party under the AGREEMENT. No party, nor any officer, board member, employee, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of other parties hereto, their officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to such other parties under this AGREEMENT. 6. Document Review. PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN VIEW will, upon reasonable advance written notice, make available for inspection to the other party, records, books, and other documents relating to the program. 7. Nondiscrimination. PALO ALTO and its consultants shall afford equal employment opportunities for all persons without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, gender identity and expression, or genetic information. 8. Termination of AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party hereto for any reason upon ten (10) days written notice to the other party. Should either party terminate pursuant to said notice, MOUNTAIN VIEW shall pay PALO ALTO for the cost invoiced to MOUNTAIN VIEW by the program consultant prior to the date of cancellation. In no event shall said costs exceed the maximum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) established in this AGREEMENT. GAH/7/PSD 761-03-31-16AG-E 4 of 5 9. Notice. Any notice, payment, credit, or instrument required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be deemed received upon personal delivery or five (5) days after deposit in any United States mail depository, first-class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party for whom intended; or on the same day as a facsimile transmission is sent as long as original is placed in the mail on the same day. TO MOUNTAIN VIEW: City of Mountain View Public Services Division Attn: Gregg Hosfeldt, Assistant Public Works Director 231 North Whisman Road Mountain View, CA 94043 TO PALO ALTO: City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works, RWQCP Attn: Karin North, Watershed Manager 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Either party may change such address by notice given to the other party as provided in this Section 9. 10. Amendments. The AGREEMENT may only be amended by written agreement executed by both parties. 11. Assignment. Neither party is allowed to assign, sublet, or transfer this AGREEMENT or any of the rights or interests in this AGREEMENT without the written consent of the other party. 12. Severability. The partial or total invalidity of one or more parts of this AGREEMENT will not affect the intent or validity or remaining parts of this AGREEMENT. 13. Governing Law. This AGREEMENT is a contract under the laws of the State of California and for all purposes must be interpreted in accordance with such laws. The venue of any suit filed by either party shall be vested in the State courts of the County of Santa Clara. 14. Signatures. 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. 15. Entire AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no GAH/7/PSD 761-03-31-16AG-E 5 of 5 representations, agreements, or understandings (whether oral or written) between or among the parties relating to the subject matter of this AGREEMENT which are not fully expressed herein. 16. Public Records. The parties recognize and acknowledge that each party is subject to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 and following. Public records are subject to disclosure. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mountain View and the City of Palo Alto have executed this cost share agreement for a recycled water advanced treatment feasibility study, dated ____________________ for identification. MOUNTAIN VIEW : CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California Charter City and municipal corporation By: City Manager By: Public Works Director FINANCIAL APPROVAL: Finance and Administrative Services Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California Charter City and municipal corporation By: Print Name: Title: City Manager By: Print Name: Title: City Attorney Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts and Groundwater Studies in partnership with Santa Clara Valley Water District Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide Council an overview of the advances being made to develop alternative water supplies, both regionally and in Palo Alto. Alternative water supplies include: Recycled Water from wastewater plants like Palo Alto’s; Purified Water from reverse osmosis plants like San Jose’s; Increased groundwater use coupled with groundwater recharge; Local rainwater/storm drain system harvesting; Sub‐regional wastewater “scalping” plants for small communities/districts; and Individual building use of graywater and treated blackwater. Palo Alto is working through a variety of groups and committees to conduct planning for alternative water supplies. Key collaborators include Palo Alto’s five Partners in its Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), the other recipients of San Francisco PUC (Hetch‐Hetchy) water, and other agencies in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. An important next step is the execution of several contracts to explore the potential use of key alternative supplies. The first such contract is a feasibility study on the installation of an advanced water purification system, such as reverse osmosis, at the RWQCP. The second would update the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan by studying groundwater recharge potential for indirect potable reuse, further utilization of recycled water by more RWQCP Partners, connections with the Sunnyvale distribution system, and other potential recycled water activities. The Santa Clara Valley Water District would provide much of the funding for this work and help manage the various tasks. Background Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts and Groundwater Studies 2 The RWQCP produces high quality recycled water which is a drought‐proof, locally controlled, non‐potable water supply. Recycled water will help reduce Palo Alto’s reliance on imported water supplies. The RWQCP currently produces recycled water in excess of the current demand; therefore staff is working to expand the recycled water demand and distribution system. As such, the City of Palo Alto certified an Environmental Impact Report on September 28, 2015, to expand recycled water through South Palo Alto to Stanford Research Park (CMR# 5962). This proposed expansion project is phase III of the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan. Additionally, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is seeking alternative water supplies from local wastewater treatment plants. There are three wastewater treatment plants that discharge into San Francisco Bay within Santa Clara County: (1) San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (San Jose RWF), (2) City of Sunnyvale and (3) the RWQCP. The Water District already has partner agreements with San Jose RWF and the City of Sunnyvale. Recently the Water District approved a partner arrangement with the City of Palo Alto to fund eighty percent of the Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study Contract. The Feasibility Study will evaluate alternatives including treatment to reduce improve recycled water quality. As part of the effort to expand uses of recycled water, the City and Water District are developing a further understanding of the northwest county groundwater system to identify opportunities for enhanced groundwater recharge. Discussion For the past year staff have been working with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the RWQCP partner agencies to research expanding recycled water use opportunities in Northwest Santa Clara County. The City is working on updating the Recycled Water Master Plan to produce a strategic plan that will include the following information: Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study White paper on initial description of all water sources White paper on satellite and onsite treatment and reuse of black water, grey water, and stormwater Ongoing Palo Alto Potable Water Supply Resource Planning Mountain View Recycled Water Distribution Expansion and potential Sunnyvale Tie‐In Palo Alto Recycled Water Phase III Expansion Project business plan Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts and Groundwater Studies 3 development, preliminary design, and securing of outside funding Northwest Santa Clara County Groundwater Study for Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Potential Palo Alto RWQCP Partner Agencies Recycled Water Expansion In addition to the upcoming Recycled Water Strategic Plan, staff has been working on the following Recycled Water planning projects. Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study (contract in process) To expand the use of recycled water to include cooling towers and the irrigation of salt‐sensitive landscaping, staff is working to reduce the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration. Consequently, the City has partnered with the City of Mountain View and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to jointly fund a feasibility study for installation of an advanced water purification system (AWPS) at the RWQCP (CMR #6458). The AWPS would produce virtually TDS‐free water which could be blended with the current recycled water to achieve a TDS concentration of 450 ± 50 parts per million (ppm). White Paper on Initial Description of all Water Sources At the 2015 Council Meeting approving of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Phase III Recycled Water Expansion, Council requested further information on water sources as they pertain to the City of Palo Alto. Attached is an initial description of all water sources (potable and non‐potable) potentially available to the City of Palo Alto (Attachment A). Potable water refers to water that meets drinking water standards and is considered safe to drink; while non‐potable water refers to water that does not meet drinking water standards and is considered unsafe to drink. White Paper on Satellite and Onsite Treatment and Reuse City staff has been tracking satellite and onsite treatment systems and reuse. Staff will be collecting information on similar efforts regionally and nationally, including the development of standardized design criteria and regulations. Currently, in the RWQCP service area, there are a few facilities that have reused gray water and stormwater for irrigation purposes. Stanford is currently researching an onsite treatment system. Ongoing Palo Alto Potable Water Supply Resource Planning Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts and Groundwater Studies 4 City staff is currently working on the Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) that will discuss the variety of potable water supply resources and planning. The WIRP will include an assessment of alternative potable water supplies including the City’s current water supply source from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Region Water Supply System, groundwater, and treated water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District as well as demand‐side management. Recycled water will be assessed both as a tool to reduce potable water demand and as a potential potable water supply through IPR and Direct Potable Reuse (DPR). The results of the groundwater study discussed below will be an important part of this analysis. All of these resources will be evaluated based on availability, cost, water quality, environmental impact and robustness in water emergencies and with respect to potential state regulations. Mountain View Recycled Water Distribution Expansion and Sunnyvale Tie‐in Mountain View currently receives the majority of the recycled water produced at the RWQCP. Mountain View has hired a consultant to research expanding the recycled water distribution system within its city limits and is working with Sunnyvale for a potential recycled water intertie. The City of Sunnyvale is rebuilding their wastewater treatment plant and plans on treating the majority of their flow to purified water for future IPR. Therefore, their existing recycled water customers will need a new source of recycled water which will potentially be provided by the RWQCP via the Mountain View—Sunnyvale intertie. Palo Alto Recycled Water Phase III Expansion (RFP in process) The City is seeking a consultant to develop a business plan, preliminary design, and aid in securing funding for the Phase III Expansion project. This evaluation will help Council decide on pursuing Phase III Expansion of the recycled water pipeline. The City has drafted interim Recycled Water Guidelines to help facilitate new recycled water customers who are on the existing recycled water line near the RWQCP. Northwest Santa Clara County Groundwater Study for Potential Indirect Potable Reuse (RFP in process) The purpose of the groundwater study is to compile baseline information on the current condition of aquifers in northwestern Santa Clara County and adjacent areas, including sources and quantities of recharge, groundwater pumping, and water quality. This information will be used to evaluate the feasibility of IPR of Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts and Groundwater Studies 5 advanced treated recycled water and identify opportunities for increased groundwater utilization of recycled water. This study will also evaluate impacts to groundwater resources from potential pumping or recharge projects to ensure continued sustainable groundwater management. Palo Alto RWQCP Partner Agencies Recycled Water Expansion (RFP in process) City staff is seeking opportunities to expand recycled water within the RWQCP service area: East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Stanford, and Palo Alto. The RWQCP’s NPDES permit requires the treatment plant to have a recycled water program. Current recycled water demands and distribution systems were identified in the Recycled Water Master Plan that was completed in 1992. Since 1992, prolonged drought and increased economic activity has opened up new potential demand for recycled water in partner cities, including potential groundwater recharge opportunities. Consequently, staff is pursuing a consultant to re‐evaluate the current and projected recycled water demand in the RWQCP service area. Timeline Below is a tentative timeline for the recycled water projects: Cost sharing agreements with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Mountain View for the Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study – April 2016 Recycled waterpipeline expansion within East Palo Alto, Palo Alto and Mountain View – Construction expected to begin in 2016 Advanced Water Purification System Feasibility Study expected to be completed by end of 2016 Recycled Water Strategic Planning and Groundwater Assessment contract expected to be approved in summer 2016; the following deliverables will be completed by December 2018: o Phase III Recycled Water Expansion Business Plan, Preliminary Design & Secured Funding Effort Report o IPR Feasibility Evaluation o Conceptual Groundwater Model o Northwest Santa Clara County Groundwater Study for Potential IPR Report Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts and Groundwater Studies 6 o Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report o Funding Identification & Application(s) o Public Outreach Resource Impact The current recycled water program consists of five hard‐piped City facilities and more than 60 permitted users of the recycled water truck fill station. The RWQCP is the wholesaler of recycled water within its service area. The City is currently negotiating private hard‐piped recycled water customers along the existing distribution line,expanding recycled water into East Palo Alto and in South Palo Alto including Stanford Research Park.. City staff anticipate construction of the East Palo Alto recycled water expansion to commence in 2016; therefore, staff is needed to help manage future contractors. As mentioned previously the City is planning on managing larger recycled water planning contracts to improve the water quality, update recycled water strategic plan, and investigate the possibilty of indirect potable reuse to recharge groundwater. The City is currently negotiating with the Santa Clara Valley Water District that they will fund eighty percent of the Advanced Water Feasibilty Contract and the City is still negotiating how much the SCVWD will fund of the second contract that will update the recycled water strategic plan. The City currently does not have a dedicated staff person who works on recycled water. In order to expand the City’s Recycled Water Program, a new Senior Engineer is required for future tasks including: Initiate and manage recycled water and water re‐use consultant contracts Prepare a new Strategic Recycled Water Plan to complement the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan Determine the need and timing for appropriate groundwater recharge and storage of purified water, based on modelling of the San Francisquito Creek cone Determine best method of brine disposal and management to allow for the addition of advanced recycled water treatment processes to the RWQCP’s current treatment plant Develop RWQCP regulations and guidelines for the use and management of recycled water and purified water Serve as the principal point‐of‐contact for Partner Agencies to secure new or modified Recyled Water Service and determine amounts and timing of needs Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts and Groundwater Studies 7 Serve as Public Health and Water Board Compliance Officer for water re‐ use programs, including inspection programs and cross‐connection prevention programs Develop and manage Infrastrucutre Management System (IMS) for the Recycled Water wholesale water treatment and distribution system; track and manage system repairs and upgrades Develop Nutrient Credits and Offsets for Recycled Water Program Coordinate expanded water use and water quality reporting and monitoring with regulatory agencies, partner agencies, users, site supervisors, and customers. Manage expanded recycled water system maintenance and utility locating services.The new Senior Engineer position would be funded partially by the partner agences to the RWQCP, since it is a requirement in our discharge permit to have a recycled water program. Therefore Palo Alto will only fund one third of the Senior Engineer Position which costs approximately $220,000. The projects that the Senior Engineer will manage will also be funded through cost‐sharing agreements with the SCVWD, grants and state revolving funds. Policy Implications Continuing the exploration of expanding recycled water is consistent with Council policy. The Recycled Water Program is consistent with the Council‐adopted Water Integrated Resource Plan Guideline 3: “Actively participate in development of cost effective regional recycled water plans.” The project is consistent with Council direction to reduce imported water supplies and limit or reduce diversions from the Tuolomne River. Council’s Sustainability Policy supports the development of recycled water, specifically in the Policy’s statement to “reduce resource use and pollution in a cost‐effective manner while striving to protect and enhance the quality of the air, water, land and other natural resources.” The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains Natural Environment Goal N‐4: Water resources are prudently managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities and protect public health and safety. Specifically, Program N‐26 addresses the use of recycled water: implement incentives for the use of drought‐ tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation. Update on Recycled Water Planning Efforts and Groundwater Studies 8 Environmental Review Environmental Impact Report for Phase III of the recycled water pipeline project was approved in September 2015. Future Environmental Review will be required if the expanded recycled water pipeline is constructed. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6826) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Microsoft Licensing True Up Title: Approval of a Contract Amendment to SoftwareOne, Inc., (Formerly CompuCom Systems, Inc.,) in the Amount of $179,028 for Annual Microsoft Licensing True-Up, $39,119 for additional Office 365 licenses and $17,903 for a Contract Contingency - Contract Number C12144913 From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the following: 1) Contract amendment with SoftwareOne Inc. (formerly CompuCom Systems, Inc.) in the amount of $139,909 to pay for the City’s annual True-Up for Microsoft licensing and additional Microsoft Office 365 licensing totaling $39,119. 2) Authorize a 10% contingency of $17,903 for any unforeseen licensing needs. Executive Summary Every year the City is responsible for reporting to SoftwareOne additional Microsoft licenses that were used during the year, but were not part of the original agreement. This process is called the “True-Up” process. SoftwareOne generates a quote for the additional licenses identified. Background On April 23, 2012, Council approved contract C12144913 with CompuCom Systems Inc. for a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) (Staff Report: 2649, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42176) (Attachment B) for 4,260 licenses for various Microsoft software programs. This agreement was initially executed by the County of Riverside, California (RIVCO-20800-(002-007)-12/12 and is extended to other local agencies. The City adopted the MEA pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.360(k). The MEA covers all Microsoft licensing and maintenance at an annual cost of $210,617 and is valid through December 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion As part of the True-Up process, the following additional Microsoft licenses were identified as being needed due to an increase in demand (Attachment A): Qty Description Cost 3 Core Infrastructure Server Suite Data Center $19,945 59 Core Infrastructure Server Suite Standard $80,854 7 System Center Data Center $13,073 38 System Center Standard $26,037 $139,909 These changes total $139,909, which will be paid as a one-time fee to SoftwareOne, and will true-up the actual number of licenses used by City staff through January 2016. The cost associated on this True-Up includes the license cost of these items as well as the Software Assurance for the final year of the agreement. Software Assurance provides the City with Planning Services to enable efficient deployment of licenses and solutions, in-person and online training for IT and end users as well as rights to new software releases during the term of the agreement at no additional cost. During the migration to Office 365, additional licensing was identified in order to migrate all City employees and contractors over. Total additional count identified is 350 totaling $39,119 (Attachment C). A contingency of ten percent ($17,903) is recommended to be allocated for Microsoft licensing in order to fund any unforeseen licensing purchase needs that occur. Resource Impact Funding in the amount of $196,931 will be spent from the Technology Fund to pay for the true-up of licenses through January 2016 and the contract contingency for additional unforeseen licensing needs. Environmental Review Approval of these contracts do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments: Attachment A: City of Palo Alto True Up (PDF) Attachment B: Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (PDF) Attachment C: Additional O365 Licensing (PDF) Quoted to:City of Palo Alto New Product Year 4 of 5 Date 3/15/2016 EA# 6849237 Quantity Part #Description Unit Price Ext. Price 3 FUD-00936 CISDataCtr ALNG LicSAPk MVL 2Proc $6,648.35 19,945.05$ 59 YJD-01075 CISStd ALNG LicSAPk MVL 2Proc $1,370.40 80,853.60$ 7 T6L-00490 SysCtrDatactr ALNG LicSAPk MVL Ste 2Proc $1,867.52 13,072.64$ 38 T9L-00389 SysCtrStd ALNG LicSAPk MVL Ste 2Proc $685.20 26,037.60$ -$ -$ Quoted In Year 5 of 5 With CPS -$ -$ License Descriptions -$ Core Infrastructure Server Suite Data Center -$ Core Infrastructure Server Suite Standard -$ System Center Data Center -$ System Center Standard -$ -$ Product-total 139,908.89$ Sub-Total 139,908.89$ 0 Tax ESD - nontaxable. Please type "Electronic Software Delivery" on your PO.-$ Shipping No Charge Total Onetime Payment 139,908.89$ Prices good for 30 days Quoted by Miles Allarea, SoftwareONE, Inc. Phone 916-934-6023 miles.allarea@softwareone.com Pass-Through Warranty and Other Rights. As a reseller, end-user warranties and liabilities (with respect to any third party software products provided by SoftwareONE) shall be provided as a pass-through from the manufacturer of such products. All software products are subject to the license agreement of the applicable software supplier, as provided with the software packaging or in the software at time of shipment. Important: Please provide the email address of the recipient designated to receive a SoftwareONE order confirmation and/or receive electronic Please fax your POs to our Client Assistance Center at 800-366-9994 or email to: statestore@softwareone.com - Call 800-400-9852, option 2, to check order status. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2649) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/23/2012 April 23, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2649) Summary Title: Award of MEA Contract to CompuCom Systemss Inc Title: Approval of Contract C12144913 with CompuCom Systems Inc. in the Amount of $210,617.28 per year for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a one year agreement with four one year follow on options of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement with CompuCom Systems, Inc, using the Terms and Conditions set forth by the County of Riverside, California, Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) (RIVCO-20800-(002-007)-12/12, in the amount of $210,617.28 per year, for Microsoft Licensing and Maintenance. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders or amendments to the contract with CompuCom Systems, Inc., for additional but unforeseen licensing and maintenance needs which may develop during the term of this contract, the total value of which shall not exceed $105,308.64 Change orders or amendments may become necessary as the City moves forward with its move to Windows 7. There are new capabilities in this product that may require installation of new Microsoft software; such as Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) with Operating System Deployment (OSD), Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager (SCVMM) and possibly System Center Operations Manager (SCOM). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a support services contract for Microsoft Product Licensing and Maintenance as described in the original Riverside County MEA, dated November 28, 2011 and goes through December 31, 2016. The City of Palo Alto has used the Riverside MEA since 2005. This is a renewal of the City’s MEA with a change of vendor providing the licenses and maintenance of the licenses. Riverside’s sheer volume of licenses of Microsoft products used has allowed them to obtain deep discounts on these products. This discount is allowed to be passed on to other agencies within the state. The Riverside agreement has various third party April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2649) suppliers of Microsoft products. Because of this it was necessary for the City to send out a request for quotation to these vendors, so that the City would obtain the most advantageous quote for the City’s needs. BACKGROUND The support services contract is for 4,260+/- licenses for the MEA software used by the City. Each employee uses at least four Microsoft licensed products to perform their daily duties. These licenses include, but are not limited to; Microsoft Office Suite, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Calendar, etc. The MEA allows the City to keep up with the most current version of Microsoft products with no additional cost to the City. Microsoft software is the standard for all City departments. Microsoft is used for word processing, spreadsheet processing, database creation and management, etc. Support services consist of product support, including telephone technical assistance and update subscription services providing Microsoft product upgrades, maintenance releases and patches as Microsoft makes them available. The telephone assistance to be provided will take the form of a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week support hotline available to only designated points of contact (POC) defined by the City; as well as enjoy access to Microsoft’s on-line support system. CompuCom Systems, Inc. was chosen as the City’s provider of Microsoft products as it is an approved vendor of Microsoft Products per the Riverside County MEA and a City issued RFQ. Summary of City Piggyback Process [AKA PAMC 2.360 (k)] Microsoft EA Proposed Length of Project 60 months Number of Solicitations Emailed to Riverside Contract Providers 3 Total Days to Respond to Bid 8 Pre-Bid Meeting N/A Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting N/A Number of Bids Received: 2 Bid Price Range From a low of $210,617.28 per year to a high of $225,676.86 per year. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $210,617.28 per year submitted by CompuCom Systems, Inc. be accepted.. Staff would utilize a standard contract negotiated by Riverside County on behalf of State and local government entities. The Riverside County contract RIVCO-20800-(002-007)-12/12 provides the City with a financial savings of approximately $1,719.12 per year or $8,595.60 over the term of the contract. April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2649) RESOURCE IMPACT The contract will be in the amount of $210,617.28 per year (plus applicable taxes) and the funds are included in the FY 2012 Applications Maintenance Internal Service Fund Budget. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Approval of this contract amendment does not constitute a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments: Attachment A: County of Riverside Bid Response (PDF) Attachment B: County of Riverside MEA AWARD (PDF) Attachment C: County of Riverside Reseller Agreements AR-M550N_20120223_012330 (PDF) Attachment D: County of Riverside MEA RFQ PUARC-1200 (PDF) Attachment E: County of Riverside MEA Program form (PDF) Attachment F: County of Riverside MEA Agreement 03.27 (PDF) Attachment G: CompuCom Bid (PDF) Attachment H: Late renewal ammendment (PDF) Attachement I: Enrollment form (DOCX) Attachement J: Product selection form (DOCX) Attachment K: Signature_Page (PDF) Prepared By: K.B. Paige, Senior Technologist Department Head: Jonathan Reichental, Chief Information Officer City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager PUARC-1200 RECAP Version: 1 Bid: RFQ #PUARC-1200 - Microsoft Enterprise License End Date: Oct. 11, 2011@1:30PM Item Name Applications Added at Signing 2%Added at Signing 1.25%Added at Signing 0.25%Added at Signing 0.00%Added at Signing -1.50%Added at Signing -2.50% Applications True-ups 4%True-ups 1.25%True-ups 0.25%True-ups 0.00%True-ups -0.50%True-ups 0.00% Systems Added at Signing 2%Added at Signing 1.25%Added at Signing 0.25%Added at Signing 0.00%Added at Signing -1.50%Added at Signing -2.50% Systems True-ups 4%True-ups 1.25%True-ups 0.25%True-ups 0.00%True-ups -0.50%True-ups 0.00% Servers Added at Signing 2%Added at Signing 1.25%Added at Signing 0.25%Added at Signing 0.00%Added at Signing -1.50%Added at Signing -2.50% Servers True-ups 4%True-ups 1.25%True-ups 0.25%True-ups 0.00%True-ups -0.50%True-ups 0.00% New Additional Products (Non-Specific) Added at Signing 2%Added at Signing 1.25%Added at Signing 0.25%Added at Signing 0.00%Added at Signing -1.50%Added at Signing -2.50% New Additional Products (Non-Specific) True-ups 4%True-ups 1.25%True-ups 0.25%True-ups 0.00%True-ups -0.50%True-ups 0.00% Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up % PC Mall Gov, Inc. ExcelFormat : Bid Tabulation By Vendor Dell Marketing, L.P.EnPointe Technologies Sales Inc Insight Public Sector, Inc.Softchoice Corporation SUMMARY: Recap Cost is provided at a level D-7.5 cost plus mark up percentage (%). Negative numbers represent a "below cost" percentage. The County has determined Insight Public Sector, Inc. to be the overall most responsive and responsible bidder for this commodity. The County reserves the right to reject any or all offers, to waive any discrepancy or technicality and to split or make the award in any manner determined by the County to be most advantageous to the County. CompuCom Systems, Inc. Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up %Level D-7.5 Cost plus mark up % DATE:11/9/2011 PUARC-1200 1 of 1 The County of Riverside Purchasing and Fleet Services 2980 Washington St. Riverside, CA 92503 Ph:(951) 955-4937 www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us PCS: Ines Mark Ph:(951) 955-4944 email: imark@co.riverside.ca.us 2980 WASHINGTON STREET • RIVERSIDE, CA 92504-4647 • (951) 955-4937 • FAX (951) 955-4946 NOTIFICATION TO BIDDERS REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) # PUARC-1200 Microsoft Enterprise License Riverside County Purchasing and Fleet Services would like to thank you for submitting a proposal for the above mentioned RFQ. The overall most responsive and responsible vendor: Insight Public Sector, Inc. The County has recommended that Insight Public Sector, Inc., be awarded a contract which is scheduled to be submitted for approval at the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors’ meeting on November 8, 2011, Agenda No. 3.27 In addition the other five vendors will be listed for statewide contracts: CompuCom, Softchoice Corp, PC Mall Gov, EnPointe Technologies, and Dell Marketing The County appreciates your interest and your company’s name will remain on our vendor’s list for future bid considerations. Please visit the County of Riverside Purchasing Website for future opportunities at: www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us Ines Mark Procurement Contract Specialist NIGP CODE: 20800, 20811 County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 1 REQUEST FOR QUOTE # PUARC-1200 Microsoft Enterprise License By: Ines Mark Riverside County Purchasing & Fleet Services 2980 Washington Street Riverside, CA 92504-4647 Telephone: (951) 955-4937 Email: imark@co.riverside.ca.us NIGP Code(s):20800, 20811 County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 2 INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS I. Vendor Registration – Unless stated elsewhere in this document, vendor must register online at www.Purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and http://http://www.publicpurchase.com//with all current Vendor information, to be registered on the County’s database. II. For all RFQ’s Riverside County’s Purchasing website will post a letter of notification on its website, and will provide a direct link to PublicPurchase.com. III. Format - Use the electronic format provided by PublicPurchase.com. If submitting more than one bid, separate the bid documents. IV. Pricing/Delivery/Terms/Tax - All pricing shall be quoted F.O.B. destination, (e.g., cash terms less than 20 days should be considered net) excluding applicable tax, which is a separate line item. The County reserves the right to designate method of freight. The County pays California Sales Tax and is exempt from Federal excise tax. In the event of an extension error, the unit price shall prevail. V. Other Terms and Conditions - The terms and conditions as indicated in this document and/or attached are hereby included with full force and like effect as if set forth herein. Copies of the applicable Terms and Conditions may be obtained by contacting Riverside County Purchasing at the number shown above and requesting a copy be faxed or mailed to you. VI. Period of Firm Pricing - Unless stated otherwise elsewhere in this document, prices shall be firm for 90 days after the closing date, and prior to an award being made. VII. Specification/Changes - Wherever brand names are used, the words "or equal" shall be considered to appear and be a part of the specification. If you are quoting another make or model, cross out our nomenclature and insert yours. If no make or model is stipulated, insert yours. Attach applicable specifications and/or brochures. Variations in manufacturers, design, etc., may be acceptable, bidders are encouraged to offer them as alternatives; however, the County reserves the right to reject those alternatives as non-responsive. VIII. Recycled Material - Wherever possible, the County of Riverside is looking for items made from, or containing in part, recycled material. Bidders are encouraged to bid items containing recycled material as an alternative for the items specified; however, the County reserves the right to reject those alternatives as non-responsive. IX. Method of Award - The County reserves the right to reject any or all offers, to waive any discrepancy or technicality and to split or make the award in any manner determined by the County to be most advantageous to the County. The County recognizes that prices are only one of several criteria to be used in judging an offer and the County is not legally bound to accept the lowest offer. X. Return of Bid/Closing Date/Return to - The bid response shall be submitted electronically to PublicPurchase.com by 1:30 p.m. on the closing date listed above. Bid responses not received by County Purchasing by the closing date and time indicated above will not be accepted. The County will not be responsible for and will not except late bids due to slow internet connection, or incomplete transmissions. XI Local Preference - The County of Riverside has adopted a local preference program for those bidders located within the County of Riverside. A five percent (5%) price preference may be applied to the total bid price during evaluation of the bid responses. To qualify as a local business, the business must have fixed offices within the geographical boundaries of Riverside County and must credit all sales taxes paid resulting from this RFQ to that Riverside County location. or XII. Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Preference - The County of Riverside has implemented a Disabled Veteran Owned Business preference policy. A three percent (3%) preference shall be applied to the total bid price of all quotes/bids/proposals received by the County from certified disabled veterans owned businesses. If the bid is submitted by a non-Disabled Veteran owned business, but lists subcontractors that are identified and qualified as Disabled Owned Business, the total bid price will be adjusted by 3% of the value of that subcontractor’s portion of the bid ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IF CHECKED, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS HEREBY MADE PART OF THIS RFQ X APPENDIX "A” PLANS/DRAWINGS SAMPLES X EXHIBITS (A) X_ ATTACHMENT (Product List) #116-110 Special Conditions/Response #116-130 Equipment Information Sheet _X #116-260 Local Business Qualification Affidavit #116-310 Boilerplate Contract IF CHECKED, THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED WITH FULL FORCE AND LIKE EFFECT AS IF SET FORTH HEREIN X #116-200 General Conditions X #116-210 General Conditions Materials and/or Services _ #116-230 General Conditions - Equipment #116-220 General Conditions - Public Works #116-240 General Conditions - Personal/Professional Service To access any of these General Conditions go to www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us, located in Vendor Registration/Bidding Opportunities. If an addendum is issued for this procurement, it will be the vendor’s responsibility to retrieve all applicable addendum(s) from the Public Purchase website. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 3 APPENDIX A 1.0 INFORMATION 1.1 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - It is agreed by the parties that time is of the essence, and in the event complete delivery is not made within the schedule set by the County, and pursuant to the bid specifications, damage will be sustained by the County, it will be impractical, and extremely difficult to ascertain, and determine the actual damage sustained. Therefore, it is agreed that the successful bidder shall pay to the County of Riverside, as fixed and liquidated damages, and not as penalty, a dollar sum in the amount of $_________ per calendar day for each and every calendar day that a delay in making delivery in excess of the time or times specified. It is further agreed that in the event such damages are sustained by the County, the County shall deduct the amount from any payment due or that may become due to the vendor under the contract. 1.2 "Electronic submission hereof is certification that the Bidder has read and understands the terms and conditions hereof, and that the Bidder’s principal is fully bound and committed." All County terms and conditions are found at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us. Bidders must acknowledge the applicable terms and conditions that are checked at the bottom of page 2 of this document. 1.3 CASH DISCOUNT_% from receipt of good or invoice, whichever is later. (terms less than 20 days will be considered net) Cash discount shall be applied to grand total. 1.4 Delivery: ___ calendar days after receipt of order. 1.5 Please Check: ____Disabled Veteran ____ Local Business – if checked, the above signer certifies that the above business is located within the geographical boundaries of Riverside County and that all sales taxes generated based on this RFQ will be credited to that location in Riverside County. If claiming Local Preference please submit form 116-260. 1.6 If Bidder experiences technical issue with the online bidding process, Bidder must contact the Procurement Contract Specialist (PCS) for further bid submission instructions. Bidder must contact the appropriate PCS a minimum of 1 hour prior to bid close time of 1:30 PM. 2.0 DEFINITIONS A. Wherever these words occur in this RFQ, they shall have the following meaning: B. “RFQ” shall mean Request for Quote. C. “Addendum” shall mean an amendment or modification to the RFQ (Request for Quote). D. “Bid” shall mean the proposal submitted by a Bidder on the Bid Form consistent with the Instructions to Bidders, to complete the Work for a specified sum of money and within a specified period of time. E. “Bidder” shall mean an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation that submits a qualified Bid for the Work, either directly or through a duly authorized representative. F. “Contractor” shall mean any employee, agent, or representative of the contract company used in conjunction with the performance of the contract. For the purposes of this RFQ, Contractor and Bidder are used interchangeably. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 4 G. “COUNTY” shall mean the County of Riverside and its agencies. H. “CCISDA” shall mean the California County Information Services Directors Association I. “MISAC” shall mean the Municipal Information Systems Association J. “LAR” shall mean the Large Account Resellers K. “EA” shall mean Enterprise Agreement L. “Qualified Device” shall mean any personal desktop computer, portal computer, workstation, or similar device that is used by of for the benefit of Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. It does not include: (1) any computer that is designated as a server and not used as a personal computer, (2) any Industry Device, (3) any device running an embedded operating system (e.g., Windows Phone 7) that does not access a virtual desktop infrastructure, or (4) any device that is not managed and/or controlled either directly or indirectly by Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. Enrolled Affiliate may include as a Qualified Device any device which would be excluded above (e.g., Industry Device). M. “MDOP” shall mean Microsoft Desktop Optimization Platform N. “MSDN” shall mean Microsoft Developer Network 3.0 PURPOSE/BACKGROUND 3.1 Purpose a) The County of Riverside is soliciting bids for a consortia approach to collectively enter into a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement and Select program in order to utilize the desktop volumes to achieve the best possible price as detailed in this RFQ. Microsoft has demonstrated flexibility in dealing with CCISDA\MISAC to accommodate government issues and concerns to offer a customized Enterprise Agreement that will work for all government agencies within the state of California. b) The purpose of this RFQ is to seek both renewal pricing for those under the current Microsoft Agreement from any authorized LAR within the State of California plus allow new enrollments to take place based on combined volumes of those staying with the old agreement, those renewing in this new contract, and those joining into the new contract for the first time. c) The intent of this RFQ is to award to no more than five (5) Microsoft authorized and responsible Large Account Resellers (LAR) in the State of California that meets the terms and conditions of this RFQ. The LAR(s) will serve as the administrator of this agreement and will collect all dollars directly from those jurisdictions enrolled under this awarded contract. 3.2 Background a) Since June 19, 2001, The California County Information Services Directors Association (CCISDA) and the Municipal Information Systems Association (MISAC) of California have been participating in a state-wide Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) and Select program. The County of Riverside will continue to administer this award, to include participation from CCISDA and MISAC. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 5 b) The California County Information Services Directors Association (CCISDA) is the official organization of the county information technology directors in the state of California. They represent the 58 California counties in the area of information technology and county government. c) The Municipal Information Systems Association (MISAC) of California is a statewide organization of approximately 150 member agencies. They represent the 475 Cities and Special Districts in the state of California in the area of information technology and county government. d) Current participation in this successful contract has surpassed 488,000 desktops and over 460 separate enrollments to this Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. The current Large Account Resellers (LAR) have worked with each of these entities to explain the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, helped them make decisions about their licensing needs, provided enrollment assistance, and coached them during annual EA requirements including true-ups and annual payments. The awarded LAR(s) will be required to deliver this same level of service, as well as provide continuing education to enrollees on other services and benefits provided to participants in the EA. e) The LAR(s) must allow CCISDA/MISAC members with the opportunity to continue to enroll in the Enterprise Agreement after the open enroll period at a highly discounted price based on cumulative volumes of desktops enrolled under the new and existing contracts. f) In addition, many government entities could not purchase from a sole LAR due to local preference purchasing requirements. The intent of this RFQ is to award to multiple Large Account Resellers (LARs) under a single agreement and to get credit for volumes under the existing contract and for those that want to change to the renewal contract or for those governments enrolling for the first time. g) Many counties do not upgrade their software on their desktops on an annual basis and most do so every two to three years. As a result, most may not benefit from Software Assurance under the Select Program nor can justify an Enterprise Agreement. Therefore, to make an Enterprise Agreement a tool for government, it must be cost effective, ease licensing management, and encourage government to stay current with new software versions to take advantage of the latest technological improvements that could benefit employee productivity. An additional benefit can be realized through other offerings made available to EA participants. When such offerings are introduced, it is imperative that the LAR make the offering known to the agency in order for them to obtain the most out of their EA investment. 4.0 PRODUCT LINE 4.1 Enterprise Agreement Program Products The products offered under the Enterprise Agreement (EA) may be purchased individually or in total as follows: 4.2 Enterprise Products a) The Enterprise Agreement offers California County Governments access to the most recent releases of the Desktop Professional Platform products. The Enterprise Agreement Desktop Platform products are: i. Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise Edition with MDOP ii. Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 iii. Microsoft Core Client Access License Suite or Enterprise Client Access License Suite County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 6 b) Government entities who enroll in the Professional or Enterprise Platform (the Windows 7 Enterprise Edition operating system upgrade, Office Professional Plus 2010, and Core CAL Suite or Enterprise CAL Suite) receive a platform discount on top of their already discounted enterprise software product. c) Government entities not adding products at signing may still add additional products to their enrollment at any time with License & Software Assurance (pro-rated annually for the remaining term of their enrollment). d) For full product listing see excel attachment “PUARC-1200 Product listing.” 4.3 Additional Products and Services a) Nearly all other available Microsoft software titles are obtainable as additional products. They provide the same License & Software Assurance coverage as enterprise products, but do not require an enterprise-wide commitment. For products licensed at signing, payments can be spread throughout enrollment years in the same way that enterprise product payments are annualized. Also, additional products at signing will have corresponding pricing for the use of the True Up ordering process, enabling an annual consolidation of ordering. Government entities not adding products at signing may still add additional products to their enrollment at any time with License & Software Assurance (pro- rated for the remaining term of their enrollment). b) Premier Services are available through the Riverside Master Agreement for as long as it is offered as products under the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. c) Examples of software products available as additional products include Office Visio, Microsoft Project, Windows servers, Exchange servers, Microsoft Office SharePoint Servers, SQL Servers, Visual Studio Team Edition (w/ MSDN), MapPoint Web Service, and many others. d) A complete list of additional products is available on the Microsoft Product List at: http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/PL.aspx e) To learn more about Product Use Rights, visit: http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/PUR.aspx 4.5 Customized Components: a) The awarded Large Account Reseller(s) as part of the contract must be willing to accept the administration of the contract. California government entities will enroll by Agency (understanding that all desktops in a department must be committed unless the desktop has an asset tag where it has been paid and owned by another government jurisdiction). b) Commitment for each government entity is at least 25 desktops in the entire organization. Organizations under 25 qualified workstations are required to combine enrollments with other local government entities for a total of at least 25 qualified workstations s to qualify. The government entity who handles the enrollment for multiple jurisdictions will also be responsible for distributing license confirmations. c) The LAR’s are required to provide annual reports of qualified workstation counts by enrollment and ask for desktop true-ups for net additional desktops added during each contract year. The customer is expected to true up additional products added to during past year. Quarterly reports of licenses purchased under the Select agreement (provided by this contract) must also be provided including product and version number. It is preferred that this capability be provided though the Internet. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 7 d) All products covered under the EA automatically include Software Assurance for either the full thirty- six (36) or sixty (60) month contract period options. During the contract period, participating government entities will be entitled to all version upgrades at no additional charge. And on termination of the contract, participating organizations will own the most current version of covered products as of the contract termination date, whether the version is installed or not. e) During the EA each participant will be required (but not limited) to count total qualified workstations in their organization which will be reported to the LAR. Other counts such as True-Up of additional products and additional of 'not-at-signing' products may be required. f) The Enterprise Agreement term is sixty (60) calendar months from the date of acceptance, or an optional thirty-six (36) months if requested. Enrollment for this program will be open until the expiration of the Master Agreement. While the number of net desktops in each organization may increase annually, there could be certain economic issues (such as discontinuing a government service due to funding) or political shifts (such as County Courts becoming a State Agency or a government entity filing for bankruptcy) that could impact desktop counts. Microsoft will deal with decreases in qualified workstation counts on an individual basis without penalty to other enrollments. EA participants that terminate for cause, will own licenses equal to the portion of the total contract period for which they participated. Participants terminating prior to year 2 shall own licenses for 1/3 of the total desktops enrolled. Participants terminating prior to year 3 shall own licenses for 2/3 of the total desktops enrolled. The licenses shall be for the current version of the products at the time of termination. If any one County/Department terminates the enterprise agreement, it shall have no bearing or impact on the others enrolled. g) EA enrollees receive perpetual license to the most current version of the software covered under this agreement upon initial payment. By participating under the EA, enrollees immediately become current and stay current. Net new desktops added during the contract period immediately have the right to install the most current versions of the products covered under the EA and the “true-up” payment must be made at the beginning of the next contract year. h) All new software covered and purchased under the EA is to be delivered to the COUNTY electronically, unless explicit instructions are communicated that delivery method would be otherwise. 5.0 TIMELINE DATES: 1. RELEASE OF REQUEST FOR QUOTATION September 20, 2011 2. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS Bidders must submit their questions online at PublicPurchase.com. All questions submitted are within the correct RFQ located on PublicPurchase.com. Must be submitted by: Date: October 3, 2011 Time: 1:30 PM 3. DEADLINE FOR QUOTATION SUBMITTAL Bid results are posted on PublicPurchase.com October 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM 4. TENTATIVE DATE FOR AWARDING CONTRACT 5-90 days, contingent upon lowest bidder meeting all of the bid specifications. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 8 6.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The period of performance shall be for 5 year(s), with each year renewable in one-year increments, with the completion date of 12/31/17, with no obligation by the County of Riverside to purchase any specified amount of services. 7.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Procedures for Submitting Quotations All quotations must be submitted in accordance with the standards and specifications contained within this Request for Quote (RFQ). The County reserves the right to waive, at its discretion, any irregularity, which the County deems reasonably correctable or otherwise not warranting rejection of the quotation. The County shall not pay any costs incurred or associated in the preparation of this or any quotation or for participation in the procurement process. Quotes must be specific unto themselves. For example, “See Enclosed Manual” will not be considered an acceptable quotation. Receipt of all addenda, if any, must be acknowledged in the quotation. Late quotations will not be accepted. Postmarks will not be accepted in lieu of this requirement. Quotations submitted to any other County office will be rejected. 8.0 METHOD OF AWARD (Specifications) Quotations will be evaluated based on relevant factors, including but not limited to the following: a. Lowest overall purchase price b. Adherence to specifications as detailed in this RFQ (PUARC-1200) c. Prompt payment discounts on 30 days or less d. Warranties e. All associated delivery costs f. Delivery date g. Product acceptability h. Service/Customer Support 9.0 EVALUATION PROCESS All quotations will be given thorough review. All contacts during the review selection phase will be only through the Purchasing Department. Attempts by the Bidder to contact any other County representative may result in disqualification of the Bidder. The County recognizes that prices are only one of several criteria to be used in judging an offer, and the County is not legally bound to accept the lowest offer. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 9 10.0 INTERPRETATION OF RFQ The Contractor must make careful examination and understand all of the requirements, specifications, and conditions stated in the RFQ. If any Contractor planning to submit a quote finds discrepancies in or omissions from the RFQ, or is in doubt as to the meaning, a written request for interpretation or correction must be given to the County. Any changes to the RFQ will be made only by written addendum and may be posted on the Purchasing website at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and PublicPurchase.com. The County is not responsible for any other explanations or interpretations. If any provision in this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. All notices regarding this procurement may be posted on the County’s purchasing website at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us and PublicPurchase.com. 11.0 CANCELLATION OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS The County may cancel the procurement process at any time. All quotations become the property of the County. All information submitted in the quotation becomes “public record” as defined by the State of California upon completion of the procurement process. If any proprietary information is contained in or attached to the quote, it must be clearly identified by the Bidder; otherwise, the Bidder agrees that all documents provided may be released to the public after bid award. The County reserves the right to withdraw the Request for Quote (RFQ), to reject a specific quote for noncompliance within the RFQ provisions, or not award a bid at any time because of unforeseen circumstances or if it is determined to be in the best interest of the County. 12.0 COMPENSATION 12.1 The County shall pay the awarded bidder for equipment and services performed, after the equipment are installed and tested to the satisfaction of the County. Expenses incurred and compensation shall be paid in accordance with an invoice submitted to County by awarded bidder. The County shall pay the acceptable invoice within thirty-(30) working days from the date of receipt of the invoice, or the goods/services are received, whichever is later. 12.2 No price increases will be permitted during the first year of the award. All price decreases (for example, if CONTRACTOR offers lower prices to another governmental entity) will automatically be extended to the County. The County requires written proof of cost increases prior to any approved price adjustment. After the first year of the award, a minimum of 30-days advance written notice is required for consideration and approval by County. No retroactive price adjustments will be considered. The net dollar amount of profit will remain firm during the period of the Agreement. Annual increases shall not exceed the Consumer Price Index- All Consumers, All Items - Greater Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange County areas (Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement) and be subject to satisfactory performance review by the County and approved (if needed) for budget funding by the Board of Supervisors. 13.0 USE BY OTHER POLITICAL ENTITIES The CONTRACTOR agrees to extend the same pricing, terms, and conditions as stated in this Agreement to every political entity, special district, and related non-profit entity in Riverside County. It is understood that other entities shall make purchases in their own name, make direct payment, and be liable directly to the CONTRACTOR; and County shall in no way be responsible to CONTRACTOR for other entities’ purchases. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 10 Exhibit A Software Assurance Benefits: The Enterprise Agreement includes Software Assurance, Microsoft’s enhanced maintenance program that helps customers get the most out of their software investments. Access to valuable benefits such as training, deployment planning, software upgrades, and product support can help increase the productivity of the entire organization. Awarded LAR(s) will continue to educate and assist participants on what these benefits are and how participants can take full advantage of them. Here are details on Software Assurance benefits throughout each phase of software management. Stage Benefit Description Planning Stage New Version Rights With Software Assurance, you receive new versions of licensed software released during the term of your agreement to deploy at your own pace as they become available. You can reduce the costs associated with acquiring new version releases and immediately take advantage of the latest technology. Spread Payments You can make payments annually, instead of making one up-front payment. This helps you to reduce initial costs and forecast annual software budget requirements up to three years in advance. Deployment Stage Packaged Services: Information Work Solution Services These one- to three-day partner-managed workshops help IT teams learn how desktop applications assist support deployment, security, and infrastructure business goals like project prioritization. You also learn how to implement high-value projects in the IT environment to maintain or accelerate productivity. Workshops include Information Work Business Value Discovery and Information Work Architectural Design Session. Microsoft Windows Pre- installation Environment (WinPE) This is a tool based on the Windows Server® 2003 operating system and the Windows XP Professional operating system that allows IT staff to build custom solutions that speed up deployment through automation, so they spend less time and effort keeping desktops updated. WinPE can run Windows setup, scripts, and imaging applications. Using Stage Training Vouchers You will receive training vouchers for training on select courses from Microsoft Certified Partners for Learning Solutions (CPLS), the premier authorized training channel for delivering learning products and services on Microsoft technology. Taking training from Microsoft CPLSs helps you prepare for deployment, enable smoother migration, and stay up- to-date with the latest Microsoft technologies, giving you the competitive advantage you need. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 11 Exhibit A Cont’ Software Assurance Benefits: eLearning Courses Microsoft’s eLearning provides your employees access to individual, on-demand Microsoft software courses. eLearning can be delivered online or offline and includes simulations, hands-on exercises, and learning assessments. Home Use Program The Home Use Program increases employee productivity and maximizes the value of your Microsoft Office investment because with it, your employees can use Office desktop programs for work or personal needs. Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise Edition The Windows 7 Enterprise Edition is optimized for large organizations and includes features such as data protection that safeguard lost or stolen PCs, application compatibility, and the ability to deploy a single image in multiple locations around the world (per availability of Windows Vista), helping you to lower your deployment and management costs. Microsoft Virtual PC Express Migrate legacy applications during an operating system upgrade in a safe, protected way. Microsoft Virtual PC Express supports a single instance of a virtual operating system (in comparison, Virtual PC 2004 supports multiple instances). Virtual PC Express will be made available to our Software Assurance customers in early 2006, ahead of the Windows Vista Enterprise Edition. Maintenance Stage 24 X 7 Problem Resolution Support With Software Assurance, you can be continuously connected with Microsoft for your support needs. You can select the right level of help when you need it with business-critical 24 hours a day, 7 days a week phone support for all Microsoft server products, Windows, and the 2007 Microsoft Office system, in addition to unlimited Web support. County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 12 Exhibit A Cont’ Software Assurance Benefits: Unlimited Web Support Complement your business-critical 24 hours a day, 7 days a week phone support with unlimited Web support during business hours, and decide which level of support is best for the issue. This helps you lower your total cost of support and ownership through time and gives you a choice for how to use your direct connection to Microsoft. TechNet Plus Subscription with Two Support Calls/Year IT professionals have access to TechNet Plus subscription media, featuring resources such as the Microsoft Knowledge Base, software updates, utilities, technical training, and how-to articles to help them succeed. They also have access to additional premium TechNet Plus benefits, including evaluation software without time limits, pre-release versions of Microsoft products, two technical support incidents per year, and TechNet Plus Subscriber Online Services. IT professionals can also access TechNet Managed Newsgroups with more than 100 IT-related newsgroups, where they can post technical questions and are guaranteed responses by the next business day. “Cold” Backups for Disaster Recovery Customers with Software Assurance for Microsoft server software, as well as related Client Access Licenses, are eligible for complimentary "cold backup" server licenses for disaster recovery. Corporate Error Reporting Corporate Error Reporting (CER) gives you a clear and easy way to monitor and review error information so you can control deployment of fixes and resolutions. It provides the ability for applications and the operating system to collect and report on crashes in the system. Transition Extended Life- cycle Hotfix Support Enter into Extended Hotfix Support Account (EHSA) as hotfix issues arise. Annual fees and required sign- up periods associated with EHSA are waived for Software Assurance customers, increasing peace of mind and reducing support costs. A Premier or Essential Support agreement is a pre-requisite for eligibility. For more information about Software Assurance benefits, please visit: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa County of Riverside Request for Quote # PUARC-1200 Purchasing & Fleet Services Closing Date: 10/11/2011@1:30 P.M. Form # 116-101 RFQ Public Purchase Revision 04/12/11 13 Local Business Qualification Affidavit The County of Riverside Local Business Preference may be applied to this Request for Proposal/Quotation. If you qualify for this preference, please submit this form along with your response to this RFP/Q. Definition of Local Business A local business shall mean a business or firm with fixed offices located within the geographical boundaries of Riverside County, and authorized to perform business within the County. In doing so, credit all sales tax from sales generated within Riverside County to the County, and who provide product or perform contracted work using employees, of whom the majority are physically located in said local offices. Local businesses” shall have a Riverside County business street address. Post office box numbers, residential addresses, or un-staffed sales offices shall not suffice to establish status as a “local business.” To qualify as a “local business” the location must be open and staffed during normal business hours and the business must establish proof that it has been located and doing business in Riverside County for at least (6) six months preceding its certification to the County as a local business. Additional supporting documentation that may be requested by the County to verify qualification includes: 1. A copy of their current BOE 531-A and/or BOE 530-C form (State, Local & District Sales, and Use Tax Return Form). This is what businesses submit to the State Board of Equalization when paying the sales tax to the State of California indicating the amount of the payment to be credited to each jurisdiction (i.e. Counties, Cities). 2. A current business license if required for the political jurisdiction the business is located. 3. Proof of the current business address. The local business needs to be operating from a functional office that is staffed with the company’s employees, during normal business hours. Business Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Physical Address:_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FAX: _________________ E-Mail: ___________________________________ Length of time at this location: ______________ Number of Company Employees at this address: ________ If less than 6 month, list previous Riverside County location: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Business License # (where applicable): __________________ Jurisdiction_________________________________________ Hours of Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Primary function of this location (i.e., sales, distribution, production, corporate, etc): __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ ________________ Signature of Company Official Date _________________________________________________________________ Print Name, Title Submittal of false data will result in disqualification of local preference and/or doing business with the Riverside County. Form # 116-260 Rev 8/04 1 CompuCom Systems Inc. 7171 Forest Lane Dallas TX 75230 www.compucom.com Wednesday, April 04, 2012 Adrian Brown, JD Contract Administrator Purchasing & Contract Administration City of Palo Alto Mezzanine Floor 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Brown, Please find below our response for bid to renew your upcoming Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. This annual payment is valid for either a 3 year or a 5 year term. Please let me know if you have any questions. 144913 Microsoft Enterprise License, Volume Licensing for City of Palo Alto, California; Piggyback to Riverside County, California RFQ No. PUARC-1200 (MS Agreement Number 01E73134, Riverside Contract No. RIVCO-20800-002-12/12) EA Annual Payment Microsoft Part Number: Product Description: Unit Price: Quantity: Total: 269-12442 OfficeProPlus ALNG SA MVL Pltfrm $77.41 1000 $77,410.00 FQC-02460 WinPro ALNG SA MVL Pitfrm $28.44 1000 $28,440.00 W06-01072 CoreCAL ALNG SA MVL Pitfrm UsrCAL $29.41 1000 $29,410.00 359-00961 SQLCAL ALNG SA MVL UsrCAL $24.05 1000 $24,050.00 395-02504 ExchgSvrEnt ALGN SA MVL $595.99 3 $1,787.97 810-04760 SQLSvrEnt ALGN SA MVL $1,264.14 15 $18,962.10 9JD-00053 VSUltwMSDN ALGN SA MVL $1,503.14 4 $6,012.56 D87-01159 VisioPro ALGN SA MVL $78.29 40 $3,131.60 H21-00591 PrjctSvrCAL ALGN SA MVL UsrCAL $23.62 75 $1,771.50 H22-00475 PrjctSvr ALGN SA MVL $724.78 1 $724.78 H30-00238 PrjctPro ALGN SA MVL w1PRJCTSvrCAL $152.64 50 $7,632.00 P72-00188 WinSvrEnt ALGN SA MVL $346.82 15 $5,202.30 P73-00226 WinSvrStd ALGN SA MVL $106.71 57 $6,082.47 Total 4260 $210,617.28 2 Brief description of CompuCom’s value adds around the EA CompuCom takes our Microsoft relationship seriously; Microsoft is worth 80% of our State of California Public Sector software business, so we have to make sure we do it right! CompuCom employs 4 outbound (California based) Software Specialists, plus 4 dedicated Software Only support personnel located in Dallas. These 8 specialists only support software sales to State and Local Government in California. Our 4 outbound CompuCom Software Licensing Specialists are Microsoft MCPs and SIIA Certified Software Managers; they can help you maneuver around the intricacies of the Software Licensing Agreement’s language and definition. Your CompuCom Local Software Licensing Specialist will guide you through the annual True-Up process by providing detailed instructions and reports approximately 2 to 3 months prior to your anniversary date. CompuCom's detailed reports help you anticipate annual payments for budget purposes, plus provide valuable information when you’re counting your assets for future purchases. Regards, Miles Allarea Software Solutions Specialist Phone 916-934-6023 Pass-Through Warranty and Other Rights As a reseller, end-user warranties and liabilities (with respect to any third party hardware and software products provided by CompuCom) shall be provided as a pass-through from the manufacturer of such products. All software products are subject to the license agreement of the applicable software supplier, as provided with the software packaging or in the software at time of shipment. All prices are subject to change based on re-leveling by Microsoft or change of reseller incentives by Microsoft. EnrAmend(WW)(ENG)(Jul2011) Grace Period B M55 B Page 1 of 1 Enterprise Enrollment Amendment ID M55 000-cgodfrey-S-386 For the purposes of this Amendment, “Entity” can mean the signing entity, Customer, Enrolled Affiliate, Government Partner, Institution, or other party entering into a volume licensing program agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary or in addition to any terms in the Enrollment, the Enrollment is amended as follows: Entity may submit a renewal order no later than 90 days after the expiration date of Enrollment/Authorization number 6880181, so long as the effective date of Entity’s renewal order starts one day following the expiration of the previous term. In the absence of this Amendment or an on-time renewal order, Entity loses the opportunity to renew Software Assurance, and Subscription Licenses may be impacted. This Amendment must be attached to a signature form to be valid. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 1 of 10 Enterprise Enrollment State and Local Enterprise Enrollment number (Microsoft to complete) Proposal ID Previous Enrollment number (Reseller to complete) 6880181 Earliest expiring previous Enrollment end date 1 1/31/12 This Enrollment must be attached to a signature form to be valid. This Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment is entered into between the entities as identified in the signature form as of the effective date. Enrollment Affiliate represents and warrants it is the same Customer, or an Affiliate of the Customer, that entered into the Enterprise Agreement identified on the program signature form. This Enrollment consists of: (1) these terms and conditions, (2) the terms of the Enterprise Agreement identified on the signature form, (3) the Product Selection Form, (4) any supplemental contact information form or Previous Agreement/Enrollment form that may be required, (5) any order submitted under this Enrollment. This Enrollment may only be entered into under a 2011 or later Enterprise Agreement. All terms used but not defined are located at http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/contracts. In the event of any conflict the terms of this agreement control. As a condition of entering into this Enrollment with 25-249 Qualified Devices or Qualified Users, the Enrolled Affiliate agrees that (1) it also has 250 or more Qualified Devices or Qualified Users; or (2) as a condition of entering into this Enrollment with 25-249 Qualified Devices or Qualified Users, Enrolled Affiliate has elected not to receive CD ROMs as part of the Enrollment and therefore no CD ROMs will automatically be shipped. If Enrolled Affiliate is enrolling with 25-249 Qualified Devices or Qualified Users and it would like to receive CD ROM Kits and updates, Enrolled Affiliate may order these through its Reseller for a fee Effective date. If Enrolled Affiliate is renewing Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses from one or more previous Enrollments or agreements, then the effective date will be the day after the first prior Enrollment or agreement expires or terminates. Otherwise, the effective date will be the date this Enrollment is accepted by Microsoft. If renewing Software Assurance, the Reseller will need to insert the previous enrollment or agreement number and end date in the respective boxes above. Term. This Enrollment will expire on the last day of the month, 60 full calendar months from the effective date unless otherwise renewed. Any reference in this Enrollment to "day" will be a calendar day. The 60- month initial term is required by the The County of Riverside as indicated in the original request for proposal and final award. Customer may terminated this Enrollment for its convenience without penalty on the third anniversary of this Enrollment (or at any other time as permitted by California law) subject to proportional licensing as set forth in Section 7d of the Agreement. Product order. The Reseller will provide Enrolled Affiliate with Enrolled Affiliate’s Product pricing and order. Prices and billing terms for all Products ordered will be determined by agreement between Enrolled Affiliate and the Reseller.The Reseller will provide Microsoft with the order separately from this Enrollment. Prior Enrollment(s). If renewing Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses from another Enrollment or agreement, the previous Enrollment or agreement number and end date must be identified in the respective boxes above. If renewing from multiple Enrollments or agreements, or transferring Software Assurance or MSDN details, the Previous Agreement/Enrollment form must be used. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 2 of 10 Terms and Conditions 1. Definitions. Terms used but not defined in this Enrollment will have the definition in the Enterprise Agreement. The following definitions are used in this Enrollment: “Additional Product” means any Product identified as such in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. “Enterprise Online Service” means any Online Service designated as an Enterprise Online Service in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Online Services are treated as Online Services, except as noted. “Enterprise Product” means any Desktop Platform Product that Microsoft designates as an Enterprise Product in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Products may only be licensed for all Qualified Devices and Qualified Users on an Enterprise-wide basis under this program. “Expiration Date” means the date upon which the Enrollment expires. “Industry Device” (also known as line of business device) means any device that: (1) is not useable in its deployed configuration as a general purpose personal computing device (such as a personal computer), a multi-function server, or a commercially viable substitute for one of these systems; and (2) only employs an industry or task-specific software program (e.g. a computer-aided design program used by an architect or a point of sale program) (“Industry Program”). The device may include features and functions derived from Microsoft software or third-party software. If the device performs desktop functions (such as email, word processing, spreadsheets, database, network or Internet browsing, or scheduling, or personal finance), then the desktop functions: (1) may only be used for the purpose of supporting the Industry Program functionality; and (2) must be technically integrated with the Industry Program or employ technically enforced policies or architecture to operate only when used with the Industry Program functionality. “Qualified Device” means any personal desktop computer, portable computer, workstation, or similar device that is used by or for the benefit of Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. It does not include: (1) any computer that is designated as a server and not used as a personal computer, (2) any Industry Device, (3) any device running an embedded operating system (e.g., Windows Phone 7) that does not access a virtual desktop infrastructure, or (4) any device that is not managed and/or controlled either directly or indirectly by Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. Enrolled Affiliate may include as a Qualified Device any device which would be excluded above (e.g., Industry Device). “Qualified User” means a person (e.g., employee, consultant, contingent staff) who: (1) is a user of a Qualified Device, or (2) accesses any server software requiring an Enterprise Product Client Access License or any Enterprise Online Service. It does not include a person who accesses server software or an Online Service solely under a License identified in the Qualified User exemptions in the Product List. “Reserved License” means for an Online Service identified as eligible for true-ups in the Product List, the License reserved by Enrolled Affiliate prior to use and for which Microsoft will make the Online Service available for activation. “Transition” means the conversion of one or more License to or from another License(s). Products eligible for Transition and permitted Transitions are identified in the Product List. “Transition Period” means the time between the Transition and the next Enrollment anniversary date for which the Transition is reported. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 3 of 10 2. Purpose. This Enrollment enables Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise to obtain, or subscribe to, Licenses for Enterprise Products, Enterprise Online Services, and Additional Products. Enrolled Affiliate may choose between on-premise software and Online Services as well as the ability to transition Licenses to Online Services while maintaining Enterprise-wide coverage. Additionally, Enterprise Online Services may be purchased without Enterprise-wide coverage. 3. Product Use Rights, Qualifying Systems Licenses and Transitions. In addition to applicable terms of the Enterprise Agreement, the following terms apply to this Enrollment: a. Product Use Rights. For Enterprise Products, if a new Product version has more restrictive use rights than the version that is current at the start of the applicable initial or renewal term of the Enrollment, those more restrictive use rights will not apply to the Enrolled Affiliate’s use of that Product during the term. b. Qualifying systems Licenses. The operating system Licenses granted under this program is upgrade Licenses only. Full operating system Licenses are not available under this program. If Enrolled Affiliate selects any Desktop Platform, Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade, or Windows Intune, all Qualified Devices on which Enrolled Affiliate expects to run the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade must be licensed to run, and have installed on them, one of the qualifying operating systems identified in the Product List. Note that the list of operating systems that qualify for the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade varies with the circumstances of the order. That list is more extensive at the time of the initial order than it is for some subsequent orders and system refreshes during the term of this Enrollment. Exclusions are subject to change when new versions of Windows are released. For example: The following are not considered qualifying operating systems: (1) ANY Windows Home or Starter edition; (2) Embedded Systems; and (3) Linux.These are examples of exclusions only and may change. Please see Product List for all current qualifying operating systems. c. Transitions. The following requirements apply to Transitions: (i) Licenses with active Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses may be Transitioned at any time if permitted in the Product List. While Enrolled Affiliate may Transition any time, it will not be able to reduce Licenses or associated Software Assurance prior to the end of the Transition Period. (ii) If a Transition is made back to a License that had active Software Assurance as of the date of Transition, then Software Assurance will need to be re-ordered for all such Licenses on a prospective basis following the Transition Period. Software Assurance coverage may not exceed the quantity of perpetual Licenses for which Software Assurance was current at the time of any prior Transition. Software Assurance may not be applied to Licenses transferred by Enrolled Affiliate. (iii) If a device-based License is Transitioned to a user-based License, all users of the device must be licensed as part of the Transition. (iv) If a user-based License is Transitioned to a device-based License, all devices accessed by the user must be licensed as part of the Transition. d. Effect of Transition on Licenses. Transition will not affect Enrolled Affiliate’s rights in perpetual Licenses paid in full. (i) New version rights will be granted for perpetual Licenses covered by Software Assurance up to the end of the Transition Period. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 4 of 10 (ii) For L&SA not paid in full at the end of the Transition Period, Enrolled Affiliate will have perpetual Licenses for a proportional amount equal to the total of installments paid versus total amounts due (paid and payable) for the Transitioned Product. (iii) For L&SA not paid in full or granted a perpetual License in accordance with the above or Subscription Licenses, all rights to Transitioned Licenses cease at the end of the Transition Period. 4. Pricing. a. Price Levels. For both the initial and any renewal term Enrolled Affiliate’s Price Level for all Products ordered under this Enrollment will be Level “D” throughout the term of the Enrollment. Price Level’s will be captured in the Product Selection Form. b. Setting Prices. Enrolled Affiliate’s prices for each Product will be established by its Reseller. Microsoft’s prices for Resellers are fixed throughout the Enrollment term based upon current prices at the time of the initial order for the Product. This includes the following: (i) Any future pricing (if applicable); and (ii) Prices for Transitions, including any prices related to the use of a Product during the Transition Period (if applicable). 5. Order requirements. a. Minimum Order Requirements. Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise must have a minimum of 25 Qualified Users or Qualified Devices. (i) Initial Order. Initial order must include at least 25 Licenses from one of the four groups outlined in the Product Selection Form. (ii) If choosing Enterprise Products. If choosing Enterprise Products in a specific group outlined in the Product Selection Form, Enrolled Affiliate’s initial order must include an Enterprise-wide selection of one or more Enterprise Products or a mix of Enterprise Products and corresponding Enterprise Online Services for that group. (iii) Additional Products. Upon satisfying the minimum order requirements above, Enrolled Affiliate may order Additional Products. (iv) Country of Usage. Enrolled Affiliate must specify the countries where Licenses will be used on its initial order and on any additional orders. b. Adding Products. (i) Adding new Products not previously ordered. Enrolled Affiliate may add new Enterprise Products by entering into a new Enrollment or as part of a renewal. New Enterprise Online Services may be added by contacting a Reseller. New Additional Products, other than Online Services, may be used if an order is placed in the month the Product is first used. For Additional Products that are Online Services, an initial order for the Online Service is required prior to use. (ii) Adding Licenses for previously ordered Products. Additional Licenses for previously ordered Products must be included in the next true-up order. Enrolled Affiliate must Licenses for Online Services prior to use, unless the Online Services are (1) identified as eligible for true-up in the Product List or (2) included as part of other Licenses (e.g., Enterprise CAL). c. True-up orders. Enrolled Affiliate must submit an annual true-up order that accounts for changes since the initial order or last true-up order, including: (1) any increase in Licenses, including any increase in Qualified Devices or Qualified Users and Reserved Licenses; (2) Transitions (if permitted); or (3) Subscription License quantity reductions (if permitted). Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 5 of 10 Microsoft, at its discretion and as permitted by applicable law, may validate the customer true-up data submitted through a formal product deployment assessment, using an approved Software Asset Management (‘SAM’) Partner. The true-up order must be received by Microsoft between 60 and 30 days prior to the Enrollment anniversary date. The third-year anniversary true-up order is due within 30 days prior to the Expiration Date. Enrolled Affiliate may true-up more often than at each Enrollment anniversary date except for Subscription License reductions. (i) Enterprise Products. Enrolled Affiliate must determine the current number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users (if ordering user-based Licenses) and order the License difference (if any), including any Enterprise Online Services. (ii) Additional Products. For Products which have been previously ordered, Enrolled Affiliate must determine the Additional Products used and order the License difference (if any). (iii) Online Services. For Online Services identified as eligible for true-up orders in the Product List, Enrolled Affiliate must first reserve the additional Licenses prior to use. Microsoft will provide a report of Reserved Licenses in excess of existing orders to Enrolled Affiliate and its Reseller. Reserved Licenses will be invoiced retroactively for the prior year based upon the month in which they were reserved. (iv) Late true-up order. If the true-up order is not received when due: 1) Microsoft will invoice Reseller for all Reserved Licenses not previously ordered. 2) Transitions and Subscription License reductions cannot be reported until the following Enrollment anniversary date (or at Enrollment renewal, as applicable). (v) Transitions. Enrolled Affiliate must report all Transitions. Transitions may result in an increase in Licenses to be included on the true-up order and a reduction of Licenses for prior orders. Reductions in Licenses will be effective at end of the Transition Period. Associated invoices will also reflect this change. (vi) Subscription License Reductions. Enrolled Affiliate may reduce the quantity of Subscription Licenses on a prospective basis if permitted in the Product List as follows: 1) For Subscription Licenses part of an Enterprise-wide commitment, Licenses may be reduced if the total quantity of Licenses and Software Assurance for an applicable group meets or exceeds the quantity of Qualified Devices identified on the Product Selection Form. Step-up Licenses do not count towards this total count. 2) For Enterprise Online Services not a part of an Enterprise-wide commitment, Licenses can be reduced as long as the initial order minimum requirements are maintained. 3) For Additional Products available as Subscription Licenses, Enrolled Affiliate may reduce the Licenses. If the License count is reduced to zero, then Enrolled Affiliate’s use of the applicable Subscription License will be cancelled. Invoices will be adjusted to reflect any reductions in Subscription Licenses at the true-up order Enrollment anniversary date and effective as of such date. (vii) Update statement. An update statement must be submitted instead of a true-up order if, as of the initial order or last true-up order, Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise has not: (1) changed the number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users licensed with Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services; and (2) increased its usage of Additional Products. This update statement must be signed by Enrolled Affiliate’s authorized representative. The update statement must be received by Microsoft between 60 and 30 days prior to the Enrollment anniversary date. The last update statement is due at least 30 days prior to the Expiration Date. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 6 of 10 d. Step-up Licenses. For Licenses eligible for a step-up under this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate may step-up to a higher edition or suite as follows: (i) For step-up Licenses included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may order according to the true-up process. (ii) If step-up Licenses are not included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may step-up initially by following the process described in the Section titled “Adding new Products not previously ordered,” then for additional step-up Licenses, by following the true-up order process. (iii) If Enrolled Affiliate has previously ordered an Online Service as an Additional Product and wants to step-up to an Enterprise Online Service eligible for a Transition, the step-up may be reported as a Transition. (iv) If Enrolled Affiliate Transitions a License, it may be able to further step-up the Transitioned License. If Enrolled Affiliate chooses to step-up and the step-up License is separately eligible to be Transitioned, such step-up Licenses may result in a License reduction at the Enrollment anniversary date following the step-up. 6. Payment terms. For the initial or renewal order, Enrolled Affiliate may pay upfront or elect to spread its payments over the applicable Enrollment term. If spread payments are elected, unless indicated otherwise, Microsoft will invoice Enrolled Affiliate’s Reseller in three equal annual installments. The first installment will be invoiced upon Microsoft’s acceptance of this Enrollment and on each Enrollment anniversary date. Subsequent orders are invoiced upon acceptance of the order and Enrolled Affiliate may elect to pay annually or upfront for Online Services and upfront for all other Licenses. 7. End of Enrollment term and termination. a. General. At the Expiration Date, Enrolled Affiliate must immediately order and pay for Licenses for Products it has used but has not previously submitted an order, except as otherwise provided in this Enrollment. b. Renewal Option. At the Expiration Date, Enrolled Affiliate can renew Products by renewing the Enrollment for one additional 36 full calendar month term or signing a new Enrollment. Microsoft must receive a Product Selection Form and renewal order prior to or at the Expiration Date. The renewal term will start on the day following the Expiration Date. Microsoft will not unreasonably reject any renewal. Microsoft may make a change to this program that will make it necessary for Customer and its Enrolled Affiliates to enter into new Agreements and Enrollments. c. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew. (i) Software Assurance. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew Software Assurance for any Product under its Enrollment, then Enrolled Affiliate will not be permitted to order Software Assurance later without first acquiring L&SA. (ii) Online Services eligible for an Extended Term. For Online Services identified as eligible for an Extended Term in the Product List, the following options are available at the end of the Enrollment initial or renewal term. 1) Extended Term. Licenses for Online Services will automatically expire in accordance with the terms of the Enrollment. An extended term feature that allows Online Services to continue month-to-month (“Extended Term”) is available. During the Extended Term, Online Services will be invoiced monthly at the then-current published price for Enrolled Affiliate’s price level as of the Expiration Date plus a 3% Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 7 of 10 administrative fee for up to one year. If Enrolled Affiliate does want an Extended Term, Government Partner must submit a request to Microsoft. Microsoft must receive the request not less than 30 days prior to the Expiration Date. 2) Cancellation during Extended Term. If Enrolled Affiliate has opted for the Extended Term and later determines not to continue with the Extended Term, Government Partner must submit a notice of cancellation for each Online Service. Cancellation will be effective at the end of the month following 30 days after Microsoft has received the notice. (iii) Online Services not eligible for an Extended Term. If Online Services are not identified as eligible for an Extended Term in the Product List, the Licenses will be cancelled and will terminate as of the Expiration Date. Any associated media must be uninstalled and destroyed and Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise must discontinue use. Microsoft may request written certification to verify compliance. (iv) Customer Data. Upon expiration or termination of a License for Online Services, Enrolled Affiliate must tell Microsoft whether to: 1) disable its account and then delete its Customer Data (“Data Deletion”); or 2) retain its Customer Data in a limited function account for at least 90 days after expiration or termination of the License for such Online Service (the “Retention Period”) so that Enrolled Affiliate may extract its Customer Data. 3) If Enrolled Affiliate indicates Data Deletion, Enrolled Affiliate will not be able to extract its Customer Data. If Enrolled Affiliate indicates it wants a Retention Period, Enrolled Affiliate will be able to extract its Customer Data through Microsoft’s standard processes and tools, and Enrolled Affiliate will reimburse Microsoft if there are any applicable costs to the extent allowed by applicable law. If Enrolled Affiliate does not indicate either Data Deletion or a Retention Period, Microsoft will retain Enrolled Affiliate’s Customer Data in accordance with the Retention Period. 4) Following the expiration of the Retention Period, Microsoft will disable Enrolled Affiliate’s account and then delete its Customer Data. 5) Enrolled Affiliate agrees that, other than as described above, Microsoft has no obligation to continue to hold, export or return Enrolled Affiliate’s Customer Data. Enrolled Affiliate agrees Microsoft has no liability whatsoever for deletion of Enrolled Affiliate’s Customer Data pursuant to these terms. d. Termination for cause. Any termination for cause of this Enrollment will be subject to the “Termination for cause” Section of the agreement. e. Early termination. Any Early termination of this Enrollment will be subject to the “Early Termination” Section of the Enterprise Agreement. For Subscription Licenses, in the event of a breach by Microsoft, Microsoft will issue Reseller a credit for any amount paid in advance that would apply after the date of termination. Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 8 of 10 Enrollment Details 1. Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. Identify which Affiliates are included in the Enterprise. Check only one box in this section: Enrolled Affiliate Enrolled Affiliate and the following Affiliate(s): Enrolled Affiliate and all Affiliates, with following Affiliate(s) excluded: Please indicate whether the Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise will include all new Affiliates acquired after the start of this Enrollment: Include future Affiliates 2. Contact information. Each party will notify the other in writing if any of the information in the following contact information page(s) changes. The asterisks (*) indicate required fields. By providing contact information, Enrolled Affiliate consents to its use for purposes of administering this Enrollment by Microsoft, its Affiliates, and other parties that help administer this Enrollment. The personal information provided in connection with this Enrollment will be used and protected in accordance with the privacy statement available at https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/servicecenter. a. Primary contact. This contact is the primary contact for the Enrollment from within Enrolled Affiliate’s Enterprise. This contact is also an Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing Service Center and may grant online access to others. Name of entity (must be legal entity name)* City of Palo Alto Contact name* First KB Last Paige Contact email address* KB.Paige@cityofpaloalto.org Street address* 250 Hamilton Ave City* Palo Alto State/Province* CA Postal code* 94301 (For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx) Country* USA Phone* 650-617-3109 Fax Tax ID b. Notices contact and Online Administrator. This contact (1) receives the contractual notices, (2) is the Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing Service Center and may Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 9 of 10 grant online access to others, and (3) is authorized for applicable Online Services to add or reassign Licenses, step-up, and initiate Transitions prior to a true-up order. Same as primary contact Name of entity* CompuCom Systems, Inc Contact name* First Bruce Last Valentin Contact email address* bvalenti@compucom.com Street address* 7171 Forest Lane City* Dallas State/Province* TX Postal code* 75230- (For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx) Country* USA Phone* 972-856-4617 Fax Language preference. Choose the language for notices. English This contact is a third party (not the Enrolled Affiliate). Warning: This contact receives personally identifiable information of the Customer and its Affiliates. c. Microsoft Account Manager. Microsoft Account Manager for this Enrolled Affiliate is: Microsoft account manager name: Gina Kirby Microsoft account manager email address: gkirby@microsoft.com d. Media delivery contact (DO NOT COMPLETE IF ATTACHING MEDIA ELECTION FORM). This is the contact at the ship to/electronic delivery address. Same as notices contact and Online Administrator Name of entity* City of Palo Alto Contact name: First* KB Last* Paige Contact email address (required for online access)* KB.Paige@cityofpaloalto.org Street address (no PO boxes accepted)* 250 Hamilton Ave City* Palo Alto State/Province* CA Postal code* 94301 - (For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx) Country* USA Phone* 50-617-3109 Fax e. Online Services Manager. This contact is authorized to manage the Online Services ordered under the Enrollment and (for applicable Online Services) to add or reassign Licenses, step-up, and initiate Transitions prior to a true-up order. Same as notices contact and Online Administrator Name of entity* City of Palo Alto Contact name*: First KB Last Paige Contact email address* KB.Paige@cityofpaloalto.org Street address* 250 Hamilton Ave City* Palo Alto State/Province* CA Postal code* 94301 Country* USA Phone* 50-617-3109 Fax This contact is from a third party organization (not the entity). Warning: This contact receives personally identifiable information of the entity. f. Reseller information. Reseller contact for this Enrollment is: Reseller company name* CompuCom Systems, Inc. Street address (PO boxes will not be accepted)* 7171 Forest Lane City* Dallas State/Province* TX Postal code* 75230 Country* US Contact name* Bruce Valentin Enterprise v 2011 Custom Riverside County Enrollment (North America) State and Local (English) Nov, 2011 (CTM) Page 10 of 10 Phone* 972-856-4617 Fax 972-856-0265 Contact email address* bvalentin@compucom.com The undersigned confirms that the information is correct. Name of Reseller* Signature* Printed name* Bruce E. Valentin Printed title* Microsoft Licensing Specialist Date* Changing a Reseller. If Microsoft or the Reseller chooses to discontinue doing business with each other, Enrolled Affiliate must choose a replacement Reseller. If Enrolled Affiliate or the Reseller intends to terminate their relationship, the initiating party must notify Microsoft and the other party using a form provided by Microsoft at least 90 days prior to the date on which the change is to take effect. g. If Enrolled Affiliate requires a separate contact for any of the following, attach the Supplemental Contact Information form. Otherwise, the notices contact and Online Administrator remains the default. Additional notices contact Software Assurance manager Subscriptions manager Customer Support Manager (CSM) contact 3. Financing elections. Is a purchase under this Enrollment being financed through MS Financing? Yes, No. EA-EASProdSelForm(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2011) Page 1 of 3 Document X20-02722 Enterprise and Enterprise Subscription Enrollment Product Selection Form – State and Local Enrollment Number Microsoft to complete for initial term Reseller to complete for renewal 6880181 Step 1. Please indicate whether Enrolled Affiliate is ordering Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services on the initial enrollment order. Choose both if applicable. Enterprise Products. Choose platform option: Professional Desktop Qualified Devices: 1000 Qualified Users: 1000 Enterprise Online Services1 Step 2. Select the Products and Quantities Enrolled Affiliate is ordering on its initial Enrollment Order. Quantity may not include any Licenses which Enrolled Affiliate has selected for optional future use, or to which it is transitioning or stepping up within enrollment term. Products for which the Enrolled Affiliate has an option to transition or step-up should be listed in Step 3. Products2 Quantity Office Professional Plus Office Pro Plus 1000 Office Pro Plus for Office 365 Office 365 Plans1 Office 365 (Plan E1) Office 365 (Plan E2) Office 365 (Plan E3) Office 365 (Plan E4) Client Access License (CAL). Choose 1 Option. Core CAL, including Bridge CAL’s (if applicable) Core CAL 1000 Core CAL Bridge for Office 365 Core CAL Bridge for Windows Intune Core CAL Bridge for Office 365 and Windows Intune Enterprise CAL (ECAL) ECAL ECAL Bridge for Office 365 ECAL Bridge for Windows Intune ECAL Bridge for Office 365 and Windows Intune The Client Access License selection must be the same across the Enterprise. Specify whether licensing CAL per Device or User: User Windows Desktop Windows OS Upgrade 1000 Windows VDA Windows Intone Windows Intune Windows Intune Add-on3 Other Enterprise Products Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP)4 EA-EASProdSelForm(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2011) Page 2 of 3 Document X20-02722 If selecting Windows Desktop or Windows Intune option, Enrolled Affiliate acknowledges the following: a. The Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade licenses offered through this Enrollment are not full licenses. The Enrolled Affiliate and any included Affiliates have qualifying operating system licenses for all devices on which the Windows Desktop Operating System Upgrade or Windows Intune licenses are run. b. In order to use a third party to reimage the Windows Operating System Upgrade, Enrolled Affiliate must certify that Enrolled Affiliate has acquired qualifying operating system licenses. See the Product List for details. Step 3. Indicate new Enterprise Products and Online Services Enrolled Affiliate has selected for optional future use where not selected on the initial enrollment order (above): Products2 Office Pro Plus for Office 365 Office 365 (Plan E1) Office 365 (Plan E2) Office 365 (Plan E3) Office 365 (Plan E4) Enterprise CAL (ECAL) Step-up, including Bridge CALs Windows Intune Windows Intune Add-on3 Step 4. Establish the Enrolled Affiliate’s Price Level. Enrolled Affiliate must first count the quantity of Software Assurance and Licenses in each of the groups as described below by using the quantities entered in the above table. If Enrolled Affiliate does not order an Enterprise Product or Enterprise Online Service associated with an applicable Product pool, the price level for Additional Products in the same pool will be price level “D” throughout the term of the Enrollment. Do not include Bridge CALs, as License quantities are determined by the corresponding Enterprise Online Service(s). Products Price Group Qty from above Qty Price Level Office Professional Plus + Office Professional Plus for Office 365 + Office 365 (Plans E2–E4) 1 1000 250 and Above D Client Access License + Office 365 (Plans E1-E4) 2 1000 Client Access License + Windows Intune Add-on + Windows Intune 3 1000 Windows Desktop Upgrade + Windows VDA + Windows Intune 4 1000 Product Offering/Pool Price Level Enterprise Products and Enterprise Online Services: Set price level using the highest quantity from Groups 1 through 4 D Additional Product Application Pool: Set price level using quantity from Group 1 D Additional Product Server Pool: Set price level using the highest quantity from Group 2 or 3 D Additional Product Systems Pool: Set price level using quantity from Group 4 D 1 Enterprise Online Services may not be available in all locations. Please see the Product List for a list of locations where these may be purchased. 2 Additional Products may be included on the order, but are not selected on this form. 3 Windows Intune Add-on requires purchase of Windows OS Upgrade or Windows VDA. 4 MDOP requires purchase of Windows OS Upgrade, Windows VDA, or Windows Intune. EA-EASProdSelForm(US)SLG(ENG)(Oct2011) Page 3 of 3 Document X20-02722 This form must be attached to a signature form to be valid. Quoted to:City of Palo Alto Darren Numoto Darren.Numoto@CityofPaloAlto.org Date 5/05/16 One-time price to add licenses & software assurance in year 5 of EA agreement 6849237 (through 1/31/17). Quantity Part #Description Unit Price Ext. Price 250 AAA-11894 O365GovE3 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr (9 mnths rmng)137.25$ 34,312.50$ 100 3NS-00003 ExchgOnlnPlan2Gov ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr (9 mnths rmng)48.06$ 4,806.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Product-total 39,118.50$ Sub-Total 39,118.50$ Tax Electronic Software Delivery - non-taxable -$ Shipping No Charge Total 39,118.50$ Prices good for 30 days Pass-Through Warranty and Other Rights. As a reseller, end-user warranties and liabilities (with respect to any third party hardware and software products provided by SoftwareONE) shall be provided as a pass-through from the manufacturer of such products. All software products are subject to the license agreement of the applicable software supplier, as provided with the software packaging or in the software at time of shipment. Public Sector Disclosure: CompuCom may receive incentive fees for public sector EA transactions. Quoted by Aaron Liggitt, SoftwareOne 7171 Forest Lane, Dallas TX 75230 SoftwareOne - software quote Phone 916-735-3942 aaron.liggitt@softwareone.com Important: Please provide the email address of the recipient designated to receive a SoftwareONE "order confirmation" Please fax your POs to Client Assistance Center at 800-366-9994. You may call 800-400-9852, option 2, to check status on orders. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6736) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract For Leasing of Two Aerial Bucket Trucks Title: Approval of a Vehicle Lease and Purchase Option With Altec Capital in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $602,847 for two Model Year 2017 Articulating Aerial Device Bucket Trucks and Approval of Budget Amendments in the Electric Fund and Vehicle Equipment and Replacement Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached contract (Attachment A) with Altec Capital in an amount not to exceed $602,847 for the lease and eventual purchase of one 2017 Model AM60 articulating overcenter aerial device bucket truck and one 2017 Model AA67 articulating non-overcenter aerial device bucket truck . 2.Amend the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the Water Fund by: a.Increasing the operating budget appropriation by $120,569; and b.Decreasing the Vehicle Equipment & Replacement Fund by $120,569. Background The newly updated internal Vehicle and Equipment Use, Maintenance, and Replacement Policy provides for the on-going replacement of City fleet vehicles and equipment. Replacements are scheduled using guidelines based on age, mileage accumulation, and obsolence. The policy prescribes a replacement interval for aerial bucket trucks of ten years or 100,000 miles. In accordance with the policy,Fleet Review Committee (FRC) reviewed the proposed vehicles and authorized their replacement. FRC approved the leasing of City of Palo Alto Page 2 these vehicles on January 21, 2016. The approval was based on: ·An examination of each vehicle’s current usage; ·An analysis of each vehicle’s operating and replacement costs; ·A comparison of the age, mileage, operating cost and performance of each vehicle with others in the class; and ·An analysis of alternatives to ownership, such as mileage reimbursement; pooling/sharing; reassignment of another underutilized vehicle or renting. Although scheduled for replacement in 2007, the economic downturn resulted in replacement being postponed. Recently, the staff began discussions of leasing these and other specialty type vehicles. The cost to purchase two new aerial bucket trucks is more than the leasing costs when factoring downtime and maintenance costs. Leasing creates projected savings based upon the significant benefits of having a vendor that is responsible for all vehicle maintenance. Additionally, if the vehicle is out of service for more than 24 hours, the vendor will make every effort to provide a similar loaner vehicle as soon as possible. Without a backup service vehicle, Utilities service levels drop when a vehicle is down for maintenance/repairs, unless Utilities Department rents a vehicle for a monthly charge of approximately $4500. Discussion The City of Palo Alto Utilities has two double bucket trucks. Unit 7621 is a 1997 Freightliner model FL70, and Unit 7620 is a 2001 Freightliner model FL70. Both have surpassed the 10-year replacement interval recommended in the policy. These are specialty vehicles where mileage is not as important as the total run- time of the engine,which powers the hydraulic systems that allow the workforce to complete their daily tasks. These vehicles are unique in that they are die- electrically tested and can reach a working height of 55 or 60 feet. These vehicles are needed to perform normal work such as rubber gloving, where both operators and trucks must be certified to work on live systems between 5,000 and 21,000 volts. These vehicles are also Utilities first-responders,responding to identified overhead outages such as downed electrical wires and/or tree limbs on conductors. Not having these vehicles, or a backup, delays outage restoration abilities. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Staff recommends replacement of these vehicles,as increasing maintenance costs are more costly than purchasing/leasing a new vehicle. The average annual shop downtime for units 7621 and 7620 in the first ten years was 95 hours at a cost of $2,184.00 annually. During the second 10 year period of operation the average annual shop downtime increased to 224 hours, at a cost of $11,081.00 annually. The amount of vehicle downtime doubled in the second ten years of operation and the repair costs increased five times. Vehicle unavailability leads to lost time for workers who are unable to work or have to use inefficient work practices. The lost productivity for workers increased from 315 hours to 964 hours annually, or $45,000-$130,000 annually in the second ten years of operation for both vehicles. Utilities staff completed an analysis on vehicle leasing. Failure to replace existing bucket trucks in a timely manner and the cost of downtime associated when maintenance or repairs are needed make purchasing costs greater than leasing costs. There were multiple types of leases analyzed (Attachment B). Staff suggest the $1.00 buy out lease, where the City takes full ownership of the vehicles at the end of the lease. The leasing terms for the 2017 Altec model AM60 would be calculated at $5,175.41 per month (sales tax included), for 60 months with the option for to buy the equipment at the conclusion of the lease for $1.00 or return it to the vendor for credit towards a new lease. The leasing terms for the 2017 Altec model AM67 would be calculated at $4,872.00 per month (sales tax included), for 60 months with the option to buy the equipment at the conclusion of the lease for $1.00 or return it to the vendor for credit towards a new lease. The City intends to, at the conclusion of each lease, purchase both vehicles and continue their use in the fleet until approval of another lease/purchase contract and replacement vehicles can be put into service. Once new vehicles are obtained, the City would then surplus the vehicles and all proceeds would go back into the Vehicle Replacement Fund. The combined monthly lease for both units would be $10,047.41 per month, for 60 months, resulting in a combined buy out total of $602,846.60 for both vehicles. A breakdown of the leasing options is provided (Attachment C). Bid Process The City’s Municipal code, PAMC section 2.30.360 (j) identifies the process that allows the use of Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing agreements. Bids for this purchase were obtained through the National Joint Purchasing Alliance City of Palo Alto Page 4 (NJPA), Attachment A, which is an approved cooperative group. A Request for Quotation (RFQ) was sent to National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) and proposal from Altec Capital was received March 30,2016. Resource Impact This is the City of Palo Alto Utilities first attempt to lease these types of vehicles. The impact is lessened by the fact that initial costs will be paid through the use of existing funds collected for these vehicles (approximately $585,000). Funds collected will be returned to the City of Palo Alto Utilities on an annual basis to match the leasing cost. Once these collected funds have been depleted, any remaining lease costs are to be requested through the standard budget process. Policy Implications The approval of this request to lease vehicles is consistent with existing City policies, including Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan to operate the electrical distribution system in a cost effective manner which includes vehicles, to invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service. Attachments: ·Attachment A-Lease And Warranty Contract (PDF) ·Attachment B -Lease Options (PDF) ·Attachment C -Lease Option Breakdown (XLSX) ·Attachment D -AM60 Quote (PDF) ·Attachment E -AA67 Quote (PDF) Attachment A Mee Capital. ALTEC CAPITAL SERVICES, LLC 33 Inverness Center Parkway Suite 200 Birmingham, AL35242 Equipment LP Lease Equipment Lease Number Name and Address of Lessee: Equipment Description: See Exhibit I Eauioment Location: , (Countv:) SUMMARY OF PAYMENT TERMS Initial Term in Months: Total Cost: Payment Frequency: Total Basic Rent: Basic Rental Payment: plus sales and use tax if applicable Doc Fee: Number of Installments: Interim Rent Cutoff Date: Advance Payment(s): due on signing this Lease Security Deposit: Down Payment collected by ACS: Purchase Option: NIA Rent Commencement Date: Purchase Agreement: $1.00 Lease Provisions 1. LEASE. Allee Capital Seivices, LLC (the 'Lessor') hereby agrees to lease to Lessee, and Lessee hereby agrees to lease from Lessor, the property or other items listed or described on Exhibit I hereto, including but not limited to all inventory, fixtures and other properties compromising the same, such property, together with all replacements, substitutions, repairs, improvements and additions incorporated therein or affixed thereto being referred to herein individually, as an "Item· or "Item of Equipmenr and collectively, as the 'Equipmenr listed above on the terms and conditions set forth herein. 2. TERM. The term of this lease commences on the Acceptance Date and will continue until Lessee performs all of Lessee's Obligations hereunder, unless earlier terminated or cancelled in accordance with the terms of this Lease. Acceptance Date shall be the earliest of the following: (a) the date Lessee signs the Acceptance Certificate (b) the date that Lessor determines that Lessee commences use of any portion of the Equipment or (c) seven (7) days after the date on which, in Lesso(s determination, substantially all of the Equipment has been delivered to Lessee IT Lessee fails to notify Lessor that such Equipment is not acceptable. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that certain obligations of Lessee, including but not limited to Lessee's obligations with respect to section 12 and 13 will begin upon delivery of the Equipment This Lease cannot be canceled or terminated except as expressly provided for herein. LESSEE'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS LEASE ARE ABSOLUTE, UNCONDITIONAL AND NON-CANCELABLE IN ALL RESPECTS AND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO TERMINATION, MODIFICATION OR REPUDIATION, AND SHALL BE PAID AND PERFORMED BY LESSEE WITHOUT NOTICE OR DEMAND AND WITHOUT ANY ABATEMENT, REDUCTION, DIMINUTION, SETOFF, DEFENSE, COUNTERCLAIM OR RECOUPMENT WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY MALFUNCTION OF THE EQUIPMENT, DAMAGE TO THE EQUIPMENT OR ANY INABILITY TO USE THE EQUIPMENT FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, ANY PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE CLAIMS THAT LESSEE MAY HAVE AGAINST LESSOR OR ANY MANUFACTURER, SUPPLIER, OR VENDOR OF ANY EQUIPMENT, OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY WHATSOEVER. The Interim Term, ('Interim Term"), for each item of Equipment shall begin on the Acceptance Date and shall continue through the Interim Rent Cutoff Date. The Initial Term, ('Initial Term'), shall begin on the Rent Commencement Date and shall continue for the period specified as the Number of Installments. The Initial Term of this Lease can be terminated as provided herein or extended automatically as provided below in this paragraph. AUTOMATIC EXTENSION. Lessee or Lessor may terminate this Lease at the expiration of the Initial Term by giving the other at least 90 days prior written notice of termination. If neither Lessee nor Lessor gives such notice, then the term of this Lease shall be extended automatically on the same rental and other terms set forth herein (except that in any event rent during any extended term shall be payable in the amounts and at the times provided in paragraph 3) for successive periods of one month until terminated by either Lessee or Lessor giving the other at least 90 days prior written notice of termination. 3. RENT. Lessee shall pay as Basic Rent for the Initial Term of this lease the amount shown on the first page of this lease as Total Basic Rent The Total Basic Rent shall be payable in installments each in the amount of the Basic Rental Payment plus sales and use tax thereon. Lessee shall pay advance installments and any Security Deposit, on the date it is executed by Lessee. Lessee's first Basic Rental Payment shall be due on the first day of the first month following the Acceptance Date (the "Initial Term Commencement Date') and basic rental payments shall be due on the first day of each rental payment period beginning with the Rent Commencement Date and continuing for the Number of Installments. If the actual cost of the Equipment is more or less than the Total Cost the amount of each installment of rent will be adjusted up or down to provide the same yield to Lessor as would have been obtained if the actual cost had been the same as the Total Cost Adjustments of 10% or less may be made by written notice from Lessor to Lessee. Adjustments of more than 10% shall be made by execution of an amendment to this lease reflecting the change in Total Cost and rent In addition to Total Basic Rent Lessee agrees to pay Interim Rent with respect to each separate item of Equipment during the Interim Term. Interim Rent is calculated as one thirtieth (11301h) of the Basic Rental Payment for the number of days from and including the Acceptance Date to and including the Interim Rent Cutoff Date. Interim Rent accruing each calendar month shall be payable by the 101h day of the following month and in any event on the Rent Commencement Date. Lessee agrees that if the Equipment covered by this lease has not been accepted by providing Lessor an Acceptance Certificate within fourteen (14) days after delivery or if the Equipment is not delivered within thirty (30) days after the execution of this Lease, the Lessor may terminate this Lease and Lessee shall purchase from Lessor the items of Equipment then subject to the lease within five days after Lesso(s request to do so for a price equal to Lesso(s cost of such items plus all accrued but unpaid interim rent thereon. Lessee shall also pay any applicable sales and use tax on such sale. During any extended term of this lease, basic rent shall be payable monthly in advance on the first day of each month during such extended term in the amount equal to the Basic Rental Payment IT rent is payable monthly during the Initial Tenn or in an amount equal to the monthly equivalent of the Basic Rental Payment if rent is payable other than monthly during the Initial Term. In addition, Lessee shall pay any applicable sales and use tax on rent payable during any extended term. 4. SECURITY DEPOSIT. Lessor may commingle any such Security Deposit with other funds and shall have no obligations with respect thereto except as expressly agreed herein. Lessor may apply the Security Deposit to any payment due Lessor or to cure any default, in which event Lessee will promptly restore the Security Deposit to Its full amount 5. WARRANTIES. Lessee has selected each item of Equipment based upon Lessee's own judgment and disclaims any reliance upon any statements or representations made by Lessor. Lessee further agrees that there are no warranties, terms, conditions or agreements made by 6r on Lessors beha~ and neither the supplier, manufacturer nor any other party is Lesso(s agent and Lessor is not the agent of any other party with respect to the Equipment this Lease and the matters contemplated hereby. Lessor acknowledges that Lessor is not a 'merchanr as that term is defined in the Uniform Commercial Code as presently adopted in the State of Alabama (the 'UCC') with respect to the Equipment LESSOR MAKES NO WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE EQUIPMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND LESSOR SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND ANY LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE EQUIPMENT. Lessee agrees to make the rental and other payments required hereunder without regard to the condition or the inability of the Equipment and to look only to persons other than Lessor such as the manufacturer, vendor or carrier thereof should any item of Equipment for any reason be defective. So long as no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, Lessor agrees, to the extent they are assignable, to assign to Lessee, without any recourse to Lessor, any warranty received by Lessor. Initials----,-- Page 1 of 4 6. TITLE. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONTRARY LANGUAGE IN THIS DOCUMENT, this agreement evidences a lease-purchase arrangement that constitutes a sea.ired financing and not a true lease for legal, tax and accounting purposes. Lessee hereby grants to Lessor a first priority security interest in the Equipment. Title shall at all times be in Lessee's name, subject to Lessors security interest and any certificate of title shall list Lessee as owner and Lessor as lienholder. Title to the Equipment shall at all times remain in the possession of Lessor. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, certificates of title for the Equipment may be held by a trust or other entity designated by Lessor and such circumstance shall not affect the parties' obligations or rights hereunder, except that all of Lessee's obligations to indemnify and provide insurance for the benefit of Lessor shall apply equally to such trust or other entity and the party acting as trustee or servicer. The Equipment shall remain personal property regardless of its attachment to realty, and Lessee agrees to take such action at its expense as may be necessary to prevent any third party from acquiring any interest in the Equipment as a result of its attachment to realty. 7. LAWS AND TAXES. Lessee shall comply with all laws and regulations relating to the Equipment and the Equipmenfs use and shall promptly pay when due all sales, use, property, excise and other taxes and all license and registration fees now or hereafter imposed by any governmental body or agency upon the Equipment or its use or the rentals hereunder. Upon request by Lessor, Lessee shall prepare and file all tax returns relating to taxes for which Lessee is responsible hereunder which Lessee is permitted to file under the laws of the applicable taxing jurisdiction. 8. INDEMNITY. Lessee hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Lessor, Lessors employees, agents, officers, managers or members harmless from and against (a) all claims, demands, suits and legal proceedings (whether civil, criminal, administrative, investigative or otherwise) including but not limited to those arising out of (i) the actual or alleged manufacture, purchase, financing, ownership, delivery, rejection, non-<lelivery, possession, use, transportation, storage, operation, maintenance, repair, return or other disposition of the Equipment. (ii) patent, trademark or copyright infringement, and (iii) any alleged or actual default by Lessee (collectively 'Actions'); and (b) any and all penalties, losses, liabilities (including but not limited to negligence, tort and strict liability), damages, costs, court costs and any and all other expenses (including but not limtted to attorneys' fees, judgments and amounts paid in settlement) incurred incident to, arising out of or in any way connected with any Actions, this Agreement, any Equipment, or any other instrument, document or agreement executed in connection with or contemplated by any of the foregoing (collectively the 'Losses'). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee shall not be required to indemnify Lessor for any Losses or Actions resulting solely from Lessors gross negligence or willful misconduct. Lessee shall, at Lessors discretion, appear and defend any such action and pay the cost of the defense of any such action brought against Lessor, either alone or in conjunction with others, upon any such liability or claim. Lessee shall satisfy, pay and discharge any and all judgments and fines that may be recovered against Lessor in any such action. The foregoing indemnities shall survive expiration, termination or cancellation of this Agreement whether by expiration of time, by operation of law or otherwise. 9. INSPECTION. Lessor may inspect the Equipment at any time and from time to time during regular business hours. 10. ASSIGNMENT. WITHOUT LESSOR'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT, LESSEE WILL NOT SELL, ASSIGN, TRANSFER, SUBLET, PLEDGE, OR OTHERWISE ENCUMBER OR PERMIT A LIEN ARISING THROUGH LESSEE TO EXIST ON OR AGAINST ANY INTEREST IN THIS LEASE OR THE EQUIPMENT, or remove the Equipment from its location referred to on the first page of this lease. Lessor may assign its interest in this lease and sell or grant a security interest in all or any part of the Equipment without notice to or the consent of Lessee. Lessee agrees not to assert against any assignee of Lessor any claim or defense Lessee may have against Lessor. 11 . USE; REPAIRS. Lessee will use the Equipment with due care and for the purpose for which tt is intended. Lessee will maintain the Equipment in good repair, condition and working order and will furnish all parts and services required therefor, all at Lessee's sole cost and expense, ordinary wear and tear excepted. Lessee shall, at Lessee's expense, make all modifications and improvements to the Equipment required by law, and shall not make other modifications or improvements to the Equipment without the prior written consent of Lessor. All parts, modifications and improvements to the Equipment shall, when installed or made, immediately become the property of Lessor and part of the Equipment for all purposes. 12. LOSS OR DAMAGE. In the event any ttem of Equipment shall become lost, stolen, destroyed, damaged from any cause whatsoever or rendered permanently unfit for use for any reason, or in the event of condemnation, requisition or seizure of any ttem of Equipment {collectively an 'Event of Loss') Lessee shall immediately, but in no event later than two (2) day after the Event of Loss, notify Lessor in writing of the circumstances and extent of such Event of Loss. Upon any such Event of Loss, at Lessors sole discretion, Lessee will either promptly pay Lessor the sum of (a) the amount of all rent and other amounts payable by Lessee hereunder with respect to such ttem due but unpaid at the date of such payment plus {b) the amount of all unpaid rent with respect to such Item for the balance of the term of this lease not yet due at the time of such payment discounted from the respective dates installment payments would be due at the rate of 2.5% per annum plus (c) the dollar amount specified in either the 'Purchase Option' box on the first page of this lease (the 'Lessors Loss') or {b) replace said Equipment with satisfactory new Equipment, with such determination being made by Lessor in Lessors sole discretion. Upon payment of Lessors Loss to Lessor, such ttem shall become the property of Lessee, Lessor will transfer to Lessee, without recourse or warranty, all of Lessors right, title and interest therein, the rent with respect to such Item shall terminate, and the basic rental payments shall be reduced accordingly based on the remaining Equipment Lessee shall pay any sales and use taxes due on such transfer. Any insurance or condemnation proceeds received shall be credited to Lessee's obligation under this paragraph and Lessor shall be entitled to any surplus. 13. INSURANCE. Lessee shall procure and maintain on or with respect to the Equipment at Lessee's sole cost and expense (a) liability insurance insuring against liability for bodily injury and property damage with a in an amount satisfactory of Lessor of combined single limlt coverage, but in no event less than $1,000,000.00; and (b) physical damage insurance insuring against loss or damage to the Equipment in an amount not less than the full replacement cost of the Equipment; provided that such amount is satisfactory to Lessor. Lessee shall furnish Lessor with a certificate of insurance, policy endorsements and other coverage that is satisfactory for Lessor evidencing the issuance of a policy or policies to Lessee amounts as Lessor may determine herein naming Lessor as an additional insured thereunder for the liability coverage and as loss payee for the physical damage coverage and additional insured for the liability coverage. Each such policy shall be in such form and with such insurers as may be satisfactory to Lessor, and shall contain a clause requiring the insurer to give to Lessor at least 30 days prior written notice of any alteration in the terms of such policy or the cancellation thereof, and a clause specifying that no action or misrepresentation by Lessee shall invalidate such policy and Lessee shall obtain renewals thereof at least fifteen (15) full business day prior to the expiration thereof. Lessor shall be under no duty to ascertain the existence of or to examine any such policy or to advise Lessee in the event any such policy shall not comply with the requirements hereof. In the event that Lessee does not provide Lessor with satisfactory proof of insurance, Lessee will pay Lessor a per diem insurance charge of $0.15 per thousand of the Equipment's then Fair Market Value as a risk fee to Lessor until such time as Lessee provides satisfactory proof of insurance in amounts and coverage as required herein. The risk fee may include a profit to Lessor and is not intended to be insurance covering the Lessee. With respect to Lessee's obligation to obtain and maintain physical damage insurance only, Lessee shall have the alternative right to elect to have Lessor purchase collateral damage insurance in Lessors name as subject to approval. In the event of such election by Lessee, Lessee agrees to pay all costs relating to such insurance, together with an insurance cost transfer charge {which insurance costs may be more than the cost of insurance Lessee could purchase on its own) as compensation for being relieved of its obligation to obtain and maintain physical damage insurance coverage on the Equipment while such Equipment is in Lessee's care, custody or control. The insurance costs payable by Lessee will be separately disclosed to Lessee and added to its monthly lease payment set forth herein; provided that Lessee may prepay such amounts at any time and any such prepayment will be applied to Lessee's account. Lessee also agrees that it will not be a named insured or addltional insured under any physical damage insurance policy purchased by the Lessor as a result of Lessee's election and that Lessee shall have no rights or benefits with res ct to any collateral damage insurance policy so purchased by Lessor. _____ Lessee Elec1s Collateral Damage Coverage _____ .Lessee Declines Collateral Damage Coverage In the event that Lessee elects to have Lessor purchase collateral damage insurance, Lessee agrees, that in the event of loss to the Equipment, Lessee shall notify, in writing, within 24 hours of the loss, both Lessor and Lessors insurance carrier of such loss at the address provided by Lessor for such notice. If Lessee elects to have Lessor purchase collateral damage insurance, (a) Lessee may cancel such insurance at any time by providing notice and evidence to Lessor and its insurance carrier that Lessee has obtained its own insurance satisfying the requirements set forth hereinabove in this lease or (b) we may cancel such insurance at any time by providing you sixty (60) days prior written notice and, upon any such cancellation, Lessee shall be entitled to a refund of any unearned insurance premium. The collateral damage coverage policy does not include liability coverage for claims made against Lessee and will not satisfy any mandatory state liability insurance or financial responsibility laws that may apply. IMPORTANT: LESSEE MUST SELECT AND INITIAL ONE OF THE INSURANCE OPTIONS ABOVE 14. RETURN OF THE EQUIPMENT. Upon the expiration of this lease, and provided that Lessee has not elected to exercise its option to purchase the Equipment, Lessee shall, at its expense Lessee will immediately deliver the Equipment to Lessor in the manner and condition as follows. Lessee shall pay all transportation, inspection, and other expenses relating to such delivery. 15. ADDITIONAL ACTION. Lessee will promptly execute and deliver to Lessor such further documents and take such further action as Lessor may request in order to carry out more effectively the intent and purpose of this Lease, including the execution and delivery of appropriate financing statements to protect fully Lessors interest hereunder in accordance with the UCC or other applicable law. Lessor and any assignee of Lessor is authorized to file one or more UCC financing statements without the signature of Lessee or signed by Lessor or any nitials ----,-- Page 2 of 4 assignee of Lessor as attorney-in-fact for Lessee. Lessee hereby grants to Lessor a power of attorney in Lessee's name, to apply for a certificate of title for any item of Equipment that is required to be titled under the laws of any jurisdiction where the Equipment is or may be used and/or to transfer title thereto upon the exercise by Lessor of its remedies upon an Event of Default by Lessee under this Lease. Lessee will pay all costs of filing any financing, continuation or termination statements with respect to this Lease including, without limitation, any documentary stamp taxes relating thereto. Lessee will do whatever may be necessary to have a statement of the interest of Lessor and any assignee of Lessor in the Equipment noted on any certificate of title relating to the Equipment and will deliver said certificate to Lessor. If Lessee fails to perform or comply with any of its agreements, Lessor may perform or comply with such agreements in Lessor's own name or in Lessee's name as attorney-in-fact and the amount of any payments and expenses of Lessor incurred in connection with such performance or compliance, together with interest thereon at the rate provided below, shall be deemed rent payable by Lessee upon demand. 16. LATE CHARGES. If any installment of interim rent or basic rent or any other amounts owed by Lessee to Lessor under this Agreement are not paid when due, Lessor may impose a late charge of up to 10% of the amount of the payment but in any event not more than permitted by applicable law. Payments thereafter reoeived shall be applied first to delinquent installments and then to current installments. 17. DEFAULT. Each of the following events shall constitute an 'Event of Default' hereunder. (a) Lessee shall fail to pay when due any Interim Payment Basic Rental Payment or any other amount due hereunder or otherwise with respect to the Obligations; (b) Lessee shall fail to observe or perform any other agreement to be observed or performed by Lessee hereunder or with Altec Industries, Inc. or any other of Lessor's Affiliates (after giving effect to any applicable notice and/or cure provisions therein); (c) Lessee or any guarantor of Lessee's Obligations or any partner or member of Lessee if Lessee is a partnership or limned liabillty company, respectively, shall (i) cease doing business as a going concern or make an assignment for the benefit of creditors; or (ii) voluntarily file, or have filed against It involuntarily, a petition for liquidation, reorganization, adjustment of debt or similar relief under the federal Bankruptcy Code or any other present or future federal or state bankruptcy or insolvency law, or a trustee, receiver, or liquidator shall be appointed of It or of all or a substantial part of Lessee's assets; (d) any individual Lessee, guarantor of this Agreement or partner of Lessee if Lessee is a partnership shall die; (e) any financial or credit information submitted by or on behalf of Lessee shall prove to have been false or materially misleading when made; (D an event of default shall occur under any other Obligation Lessee CNJes to Lessor, (g) any indebtedness Lessee may nCNJ or hereafter owe to any Affiliate of Lessor shall be accelerated follCNJing a default there under or, if any such indebtedness is payable on demand, payment thereof shall be demanded; (h) if Lessee is a corporation, more than 50% of the shares of voting stock or equity interests of Lessee shall become CNJned by shareholders who were not owners of voting stock or equity interests of Lessee on the date this Agreement begins or, if Lessee is a partnership, more than 50% of the partnership interests in the Lessee shall become CNJned by a partner or partners who were not partners of Lessee on the date this Agreement begins; (i) Lessee or any guarantor shall consolidate with or merge into, or sell or lease all or substantially all of Lessee's or any guarantor's assets to, any individual, corporation, or other entity; OJ any guarantor attempts to repudiate, revoke, rescind or cancel a guaranty with Lessor, and (k) Lessee or any guarantor shall suffer an adverse material change in Lessee's or any guarantor's financial condition from the date hereof, and as a result thereof Lessor deems Itself or any of the Equipment to be insecure. 18. REMEDIES. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and at any time thereafter, Lessor may exercise any one or more of the remedies listed below as Lessor in Lessor's sole discretion may lawfully elect; provided, however, that upon the occurrence of an Event of Default specified in paragraph 17(d), an amount equal to Lessor's Loss as of the date of such occurrence shall automatically become and be immediately due and payable without notice or demand of any kind: a) Lessor may, by written notice to Lessee, terminate this lease and declare an amount equal to Lessor's Loss as of the date of such notice to be immediately due and payable, and the same shall thereupon be and become immediately due and payable without further notice or demand, and all rights of Lessee to use the Equipment shall terminate but Lessee shall be and remain liable as provided in this paragraph 18. Lessee shall at Lessee's sole cost and expense promptly deliver the Equipment to Lessor at a location or locations within the continental United States designated by Lessor. Lessor may also enter upon the premises where the Equipment is located and either disable or take immediate possession of and remove the same with or without instituting legal proceedings. b) Lessor may proceed by appropriate court action to enforce performance by Lessee of the applicable covenants of this lease or to recover, for breach of this lease, Lessor's Loss as of the date Lessor's Loss is declared due and payable hereunder. c) In the event Lessor repossesses the Equipment Lessor shall either retain the Equipment in full satisfaction of Lessee's obligation hereunder or sell or lease each Item of Equipment in such manner and upon such terms as Lessor may in its sole discretion determine. the proceeds of such sale or disposition may be applied to or on account of such of the Obligations (including any additional amounts under clause (d) and (e) beiow. Lessor shall be entitled to any surplus and Lessee shall remain liable for any deficiency. For purposes of this section (c), the proceeds of any lease of all or any part of the Equipment by Lessor shall be the amount reasonably assigned by Lessor as the cost of such Equipment in determining the rent under such lease. d) Lessor may recover interest on the unpaid balance of Lessor's Loss from the date It becomes payable until fully paid at the rate of the lesser of 12% per annum or the highest rate permitted by law. e) Lessor may exercise any other right or remedy available to It by law, in equity or by agreement and may in any event recover legal fees and other expenses incurred by reason of an Event of Default or the exercise of any remedy hereunder, including expenses of repossession, repair, storage, transportation, and disposition of the Equipment If this lease is deemed at any time to be a lease intended as security, Lessee grants Lessor a security interest in the Equipment to secure its obligations under this lease and all other indebtedness at any time owing by Lessee to Lessor and agrees that upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, In addition to, and without !imitation of, the foregoing, Lessor shall have all of the rights and remedies of a secured party under the UCC. No remedy given in this section is intended to be exclusive, and each shall be cumulative but only to the extent necessary to permit Lessor to recover amounts for which Lessee is liable hereunder. No express or implied waiver by Lessor of any breach of Lessee's obligations hereunder shall constitute a waiver of any other breach of Lessee's obligations hereunder. 19. PURCHASE. Upon expiration of this lease, Lessee shall (a) cure any default under this lease, (b) if there is a dollar amount specified in the 'Purchase Option" box on the first page of this lease, have the option, upon not less than sixty (60) days prior written irrevocable notice, to purchase all of the Equipment for the amount specified, plus applicable sales, tax, and (c) if there is a dollar amount specified in the "Purchase Agreemenr box on the first page of this lease, be required, and Lessee hereby irrevocably agrees, to purchase all of the Equipment for the amount specified, plus applicable sales tax. Any purchase of the Equipment pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be "AS IS-WHERE IS', with all faults and without any warranty whatsoever (and Lessor shall convey the Equipment to Lessee by bill of sale, containing a disclaimer of warranties, and shall return any titles to the lessee). 20. NOTICES. Any written notice hereunder to Lessee or Lessor shall be deemed to have been given when delivered personally or deposited in the United States mails, postage prepaid, or by a nationally reoognized express courier service (such as FedEx) addressed to recipient at its address set forth on the first page of this lease or to any other address as may be specified by a party by a notice given as provided herein. 21. NET LEASE AND UNCONDITIONAL OBLIGATION. This lease is a completely net lease and Lessee's obligation to pay rent and amounts payable by Lessee under paragraphs 12 and 18 is unconditional and not subject to any abatement, reduction, setoff or defense of any kind. 22. NON-CANCELABLE LEASE. This lease cannot be canceled or terminated except as expressly provided herein. 23. SURVIVAL OF INDEMNITIES. Lessee's Obligations under sections 3, 7, 8 and 16 shall survive termination or expiration of this lease. 24. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, which together shall constitute a single fully executed agreement. There shall be but one sole 'Original" counterpart of this lease, which shall be held by Lessor, and such counterpart will be marked by Lessor "Original.' To the extent that this lease constitutes chattel paper (as that term is defined by the UCC), a security interest may only be created in the lease marked 'Original" by Lessor. 25. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Lessee hereby represents and warrants that: (a) if Lessee is a corporation, a partnership, a limited liability company, or other legal entity the execution, delivery and performance of this lease has been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Lessee and will not violate any provision of Lessee's articles of incorporation, by-laws, partnership agreement, articles of organization, management agreement, as the case may be, and the type and state of incorporation or organization is set forth on the first page hereof and Lessee will not change Lessee's legal name, state of organization or Lessee's type of entity without Lessor's prior written consent (b) Lessee is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State in which Lessee is organized and duly qualified and in good standing in each jurisdiction in which the character of Lessee's properties or in which the transaction of business makes such qualification necessary; (c) this Agreement constitutes Lessee's valid and legally binding obligation and is fully enforceable according to its terms and the officer executing this Agreement on behalf of Lessee has the corporate power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and has been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action; (d) the Equipment will be used primarily for business purposes as opposed to agricultural purposes or personal, family or household purposes; (e) there are no pending actions or proceedings to which Lessee has any knowledge which would in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, operations or performance of Lessee; (D neither Lessor nor any of Lessor's officers or employees is an agent of any supplier or manufacturer of the Equipment and neither supplier or manufacturer nor any of supplier's or manufacturer's officers or employees is an agent of Lessor's or is otherwise authorized to bind Lessor to any representation, warranty, term, condition or agreement (g) all financial statements of Lessee heretofore given and hereafter to be given to Lessor are and will be true and complete in all material respects as of their respective dates, and fairly represent and will fairly represent the financial conditions of Lessee, and no material adverse change of Lessee has or will have occurred in the financial conditions reflected therein after the respective date thereof upon delivery to Lessor, unless Lessee notifies Lessor in writing of the same; (h) Lessee authorizes Lessor to pay the estimated Amount Advanced as set forth on the first page of this lease directly to the seller of the Equipment to the extent of the unpaid balance of the purchase price; and (i) Lessee and any other person who owns a controlling interest or otherwise controls Lessee in any manner is not listed on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Lists maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ('OFAC') or Initials ___ _ Page 3 of 4 other similar lists maintained by the federal government pursuant to any federal law or regulation regarding a person designated under Executive Order No. 13224, and in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act regulations and federal regulations to prevent money laundering . All representations and warranties contained herein shall be continuing in nature and in effect at all times prior to you satisfying all of your obligations to us under this Agreement. 26. OTHER COVENANTS: Lessee will furnish or cause to be furnished to Lessor during the term of this Agreement: (a) within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the close of each fiscal year, audited financial statements reflecting Lessee's operations during such fiscal year, including without limitation a balance sheet and profit and loss statement; (b) within forty- five days (45) of the last day of each March, June, September and December (collectively a 'Quarter-End") other than Lessee's fiscal year-end, unaudited management-prepared financial statements including without limitation a balance sheet and profit and loss statement; and (c) with respect to any guarantor of Lessee's Obligations, if guarantor is an individual, a personal financial statement on an annual basis and a copy of such guarantor's personal tax returns when filed, but in no event later than forty-five (45) days from the deadline to file such personal tax returns, and if guarantor is a corporation, limited liability company or other legal entity, within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the close of each fiscal year of guarantor, audited financial statements reflecting the operations of guarantor during such fiscal year, including without limitation a balance sheet and profit and loss statement and within forty-five days (45) of the last day of each Quarter-End other than guarantor's fiscal year-end, unaudited management-prepared financial statements including without limitation a balance sheet and profit and loss statement. Lessee shall ensure that all such statements are in reasonable detail, prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year or Quarter-End and if audited statements are required, such statements shall be audited by a certified public accountant acceptable to Lessor and accompanied by a certificate of Lessee's chief financial officer, or the chief financial officer of guarantor, respectively, which certificate shall state that such financial statements fairly present the consolidated financial condition and results of operations (subject to normal year end adjustments). Lessee shall also deliver or cause to be delivered such other information as we may reasonably request from time to time, including without limitation other financial statements and information pertaining to Lessee or any guarantor. Lessor makes no representation with respect to the income tax consequences of this Lease or any Purchase Option or Purchase Agreement contained herein. Lessor may in its sole discretion treat the Lease as a sale regardless of how Lessee treats the Lease. 27. JURISDICTION; JURY WAIVER. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERENED BY AND CONSTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, OR IF THIS AGREEMENT IS ASSIGNED BY LESSOR, THE LAWS OF THE STATE WHERE ASSIGNEE'S PRINCIPAL LOCATION IS LOCATED, BOTH EXCLUDING SUCH STATES CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES. LESSEE AGREES THAT ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO WHICH LESSEE IS A PARTY ARISING FROM OR DIRECL TY OR INDIRECL TY RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL BE LITIGATED IN ANY STATE OR FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT LOCATED WITHIN SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, OR IF THIS AGREEMENT IS ASSIGNED BY LESSOR THEN IN SUCH COUNTY AND STATE WHERE ASSIGNEE'S PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS LOCATED AND THAT SAID COURT SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISIDCTION THEREOF. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, LESSOR AND LESSEE EACH WAIVE ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO A TRIAL BY JURY TO ANY ACTION, CLAIM OR SUIT ARISING OUT OF, RELATING TO, OR BROUGHT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. 28. MISCELLANEOUS. Lessor shall not be deemed to have waived any of Lessor's rights hereunder unless such waiver is in writing and signed by Lessor. No delay or omission on the part of Lessor in exercising any right hereunder shall operate as a waiver of such right or any other right This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Lessor and Lessee and may be modified only by a written instrument signed by Lessor and Lessee. Lessee acknowledges that Lessor is a separate legal entity and distinct from Altec Industries, Inc. Any provision of this lease which is unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions of this lease, and any such unenforceability in any jurisdiction shall not render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction. In the event there is more than one Lessee named herein, the obligations of each shall be joint and several. Lessor: ALTEC CAPITAL SERVICES, LLC Borrower. By By: Tffle Title Rent Commencement Date: Initials ___ _ Page 4 of 4 Altec Industries, Inc -Extended Limited Warranty Plan Extension Extension Extension Extension Extension through end of through end of through end of through end of through end of 1st year. 2nd year. 3rd year. 4th year. 5th year. TRAVEL** (Day 91-365) ONLY D Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available TRAVEL** (Day 91-730) (Day 91-1095) (Day 91-1460) (Day 91-1825) LABOR D D D D MATERIALS LABOR (Day 366-730) (Day 366-1095) (Day 366-1460) (Day 366-1825) MATERIAL D D D D (no travel) (Day 366-730) (DT366T95) (Dr 366- 1 1.60) (Day 366-1825) MATERIAL D D (PARTS ONLY) **There is a 4-hour, round-trip, maximum for warranty travel. Covered Unit Serial Number: Sales Order Number: -------------(If more than one unit is to be covered, Exhibit A must be completed and attached) Extended Limited Warranty Provisions Subject to the limitations and exclusions expressed in the Altec Limited Warranty, attached hereto, and the Additional Limitations expressed herein, the term and coverage of the Altec Limited Warranty is extended, as indicated above. The Additional Limitations on this Extended Limited Warranty are as follows: 1. Customer must perform all scheduled and preventative maintenance required by the Manufacturer. Proof of compliance is required and must be submitted to Altec Extended Warranty Administrator. All maintenance and repairs must be provided by a service provider approved or authorized by the Manufacturer. Proof of compliance with these requirements may be required before a claim under this Extended Limited Warranty will be approved. 2. Customer must assure that the covered unit complies with all Service Bulletins, Customer Service Notices, and Mandatory Action Bulletins issued by the Manufacturer. 3. The Warranty Administrator must approve all work under this Extended Limited Warranty in advance. 4. The Extended Limited Warranty does not provide coverage for leaking fittings, adjustments, or wear components (which may include, but are not limited to ropes, light bulbs, Kelly bars, augers, oil, grease, filters, batteries and lubricants). 5. Altec will only warrant accessory items that are private labeled by Altec. Extended Warranty Administrator Altec Service Group P.O. Box 8338 St. Joseph, MO 64508-9972 1-877-462-5832 Extended.Warranty @Altec.com Form Revision 2.5 (Jan 1, 20 13) Limited Warranty Products designed and manufactured by Altec Industries, Inc. are warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship at the time of initial delivery subject to the following provisions: For one (1) year following initial delivery of the product, Altec will, at its option, repai r or replace any part found by Altec to be defective in material or workmanship at the time of initial delivery. During the first ninety (90) days following initial delivery, no charge for parts, labor or travel to the customer's location shall be made for such repair or replacement at the customer's location. During the remainder of such one (1) year, no charge for parts or labor shall be made for such repair or replacement at an Altec service facility. For so long as the initial purchaser owns the product, Altec will, at its option, repair or replace any of the following major components found by Altec to be structurally impaired due to defects in mate rial or workmanship which existed atthe time of initial delivery: booms, boom articulation links, hydraulic cylinder structures, outrigger weldments, pedestals, subbases, turntables, body structures, and reel lifting arms. No charge for parts or labor shall be made for such repair or replacement when performed at an Altec service facility. The limited warranty in this paragraph (2) does not cover wear components. This limited warranty does not cover: (a) products which have not been operated and maintained in accordance with Altec operators and mainte- nance manuals, programs and bulletins; (b) products which have not been mounted in accordance with Altec installation procedures; (c) products not manufactured by Altec which are supplied by Altec on special order; (d) products which are repaired without using original Altec parts; or (e) transportation or delivery to an Altec service facil ity or the customer's location. This limited warranty is expressly in lieu of any other warranties, express or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Except as specified above, no associate, agent or representative of A/tee is authorized to extend any warranty on A/tee's behalf. Remedies under this limited war- ranty are expressly limited to the provision and installation of parts and labor, as speci- fied above, and any claims for other loss or damages of any type (including, but not limited to, loss from failure of the product to operate for any period of time, other eco- nomic or moral loss, or direct, immediate, special, indirect, incidental or consequential damage) are expressly excluded. Revised 3-96 ec Form Revision 2.5 (Jan 1, 2013) Altec Sales Contact Information: Account Manager: ________________ Phone: __________ _ Inside Sales Representative: _____________ Phone: __________ _ Customer Information: Customer: --------------~ Fleet Contact: -------------- Mailing Address: _____________________________ _ Phone:('-__ ) _____ Fax: ('-__ ) _____ Email: _________ _ Alternate Fleet Contact: ------------- Alt. Phone:(~_~) _____ Alt. Fax: (~ __ ) ____ Alt. Email: ______ _ Acknowledgement: Customer has read and acknowledges the provisions of the Altec Extended Limited Warranty program as set forth herein. Customer Signature Date Form Revision 2.5 (Jan 1, 201 3) Exhibit A Altec model ~~~~~~~~~~~ List the Altec Serial Numbers of all units to be covered under the Altec Extended Limited Warranty. Acknowledgement: Customer has read and acknowledges provisions of the Altec Extended Limited Warranty. Customer Name (Printed) Customer Title Customer Signature Date Form Revision 2.5 (Jan 1, 20 13) Altec Capital Services 33 Inverness Center Parkway Suite 200 Birmingham, Alabama 35242 March 30, 2016 AM60 Finance Amount Term $1 out TRAC 20%TRAC 30%FMV $252,850.00 60 $4,759 $4,077 $3,702 $3,893 AA67 Finance Amount Term $1 out TRAC 20%TRAC 30%FMV $238,047.00 60 $4,480 $3,839 $3,485 $3,699 -Payments are based on 5 and 6 year swap rates as of Feb 2016. Pricing will adjust based on 5 like term swaps. -Payments do not include sales tax or license fees. -Please note that this quote is based on credit approval and rates are subject to change. -This quote is valid for fourteen days. An updated quote will be necessary if the lease acceptance date is after the fourteen day period. Estimated Lease Quote for Altec Trucks Altec Capital Services is pleased to offer you financing for all your equipment needs. We are pleased to offer you the following: City of Palo Alto -This quote is valid for fourteen days. An updated quote will be necessary if the lease acceptance date is after the fourteen day period. -Documentation fee may apply. Requirements: 1. Insurance: Property damage insurance to cover the value of the unit. A Minimum of $1,000,000 Auto & General liability insurance must be maintained. Proof of insurance must be furnished to Altec Capital. 2. Physical Damage Insurance: Altec Capital offers physical damage insurance for a low competitive rate on any lease structure. This is optional coverage offered by ACS which is designed to help mitigate your risk. Deductibles will apply and does not cover your general or auto liability. Contact your account manager for more information. -You can obtain an ACS Credit Application by contacting our office at the number listed below or apply online at www.alteccapital.com. -For transactions that exceed $150,000, two years' audited and interim financial statements are required in addition to two years tax returns and possible financial statements from the Guarantors / Shareholders. A TRAC lease is designed to provide a low fixed payment for the term of the lease and a pre-determined buy out or turn in option at lease maturity. The standard buyout for a 60 month lease is 20% of the capitalized cost (20% Balloon). The lessor (Altec Capital) will be titled owner throughout the term. The $1 out lease is designed to provide a low fixed payment throughout the term of the lease. The lessee is the titled owner and the lessor (Altec Capital) is a lienholder. Upon receipt of all payments owed, the lien will be released and the lessee will take ownership. Account Manager: Eric McKay Phone (949) 486-9160 Fax: (205) 408-8113 Email: eric.mckay@altec.com Quote Provided By: PSB Contact your account manager or call (888) 408-8148 for any questions you have regarding this quote. Altec Capital Services is the Industry-leading finance company for Altec, Inc. Because we understand each individual customer, Altec Capital offers the most convenient and economical finance solutions, making it possible for you to meet all your equipment needs. TRAC Lease TRAC Lease $1 out Lease Attachment B Altec Finance Amount For Model AM-60: $252,850.00/60 month term Attachment C $1 Out TRAC 20%TRAC 30%FMV monthly $4,759.00 $4,077.00 $3,702.00 $3,893.00 sales tax 8.75%$416.41 $356.74 $323.93 $340.64 total $5,175.41 $4,433.74 $4,025.93 $4,233.64 $5,175.41 $4,433.74 $4,025.93 $4,233.64 60 mos. total $310,524.60 $266,024.40 $241,555.80 $254,018.40 buy out $1.00 $50,570.00 $75,855.00 (fair market value) total $310,525.60 $316,594.40 $317,410.80 Opportunity Number:59785 Quotation Number:294125-2 NJPA Contract #: 031014-ALT Date:3/7/2016 REFERENCE ALTEC MODEL Overcenter Aerial Device with Material Handling (Insulated)$185,462 Per NJPA Specifications plus Options below (A.) 1 2 3 (A1.) 1 CH Cone Holder, Fold Over Post Style $236 2 RL COMPARTMENT LIGHTS in Body Compartments (Rope Style) $680 3 PSWI2 PURE SINE WAVE INVERTER.2400 Watts Continuous. GFCI Outlet at Rear. $2,525 4 VRI 120 Volt GFCI Receptacle, Includes Weather-Resistant Enclosure (2 additional)$396 5 SPOT3 FOUR (4) POINT STROBE SYSTEM (Recessed, LED)$477 6 7 8 NJPA OPTIONS TOTAL:$189,775 (B.) 1 UNIT N/A $0 2 UNIT & HYDRAULIC ACC N/A $0 3 BODY Altec Steel 156" Body with Custom Compartments and 18" Steel Tailshelf $16,150 4 BODY & CHASSIS ACC Set Of D-Rings for Trailer Safety Chain, Glad Hands At Rear, Two (2) Cable Steps Installed At Rear, Compartment Top Access Step from Body Floor, Pendulum Retainers For Outrigger Pad Holders, Wheel Chocks, U-Shaped Grab Handle, Top Opening Box 14"H x 12"D x 66"L, Steel Battery Box $5,264 5 ELECTRICAL Custom Light Bar, Two (2) Deep Cycle Auxiliary Batteries and Two (2) Battery Boxes, Custom Cab Controls, PTO Indicator Light Installed in Cab $4,140 6 FINISHING N/A $0 7 CHASSIS 2017 Peterbilt 348 ILO 2014 International $13,730 8 OTHER Regional Build $5,565 OPEN MARKET OPTIONS TOTAL:$44,849 SUB-TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS:$234,624 5-Year Large Aerial Warranty $6,010 5-Year Chassis Warranty $3,971 5-Year Transmission $499 5-Year Rear Axle $550 5-Year Engine Warranty $2,700 Interval PM Inspection/Scheduled Maintenance (5 Years)$3,050 Dielectric Test for Cat B/C Boom (5 Years)$1,250 Delivery to Customer:$196 TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS:$252,850 (C.) 1 2 3 4 **Pricing valid for 60 days** NOTES PAINT COLOR: White to match chassis, unless otherwise specified TRADE-IN: Equiptment trades must be received in operational condition (as initial inspection) and DOT compliant at the time of pick-up. Failure to comply with these requirements, may result in customer bill-back repairs. BUILD LOCATION: Dixon, CA CHASSIS: Per Altec Commercial Standard DELIVERY: No later than 330-360 days ARO, FOB Customer Location TERMS: Net 30 days BEST VALUE: Altec boasts the following "Best Value" features: Altec ISO Grip Controls for Extra Protection, Only Lifetime Warranty on Structural Components in Industry, Largest Service Network in Industry (Domestic and Overseas), Altec SENTRY Web/CD Based Training, Dedicated/Direct Gov't Sales Manager, In-Service Training with Every Order. WARRANTY: Standard Altec Warranty - One (1) year parts warranty One (1) year labor warranty Ninety (90) days warranty for travel charges (Mobile Service) Limited Lifetime Structural Warranty. Chassis to include standard warranty, per the manufacturer. (Parts only warranty on mounted equipment for overseas customers) TO ORDER: To order, please contact the Altec Inside Sales Representative listed above. Altec Industries, Inc. NJPA OPTIONS ON CONTRACT (Unit) NJPA OPTIONS ON CONTRACT (General) OPEN MARKET ITEMS (Customer Requested) ADDITIONAL ITEMS (items are not included in total above) AM60 Quoted for: City of Palo Alto Customer Contact: Phone: /Fax: /Email: Quoted by: Rhawnie Kraak Altec Account Manager: Don Hildebrandt Phone: (707) 693-2578 Email: Rhawnie Kraak NJPA_Q294125.xlsx Attachment D Opportunity Number:60000 Quotation Number:288914 NJPA Contract #: 31014 Date:3/30/2016 REFERENCE ALTEC MODEL Non-Overcenter Aerial Device with Material Handling (Insulated)$172,033 Per NJPA Specifications plus Options below (A.) 1 AA60-US60 60' Boom Height (AA60)$5,063 2 3 4 5 (A1.) 1 SPOT4 SIX (6) POINT STROBE SYSTEM (Recessed, LED)$664 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NJPA OPTIONS TOTAL:$177,760 (B.) 1 UNIT 67' Boom Height with a Single with Two-Man Platform & Automatic Boom Stow, Whelen L31HAFCA Strobe Light Installed on Boom $8,334 2 UNIT & HYDRAULIC ACC N/A 3 BODY Custom Aerial Service Line Body With Step, 24"L Tailshelf, Outrigger Valve Guards, Battery Storage Beneath Side Access Step and 3" Retaining Rail $12,659 4 BODY & CHASSIS ACC N/A 5 ELECTRICAL Altec Backup Camera System, 7'' Color LCD Monitor, Heated Infrared Camera with Day/Night Sensor and Audio $1,773 6 FINISHING N/A $0 7 CHASSIS 2017 Peterbilt 348 ILO 2014 International $13,730 8 OTHER Regional Build $5,565 OPEN MARKET OPTIONS TOTAL:$42,061 SUB-TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS:$219,821 5-Year Large Aerial Warranty $6,010 5-Year Chassis Warranty $3,971 5-Year Transmission $499 5-Year Rear Axle $550 5-Year Engine Warranty $2,700 Interval PM Inspection/Scheduled Maintenance (5 Years)$3,050 Dielectric Test for Cat B/C Boom (5 Years)$1,250 Delivery to Customer:$196 TOTAL FOR UNIT/BODY/CHASSIS:$238,047 (C.) 1 2 3 **Pricing valid for 60 days** NOTES Altec Industries, Inc. NJPA OPTIONS ON CONTRACT (Unit) NJPA OPTIONS ON CONTRACT (General) OPEN MARKET ITEMS (Customer Requested) ADDITIONAL ITEMS (items are not included in total above) AA55 Quoted for: Rhawnie Kraak Customer Contact: Scott Williams Phone: (650) 496-6933 Quoted by: Rhawnie Kraak Altec Account Manager: Don Hildebrandt Phone: (707) 693-2578 Email: rhawnie.kraak@altec.com PAINT COLOR: White to match chassis, unless otherwise specified TRADE-IN: Equiptment trades must be received in operational condition (as initial inspection) and DOT compliant at the time of pick-up. Failure to comply with these requirements, may result in customer bill-back repairs. BUILD LOCATION: Dixon, CA CHASSIS: Per Altec Commercial Standard DELIVERY: No later than 330-360 days ARO, FOB Customer Location TERMS: Net 30 days BEST VALUE: Altec boasts the following "Best Value" features: Altec ISO Grip Controls for Extra Protection, Only Lifetime Warranty on Structural Components in Industry, Largest Service Network in Industry (Domestic and Overseas), Altec SENTRY Web/CD Based Training, Dedicated/Direct Gov't Sales Manager, In-Service Training with Every Order. WARRANTY: Standard Altec Warranty - One (1) year parts warranty One (1) year labor warranty Ninety (90) days warranty for travel charges (Mobile Service) Limited Lifetime Structural Warranty. Chassis to include standard warranty, per the manufacturer. (Parts only warranty on mounted equipment for overseas customers) TO ORDER: To order, please contact the Altec Inside Sales Representative listed above. Attachment E City of Palo Alto (ID # 6804) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Amendment for Charleston Arastradero Design Contract Title: Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C14150694 in the Amount of $1,019,123 with Mark Thomas & Company for Final Design Services for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, Capital Improvements Program Project (PE-13011), and Approve a Budget Amendment in the Capital Fund and Developer Impact Fee Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Amendment No. 1 to Contract C14150694 with Mark Thomas & Company (Attachment A) for final design of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project (CIP PE-13011) in the amount of $1,019,123 for the base contract and $33,000 for additional services associated with the scope of work covered in the contract. This amendment results in a revised total contract amount of $1,788,888. 2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Appropriation for the Capital Fund by: a. Increasing the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project CIP PE-13011 appropriation by $250,000; and, b. Decreasing the Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund by $250,000. Executive Summary City of Palo Alto Page 2 Staff recommends the City utilize the same design consultant, Mark Thomas & Company, that developed the approved concept plan line to prepare the final design for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project. The original contract includes provisions for continuing with Mark Thomas for the final design work. The work will include preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates at various levels of design as well as outreach, project management, street lighting design and bid support. In September 2015, Council approved the concept plan line and directed staff to proceed with the final design for the corridor project. This contract amendment will allow the final design to be completed. In order to execute the contract amendment, an additional appropriation to the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project from the Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund is needed. The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project is a Council Infrastructure Plan project, and use of the development impact fee funds was anticipated during development of the Infrastructure Plan. Background The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor is a heavily used residential arterial road serving as an east-west connector for southern Palo Alto and services 11 schools, several parks, shopping centers and a library. Comprehensive Plan Policy T-40 prioritizes the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes. Trial striping plans were previously implemented and approved for permanent retention throughout the corridor. The current phase of the project will install landscaped medians, bulb-outs and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian improvements consistent with the existing striping and roadway configuration. Extensive public outreach was done to develop the preferred concept plan line and to add landscaping and pedestrian/bicycle improvements to the corridor. The City hosted four community workshops, presented the plan to Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee for comments twice, and developed a preferred plan line concept that was unanimously approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Highlights of the proposed plan include a new multiuse trail from Gunn High School to the Hetch-Hetchy Trail, bike lanes across El Camino Real and new landscaped medians throughout the corridor. Following approval of the concept plan line, the design team began working on the landscaping plans for the corridor and on getting environmental clearance City of Palo Alto Page 3 from Caltrans for the grant-funded portion of the project near Gunn High School. A public meeting was held in March 2016 to present the proposed landscaping palette. The plans were generally well received and many comments on all aspects of the plans were recorded. Following approval of the contract amendment, Mark Thomas & Company will begin working on the final design, with summer 2017 the target for implementation of the first construction phase. Discussion The contract amendment will take the approved concept plan line and advance the plans to final design. Plan sets will be generated for City review at the 35%, 65%, and 100% levels. The amendment also includes budget for additional public outreach meetings, utility relocation coordination, bid support and street lighting design. A new solicitation for the work contained in this amendment is not required as it was anticipated at the time of original contract award. The contract for the preliminary design and environmental assessment allowed for a future amendment to be awarded to take the plans to final design. Due to their familiarity with the project and performance of work to date, staff recommends amending the contract with Mark Thomas & Company for completion of the final design. Resource Impact Funding for this contract amendment is available in CIP PE-13011 with the recommended transfer of $250,000 from the Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund. The transfer of funds from the Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund was envisioned during the development of the Council Infrastructure Plan. Funds for construction of the project are fully programmed for Fiscal Years 2017, 2019, and 2020 in the Fiscal Year 2016-2020 Capital Budget. The first phase of construction is based on the work outlined in two grants awarded for the project. The first is a Caltrans Safe Routes to School (SR2S) grant in the amount of $450,000, awarded in 2012 for improvements from Middlefield Road to Alma Street. The second grant is a Valley Transportation Authority: Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) grant awarded in 2013 in the amount of $1,000,000 for construction of improvements on Arastradero Road City of Palo Alto Page 4 between Georgia Avenue and Maybell Avenue, including repaving of the Los Altos Trail between Arastradero Road and Adobe Creek. Policy Implications The advancement of this project is consistent with City policies and previous Council direction. This plan advances multiple objectives in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 (BPTP) as well as many goals, policies and programs in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Most specifically, Program T-41 where Charleston and Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way) are designated as residential arterials, which are to be treated with landscaping, medians and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce speeds. Environmental Review The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project will be funded from both local and federal sources. Therefore, compliance with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required. For CEQA compliance, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project in 2004 and approved by City Council. A link to the 2004 IS/MND is included in Attachment C. In addition, the project was discussed in the 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. An addendum to the Final Initial Study/MND was prepared and reviewed by staff from the Planning and Community Environment Department and the City Attorney’s Office. The addendum to the Final Initial Study/MND was filed with the county in September 2015. Analyses required for NEPA compliance, to be specified by Caltrans on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration, are underway and NEPA clearance is expected in summer 2016. Both the consultant team and staff anticipate that Caltrans will determine that a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA (analogous to a Categorical Exemption under CEQA) is applicable because the proposed improvements consist of landscaping and pedestrian/bicycle improvements that will not materially affect traffic operations or capacity. Next Steps City of Palo Alto Page 5 Following approval of the contract amendment, the design team will start work on the detailed final design for the entire corridor between Charleston Road at Fabian Way and Arastradero Road at Miranda Avenue. The project will be designed to allow its construction in phases that will also correspond to the grant funding for the project. The first phase of construction is expected to begin in summer 2017. Attachments: Attachment A - C14150694 Amendment No. 1-Complete (PDF) 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MARK THOMAS & COMPANY This Amendment No. One to Contract No. C14150694 (“Contract”) is entered into on this 9th day of May, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, a California corporation, located at 1960 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95112("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of professional design services for streetscape and pedestrian/bicycle improvements along the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project. B. The parties wish to amend the Contract to increase the scope of services to include project management and final design, increase compensation in the amount of $1,052,123.00 and extend the contract term through December 31, 2017. 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 the attached Exhibit “A-1” as an addition to the scope of services described in Exhibit “A” of the original contract, 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. Section 2, TERM, is hereby amended to read as follows: The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. Section 4, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION, is hereby amended to read as follows: “The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A “and Exhibit “A-1”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed one million six hundred eighty eight thousand eight hundred eighty eight dollars ($1,688,888.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Million seven hundred eighty eight thousand eighty eight hundred Dollars (1,788,888.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1 2 Revision April 28, 2014 entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE of the original contract and Exhibit C-3 of Amendment No.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” of the original contract and Exhibit C-2 of Amendment No.1. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1”. SECTION 4. 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-1” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. b. Exhibit “B-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. c. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “COMPENSATION. d. Exhibit “C-3” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE. SECTION 5. 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. 3 Revision April 28, 2014 CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney MARK THOMAS & COMPANY By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. Exhibit “B-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “COMPENSATION. Exhibit “C-3” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE. President Robert A Himes EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 1 CHARLESTON-ARASTADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT FINAL DESIGN 3/11/2016 CONSULTANT is currently providing Preliminary Engineering services to the City of Palo Alto for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Complete Streets and Green Infrastructure Project. In September 2015, the City Council approved a preferred Conceptual Plan Line alternative. This Scope of Work covers tasks necessary to get the approved plan line ready for construction. The proposed project will consist of designing street improvements consistent with the approved plan line within the 2.3-mile Charleston-Arastradero Corridor between Fabian Way and Miranda Avenue and the 25MPH target design speed for residential arterials. The improvements include: - Raised landscaped median islands, widened sidewalks and bulb-outs; - Pavement delineations for vehicle and bicycle lanes and pedestrian crossings; - Modification of ten (10) traffic signals to improve bicycle detection and pedestrian crossing times, including all necessary detection to convert the corridor to Synchro Green adaptive signal technology; - Installation of a new signal at Charleston Road/Louis Road/Montrose Avenue intersection; - Signal interconnect plans along Charleston Road between Alma Street and San Antonio Road; - Reconstruction of the Los Altos – Palo Alto bike path between Arastradero Road and the City limits and installation of pedestrian-level lighting within the same limits; - Incorporation of green infrastructure improvements to treat, retain and infiltrate storm water to the maximum extent possible at locations where sidewalk and bulbout improvements are proposed; - Limited pavement widening in the vicinity of the intersections at El Camino Real and at Louis Road; the project does not include other pavement rehabilitation work or overlay. Pavement structural section for the widening will match existing pavement section based on as-builts to be provided by City; - No regulatory permits are anticipated; - Prepare up to three (3) sets of plans, specifications, and estimate (PS&E) packages for phased implementation of the improvements. The project will be designed in conformance with City of Palo Alto Standards, AASHTO, MUTCD, NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Manual, NACTO Urban Street Design Manual, ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, and Caltrans DIB 89 Class IV Separated Bikeway Guidance. Improvements within State right of way will be designed in conformance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 2 The specific services to be provided for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project are outlined below. TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT The Consultant Project Manager shall plan, organize, direct and monitor project work activities and resources in accordance with contracted scope, schedule and budget. This task includes performing ongoing general project management with the client, subconsultants and stakeholders including preparing contract paperwork, monthly progress reports and invoices, memos, letters and e-mail, making phone calls and maintaining project files. This activity commences with receiving the Notice-To-Proceed, continues through submittal of the key final project deliverables, and concludes at the completion of bidding. For this scope of work, a project duration of 14 months is anticipated. Deliverables: - Monthly invoice and progress report 1.2 MEETINGS Consultant shall hold meetings to present project progress, coordinate activities, and resolve issues. Consultant shall take the lead in conducting the meetings, including preparation and distribution of the meeting agenda, confirming attendance of participants, and preparation and distribution of meeting minutes, including the recap of action items. The following meetings are included in Consultant’s scope: 1.2.1. Kick-off Meeting Consultant shall hold a kick-off meeting at the beginning of the project. The purpose of this meeting is to build a mutual understanding of the intended purposes, objectives, milestones and deliverables of the project. At this meeting, Consultant shall review the project schedule, identify communication lines, and discuss project design criteria. 1.2.2. Comment Review Meetings Consultant shall hold up to three (3) comment review meetings. These meetings shall be scheduled after comments from City on milestone submittal documents are received and reviewed by Consultant. At these meetings, Consultant will explain how the City’s comments will be addressed, and seek clarification of comments as necessary. It is anticipated holding these meetings after each of the following key milestones: 35% PS&E Submittal 65% PS&E Submittal 100% PS&E Submittal 1.2.3. Coordination Meetings Consultant shall hold up to ten (10) coordination meetings and/or presentations with City’s project manager, City departments, committees, commissions, stakeholder agencies, as well as residents and business affected by the project. These meetings are intended to resolve issues identified by the consultant team, City departments, EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 3 stakeholders, residents, and businesses. The timing, attendance, and agenda for these meetings will be jointly determined by Consultant’s and City’s respective project managers. In coordination with City’s Public Art staff, Consultant shall make a presentation to the Public Arts Commission for final approval for the artwork. Consultant shall coordinate with an artist to be selected by City to integrate the artwork into the final design, including coordination of required footings, lighting, anchoring, signage placement, or other requirements for the integration of art. Consultant shall make plans available for the artist and the design team to insert in-situ renderings of the artwork within the overall project. Consultant shall coordinate detailed plans with staff and the artist outlining Consultant’s responsibilities versus artist responsibilities and deliverables, finding efficiencies wherever possible. Deliverables: - Meeting Agenda - Meeting Minutes 1.3 QA/QC Prior to each milestone submittal, Consultant shall perform quality control review of the deliverables in accordance with the company’s standard QA/QC plan. The review shall be performed by experienced professionals that are otherwise not associated with the development of the deliverables. Consultant shall maintain documentation of the quality control activities for the project. TASK 2 SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY As part of the Preliminary Engineering phase of the project, Consultant has collected extensive survey information using Mobile Lidar Scanning (MLS) technology. This survey information shall be used as base map to develop project plans. Consultant shall perform supplemental topographic survey to support detailed design work. The supplemental survey shall include: - Rim, grate, and flow-line elevations for drainage inlets, drainage manholes, and sewer manholes as deemed necessary by the Consultant’s designers; - Locations of potholes that identify horizontal and vertical location of underground utilities at potential conflict locations to be identified by the Consultant’s designers (Potholing will be done as part of Task 4); - Pavement and curb conforms at the corridor intersection areas as needed for design; - Locations not adequately covered by the MLS survey, such as areas with heavy vegetation growth, including the 1,700 feet of the Los Altos-Palo Alto bike trail. Additional field surveys are included to supplement the MLS surveys. Data collected from the supplemental topographic survey will be incorporated with the aerial base mapping. The field surveys will require encroachment permits from City of Palo Alto and Caltrans. Encroachment permit fees, if any, will be paid directly by City of Palo Alto. Some of the field surveys within City and Caltrans right of way may require traffic control. Consultant’s scope of work includes two (2) days of traffic control at a cost of $3,000 per day. EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 4 Deliverables: - Survey data displayed on project base map in AutoCAD format TASK 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH To keep the public informed in the final design, Consultant, together with City staff, shall facilitate two (2) open-house format public workshops. Graphics developed during the design phase will be presented at the workshops after team introductions and project overview. Ahead of the workshops, CONSULTANT will prepare master announcement notifications to be reproduced and distributed to invitees by City staff 2-3 weeks prior to the meeting date. This scope assumes two (2) public meetings. Deliverables: - Meeting notice - PowerPoint Presentation - Meeting Summary TASK 4 UTILITY RELOCATION COORDINATION The project is anticipated to require relocation of existing utilities. Consultant will coordinate utility relocation work with the affected utility purveyors while keeping the City informed of such activities. Copies of all written correspondence and related materials will be submitted to the City for their records as the work progresses. CONSULTANT shall adhere to Local Assistance Procedure. Using the existing facility maps that were assembled and incorporated into the base mapping under the previous project phase and using the 60% plans developed under Task 5, Consultant shall prepare conflict mapping (“B” Plans) and a “B” Letter for City review. Two (2) copies of the conflict mapping will be sent to the utility company showing the individual company’s facilities, marked in its corresponding color, and showing the anticipated utility conflicts. Consultant shall request utility companies to provide copies of their relocation design plans and cost estimate of the relocations. Consultant shall review such conflict plans and provide confirmation that the relocation plans adequately remedy the identified conflicts. Consultant shall provide signature- ready final relocation Notice to Owner (NTO) to the City. NTO Letters will be prepared for distribution upon submittal of the Draft PS&E package. The City shall sign and send NTO Letters. City will assign construction inspectors to verify that the utility companies carry out the relocations per the approved relocation plans. All affected utilities are assumed to be in franchise. Therefore, no liability determination and utility agreement preparation is included in this scope of work. Utility relocation design will be performed by the respective utility purveyors. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and necessary permits for the relocation will be prepared by the contractor’s QSD and implemented by the contractor’s QSP. Consultant shall contract with a potholing contractor to provide positive location (potholing) of underground utilities where conflicts are anticipated. Consultant shall budget for up to fifteen (15) pothole locations. If additional potholes are deemed necessary, consultant shall submit an extra work request for the City’s approval. EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 5 Deliverables: - Pothole data table - Conflict map and letter - Reviewed utility relocation plans - Notice to Owner TASK 5 FINAL DESIGN Consultant shall prepare contract documents based on the approved concept plan. Consultant shall use applicable design standards and guidelines from City of Palo Alto, AASHTO, MUTCD, and Caltrans. The contract documents shall encompass civil, landscape, and electrical improvements and result in an approved Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E). Consultant shall submit intermediate submittals at the 35%, 65%, 100% and Final levels of completion. The intent of intermediate submittals is to define the project for review by the City, and to allow for major comments prior to investment of significant design effort in design details. 5.1 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM Consultant shall utilize the existing topographic survey for laying out the existing street lighting system to be inventoried. Consultant shall request from the City the existing street lighting as- builts and compare those to the utility information shown on the topographic survey. Consultant shall conduct lumens test throughout the study corridor. The lumen study will be used to compare the available lumens along the corridor are as per the required code and standards. The comparison will be documented in a technical memorandum summarizing the available lumens, deficiencies and recommendations (if any). Consultant shall identify on the plans the locations of the conduits and pull boxes for an electrical contractor to field check the condition of the conduits. Out of the 2.3 mile segment, Consultant shall randomly select a 1.1 mile segment for the electrical contractor to assess. The contractor shall markup on the plans any conduit segments that are failed or not reusable or pull boxes broken. Consultant shall then prepare a preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for installing new conduit and pull boxes at the segment lengths identified and estimate the construction cost for repairing the remaining segment. Deliverables: - Technical Memorandum summarizing the lumen study conducted along the study corridor - Opinion of probable construction cost, redline markups from contractor 5.2. 35% PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE (PS&E) Plans - Consultant shall prepare 35% level engineering plans based on the approved concept plan line. This submittal shall further define the elements that will proceed into final design and move forward into construction documentation. The 35% Plans are expected to include the following sheets: Sheet Description EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 6 Count 1 Title Sheet 2 Typical Cross Sections 1 Key Map, Project Control, General Notes 7 Demolition Plan 7 Drainage and Utility Plan 7 Layout 7 Signing and Striping Plan 10 Signal Modifications Plan 42 = Estimated Sheet Count Specification Outline - Consultant shall prepare an outline of project specifications to identify the key specification sections needed for the project. The body of the specifications will not be prepared until the project plans are further developed in the 65% submittal stage. Estimate of Probable Cost - Consultant shall prepare a 35% project cost estimate based on quantity calculations of major project elements, and using percentages to estimate minor project items. The estimate shall include additional items, such as mobilization and construction administration costs. Unit costs for major items shall be developed based on review of recent, local projects that are similar in scope. Adjustments shall be made for bidding environment, price variation with quantity, and other factors. Appropriate contingency allowance shall be used to account for uncertainty inherent in early level estimates. Deliverables: - 35% Plans (10 copies) - 35% Specification Outline (10 copies) - 35% Estimate of Probable Cost (10 copies) 5.3 65% PS&E Comment Review – Consultant shall review comments received on the 35% PS&E submittal from City and provide responses in a comment response matrix. The responses shall describe how Consultant intends to address the comments. For each comment the consultant intends not to incorporate, Consultant shall provide a written justification and seek concurrence from the commenter. Plans - The 65% plan set shall include all of the sheets necessary for construction of the project. The major engineering design efforts, such as hardscape improvements, storm drain design, infrastructure design, signal and lighting design, landscaping and irrigation design, etc. will be completed. The plans are at the level ready for a detailed quality control check and ready for utility companies to begin relocation design. Sheet Count Description 1 Title Sheet 2 Typical Cross Sections 1 Key Map, Project Control, and General Notes EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 7 7 Demolition Plan 7 Layout 24 Construction Details 7 Drainage and Utility Plan 14 Drainage and Utility Details 7 Signing and Striping Plan 1 Signing and Striping Details 3 Stage Construction Plans 7 Traffic Handling Plans 7 Water Pollution Control Plans 7 Landscaping Plan 10 Landscaping Details 7 Irrigation Plan 3 Irrigation Details 20 Traffic Signal Layout and Conductor Schedule Plan 2 Trail Lighting Plans 3 Electrical Details 140 = Estimated Sheet Count Specifications – Consultant shall prepare technical specifications in accordance with City of Palo Alto’s Standard Specifications and the Caltrans 2010 or later Standard Specifications. Consultant shall assemble data and prepare drafts of (1) necessary modifications to the Standard Special Provisions, and (2) additional specifications which may be necessary. CONSULTANT shall prepare the equivalent of Caltrans Standard Special Provisions for Sections 8 (Materials), Section 9 (Description of work) and Section 10 (Construction details). Estimate of Probable Cost - Consultant shall prepare an itemized estimate of probably construction costs. The cost estimate shall be developed based on quantity calculations for each item of work to be included in the bid item list. The quantity and cost estimate calculation shall be clearly documented. Unit costs for major items shall be developed based on review of recent, local projects that are similar in scope. Adjustments shall be made for bidding environment, price variation with quantity, and other factors. Appropriate contingency allowance shall be used to account for uncertainty inherent in early level estimates. Deliverables: - Response matrix for comments on 35% PS&E (10 copies) - 65% Plans (10 copies) - 65% Specification Outline (10 copies) - 65% Estimate of Probable Cost (10 copies) EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 8 5.4 100% PS&E Comment Review – Consultant shall review comments received on the 65% PS&E submittal from City and provide responses in a comment response matrix. The responses shall describe how Consultant intends to address the comments. For each comment the consultant intends not to incorporate, Consultant shall provide a written justification and seek concurrence from the commenter. Update PS&E Package - The 100% PS&E submittal shall represent a complete Final PS&E, biddable plan package. Consultant shall address City’s comments on the plans, specifications, and estimate and prepare a complete PS&E set. Major design features have been reviewed; however, because of the review comments received for the 65% submittal, there may be some plan details that will be submitted for the first time. From this point, all minor “clean-up” revisions will occur. Consultant shall perform a site review with plans in hand to assess constructability of the project and make changes prior to the Final PS&E package submittal. Consultant shall prepare a full specification package by combining the technical specifications with the “up front” contract specifications (including bid advertisement, notice to bidders, bond forms, and general provisions) that City will provide. Deliverables: - Response matrix for comments on 65% PS&E (10 copies) - 100% Plans (10 copies) - 100% Specification Outline (10 copies) - 100% Estimate of Probable Cost (10 copies) 5.5 FINAL PS&E This submittal represents a completed Bid Set, ready for bidding. Consultant shall incorporate minor City comments related to contract language. No further design comments/changes are anticipated at this time. Consultant shall coordinate with the City’s reproduction vendor to have a mylar bid set produced for the City. Deliverables: - Response matrix for comments on 100% PS&E (3 copies) - Final Plans (1 mylar copy) - Final Specification Outline (1 copy) - Final Estimate of Probable Cost (1 copy) 5.6 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 5.6.1 Caltrans Encroachment Permit - Consultant shall assist the City to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for the improvements within Caltrans right of way at the El Camino Real intersection. Consultant shall carry out necessary tasks to obtain the encroachment permit, including telephone coordination, encroachment permit submittal preparation, and application preparation. Consultant shall prepare a signature-ready encroachment permit application package for improvements. Appropriate City staff shall review and sign the package for submittal. Design plans prepared under other tasks in this contract will be used to prepare the encroachment permit package. Consultant shall budget for attendance of up to two (2) EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 9 meetings with Caltrans personnel. Mandatory or advisory design exception fact sheets for the proposed improvements are not anticipated and preparation of design exception fact sheets is not included in this scope of work. For the construction phase, the contractor will be required to obtain its own encroachment permit prior to beginning work. City will pay all applicable permit fees to Caltrans. 5.6.2 Peninsula Joint Powers Board/Caltrain Encroachment Permit –Consultant shall assist City in coordinating with Peninsula Joint Powers Board and Caltrain to obtain encroachment permit for the project improvements within Caltrain right of way. 5.6.3 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Encroachment Permit – Consultant shall assist City in coordinating with SFPUC to obtain encroachment permit for the project improvements within the Hetch-Hetchy right of way. Deliverables: - Caltrans Encroachment Permit Application Package - JPB/Caltrain Permit Application Package - Hetch-Hetchy Permit Application Package 5.7 PROVISION C.3 COMPLIANCE Consultant shall design and prepare plans for implementing post construction storm water treatment measures for the project which aim to retain and/or treat runoff on site. Plans will show LID techniques that will maximize detention, retention and infiltration of storm water to mimic the site’s predevelopment hydrology. PREPARATION OF THE PLANS IS INCLUDED IN TASK 5. UNDER THIS TASK, CONSULTANT will prepare the C.3 report for the project’s Storm Water Treatment Plan (SWTP) as required by the City for submittal. The submittal shall include the City’s Standard C.3 Requirement forms and worksheets, treatment method and Best Management Practices (BMP) narratives, site exhibits of area’s imperviousness, calculations, data table of implemented treatment measures, standard details, and installation plan exhibits, proportion of stormwater runoff expected to be diverted from the storm drain system for treatment. Deliverables: - C.3 Report TASK 6 BID SUPPORT Once the project is approved for advertisement, Consultant shall provide services to facilitate the successful advertisement and award of the project. The work may include answering questions from prospective bidders, assisting the City in the preparation of addenda to the PS&E during the advertisement period, and providing consultation and interpretation of the construction documents. Since the required level of effort for bid support cannot be estimated accurately, CONSULTANT has provided an estimated budget amount in the fee schedule based upon typical industry norms. Work shall be performed on a time and materials basis. If work efforts exceed the anticipated budget amount, additional budget authorization will be required for further assistance. EXHIBIT “A-1” Amendment No.1 to Scope of Services 10 Deliverables: - Responses to Requests for Information - Addenda TASK 7 STREET LIGHTING DESIGN This task includes an approximate scope and fee for street lighting design. Actual scope and fee, and limits of the street lighting design will be determined after assessment of the existing street lighting system (Task 5.1) is completed. Submittals and deliverables for this task will be in accordance with Tasks 5.1 through 5.6. OPTIONAL TASK 8 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 8.1 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT During the construction phase, Consultant shall work with the City’s designated construction manager to assist and advise the construction manager in order to minimize construction conflicts and to expedite project completion. CONSULTANT will prepare Contract Change Order (CCO) plans, respond to Request for Information (RFIs) and review shop drawings, if necessary. Since the required level of effort for design support during construction cannot be estimated accurately, CONSULTANT has provided an estimated budget amount in the fee schedule based upon typical industry norms. Construction support shall be performed on a time and materials basis. If work efforts exceed the anticipated budget amount, additional budget authorization will be required for further assistance. 8.2 PROJECT CLOSE OUT CONSULTANT will provide Record Drawings to the City after construction is complete. These drawings will be based on red-lined as-builts provided by the City construction manager or City contractor. Since the required level of effort for project close out activities cannot be estimated accurately, CONSULTANT has provided an estimated budget amount in the fee schedule based upon typical industry norms. Construction support shall be performed on a time and materials basis. If work efforts exceed the anticipated budget amount, additional budget authorization will be required for further assistance. EXHIBIT B-1 Amendment No.1 SCHEDULE OF PERFROMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Weeks From NTP Task 1 – Project Management 52 Task 2 – Supplemental Survey 5 Task 3 – Public Outreach 32 Task 4 – Utility Relocation Coordination 36 Task 5 – Final Design 48 Task 6 – Bid Support 52 Task 7 – Street Lighting Design 48 EXHIBIT “C-2” COMPENSATION AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT C14150694 The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $1,019,123.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $33,000. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $1,019,123.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $33,000. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $ 78,418.00 (Project Management) Task 2 $38,460.00 (Supplemental Survey) Task 3 $24,940.00 (Public Outreach) Task 4 $42,460.00 (Utility Relocation Coordination) Task 5 $770,469.00 (Final Design) Task 6 $22,064.00 (Bid Support) Task 7 $42,312.00 (Street Lighting Design) Sub-total Basic Services $1,019,123.00 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $1,019,123.00 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $33,000 Maximum Total Compensation $1,052,123.00 EXHIBIT C-3 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT NO.1 TO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE Principal $ 325.00 per hour Senior Engineering Manager 310.00 per hour Engineering Manager 225.00 per hour Structural Manager 278.00 per hour Senior Project Manager 226.00 per hour Senior Survey Manager 210.00 per hour Project Manager 200.00 per hour Survey Manager 200.00 per hour Senior Project Engineer 178.00 per hour Project Engineer 168.00 per hour Senior Design Engineer 158.00 per hour Design Engineer 118.00 per hour Project Surveyor 145.00 per hour Sr. Engineering/Survey/CADD Technician 126.00 per hour Engineering/Survey/CADD Technician 110.00 per hour Inspector 121.00 per hour Technical Writer 105.00 per hour Design (Tech Assistant) 68.00 per hour Survey (Tech Assistant) 68.00 per hour Senior Project Coordinator 108.00 per hour Project Coordinator 100.00 per hour Senior Administrative 85.00 per hour Administrative 80.00 per hour FIELD Single Chief without Equipment $ 119.00 per hour Single Chief with Equipment 170.00 per hour Single Chainman 96.00 per hour 2 Person Field Party and Vehicle 270.00 per hour 3 Person Field Party and Vehicle 345.00 per hour LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SERVICES Landscape Architect $ 200.00 per hour SPECIAL SERVICES Expert Witness $ 375.00 per hour Strategic Consulting (Principal) 375.00 per hour OTHER DIRECT COSTS Reimbursables including, but not limited to: Printing and Materials, Filing Fees, and Field Expenses -Cost plus 5% Outside Consultant Fees -Cost plus 5% City of Palo Alto (ID # 6798) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: BID Preliminary Re-Authorization Title: Preliminary Approval of the Report of the Advisory Board for Fiscal Year 2016 in Connection With the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District and Adoption of Resolution Declaring its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2017 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on June 6, at 6:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council: (a) Preliminarily approve the Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board’s 2017 Budget Report for the BID (Attachment A) and; (b) Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments in the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2017 (Attachment B), setting a date and time for the public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessments for June 6, 2016, at 7:00 PM, or thereafter, in the City Council Chambers. Executive Summary This Council action includes a preliminary approval of the BID Board’s annual report, and sets a time and place for a public hearing for the staff presentation, and to determine any objections to the assessments. Since the BID inception in 2004, a number of activities consistent with State BID law have been accomplished by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA), the entity with which the City contracts to provide services to the nearly 800 businesses assessed in the Downtown. These include addressing the three main issues facing downtown businesses: cleanliness, safety, and attractiveness, as well as participation in zoning, transportation, and other matters affecting downtown businesses. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Assessments for BID businesses are based on the size, type and location of the business. Assessments range from $50 for individually owned professional businesses to $500 annually for financial institutions. The PADBPA has monthly open meetings governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act which any business or individual can attend. Background The Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) was established by the City Council in 2004 pursuant to the California Parking and Business Improvement Area Law to maintain economic vitality and physical maintenance of the Palo Alto Downtown business district. The Council appointed the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA), a non-profit corporation, as the Advisory Board for the BID. PADBPA (acting through its independent Board of Directors) advises the Council on the method and basis for levy of assessments in the BID and the expenditure of revenues derived from the assessments. Pursuant to BID law, the Advisory Board must annually submit to the Council a report that proposes a budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year for the BID. The report must: 1) propose any boundary changes in the BID; 2) list the improvements and activities to be provided in the Fiscal Year; 3) estimate the cost to provide the improvements and activities; 4) set forth the method and basis for levy of assessments; 5) identify surplus or deficit revenues carried over from the prior Fiscal Year; and 6) identify amounts of contributions from sources other than assessments. The Council needs to: 1) review the report and preliminarily approve it as proposed or as changed by the Council; 2) adopt a resolution of intention to levy the assessments for the upcoming Fiscal Year; and 3) set a date and time for the public hearing on the levy of assessments in the BID. Absent a majority protest at the public hearing on June 6, 2016, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution confirming the report for Fiscal Year 2017 as filed or as modified by the Council. The adoption of the resolution constitutes the levying of the BID assessments for Fiscal Year 2017. Discussion The Advisory Board has prepared a report for the Council’s consideration which includes the proposed budget for the Palo Alto Downtown BID for Fiscal Year 2017. As required by BID law, the report has been filed with the City Clerk and contains a list of the improvements, activities, and associated costs proposed in the BID for Fiscal Year 2017. The Advisory Board has recommended no change in the BID boundaries or the method and basis for levying assessments. A map of the BID and the proposed assessment schedule is attached. The proposed assessments in the BID for Fiscal Year 2017 are the same as the assessments in Fiscal Year 2015. The budget report for Fiscal Year 2017 was reviewed and approved by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association board in April 2016. As per the agreement that the City and PADBPA have entered, the City has certain responsibilities as it pertains to the invoicing City of Palo Alto Page 3 and collection of BID revenues. In prior years, staff from the Planning & Community Environment and Administrative Services Departments have been involved in the collection of BID assessments by setting fees, creating and sending invoices, and managing payment collections for the first 60 days of July. As of last year, staff has enlisted the services of an outside firm, MuniServices, to handle all aspects of the City’s responsibilities to the BID in terms of invoicing, billing, and collections. If Council moves forward with the assessment for 2017, staff will continue to employ MuniServices as the administering agent. Resource Impact Adoption of the proposed BID budget does not impact City revenue. BID assessments are restricted for use exclusively by the BID. It is anticipated that a healthy BID will encourage vitality in the retail community and consequently result in additional sales tax revenue for the City. Staff time from the City Manager’s Office is expended annually to provide oversight to the BID, administer the contract with MuniServices, liaise with stakeholders and prepare the annual reauthorization. The cost and collection of BID assessments, including those past 60 days is borne by the BID assessment revenues. The Attorney's Office will continue to provide legal oversight to the BID during the annual reauthorization process. Attachments: Attachment A: PAD Annual Report FY 2017 (PDF) Attachment B: Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy BID for FY17 (PDF) Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District 2016 -1 7 Annual Report Prepared for: Palo Alto City Council Prepared by: Russ Cohen, Executive Director, Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association “Keeping Downtown Palo Alto Safe, Spotless and Successful. Introduction This report from the Advisory Board of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (“PAd”) was prepared for City Council to review for the annual reauthorization of the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (“BID”) pursuant to Section 36533 of the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989 (Section 36500 and following of the California Streets and Highways code) (the “Law”). This report is for the proposed fiscal year for the BID commencing July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017. (“Fiscal Year 2016-17”). As required by the Law, this report contains the following information: I. Any proposed changes in BID boundaries and benefit zones within the BID; II. The improvements and activities to be provided for Fiscal Year 2016-17; III. An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for Fiscal Year 2016-17; IV. The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year 2016-17. V. The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. VI. The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to the Law. Submitted by Brad Ehikian, Chair, and Russ Cohen, Executive Director on behalf of the Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (“PAd”). The Advisory Board approved this report on April XX, 2016. Received on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto on April XX, 2016. Section I: BID boundaries and Benefit Zones There have been no changes in the BID boundaries or benefit zones within the BID and no changes are proposed. The current boundaries are depicted on the map below. The area of the BID is referred to as “Downtown.” 934- 9 4 4 927 932 233 281 933 - 9 3 7 943 327 1001 942 469 475 744 459 832 801 A P T 1 - 5 427-453 920912 362 370 900 838 846 471 459 835 - 8 5 5 460 815 840836 834 845 400 803 928930 931933 835 - 8 3 7 831- 8 3 3 451453 802800 810 - 8 1 6 818 - 8 2 0 828 - 8 3 0 817- 8 1 9 823 - 8 2 5 567-569 559563 536 526 100 1 101 1 - 540 483 904 912 468 918 926 537 965-971505-507 519-521 939-945 931-935 923-925518-520 539541543 515-517 809811 420 1001 1011 1010 376 370 980960 990 34 354 326 426 4 1000 448 944 471 483948952 959947925 915 933 935 425-443 451449 463-465 936-940 458 460 440 428426 527-533 543 551 510520 558-560 903 825 837 581 575940934 813-823 501-509 511-519 521-529 531-539 541-547 556 596 904 926 561-567 569 845 580 574 566 991- 997 136 610 116-122 150 535529525 542516140 102 116124 163 145 566556 167 528 643635 635 645- 685 660- 666 620 180 164 158156 624628632636 640644 617621 151-165 171-195 203 642640636 200 151 115 125 135 514 101 440 444 436432 427 425 117119 630616 208 228220 240-248 575 530- 534536540 552 177 156 201209215225 595 229231 611-623 180 508500 625-631 170 172-174 542544 538-542 552548546 541-547 230-238 734 723 721 702- 730220-244 744 701 731 755757 771 200 160 728-732 762-776740-746 250 275 270 255741 265 724 730 651 221-225227 668 707 205 201203451449 209 219 221 233235450460470 442444 400 420 430 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171-169 441- 445 435-439 346344 333335 342 344 431 460 450 235530 220 220 B 222 240 514278 274270 250 545 540 251485255 271 281 300310301 581 259-267 533535537 261267 518-526 532- 536 520-526 530-536 271 281 252 270 240-248202-216 228226234238 244242 210-216 228- 234 223-229 209215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 251 344 326 340 337339 323317 400 420 332330 314 353 355 367 305 347 265272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 300- 310 431401 366 436 426 #1-7 369 335 319 390 301 315 375 307-311 325330 332 1&2330 1-3 324 326316 318 373-377 416- 424 361 338 340 560 345 321325 315 529 285 555 650636 628 1-12 628 A-E 385 365 375380 345 664 325650-654 661635300 690 675 555541-549533 535-539 318-324326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405403453 461 383460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374376380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432428 460-476 450 635 446 430 400 745 720706 385744734 724-730 720712704 360 351 315737 332 300 653-681 683685 512 501619 609605 518 482486496 610 630 455 400 651-687 543-545 532534 542544 550 552 554556 558560562564 635-6 643-6 470 313 334 333 325326 342 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 321 335 228220 356-360 347-367 351 357 369-379360 258-296 350 210 204 302- 316 379310 320 328 332 340 437 412 311 A-B 404 313 325 327 333 407 401385 411 452 378-390 360 - 1A - 1C360 - 2A - 2C360 - 3A - 3C360 - 4A - 4C360 - 5A - 5C360 - 6A 344-348 418420 482 328 456 321 325 330204218 236 240 250-252 477 475 467 457 453249235225221 201 60 275 505-509 239-243209-213 210-214 513-519 460 474472228- 230 535 558 201 1612 20 209 215 223 231 521 80 239-245 530-540 544-554 212- 216 218-222 333 335-337 351 457451 465463 489-499360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451443437411405 419405401 441 480-498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 425415 400 570568 556 550 543 327321315305 343 515 525 551 555 328 309-311 518-528 536-540 552-554 558-562 573 A-E 591-599 557-571 330-332 318-320 406-418 417 542548568 524 550 500-528 578 564 550 546 540 530 531-535 541 505 525 537 555 565 571530 619-6 520 440-446 579 567 523610 600 555 581 420-438 437 566 224 228 A-F 244 579 575 565 559 251 355 A-J 335329604 576 566 345-347 243245 25725920921922723502 505 610-616 727 678 676 674672 642 636-638 567 555 711 701705 725 525 759 730718 734 738-740 760 746-750 701 721-7 600 827 835 899 850 530 609 759 7517537737-62611 601 600 1013 10041000 1006 1001 623 137 145 700 780 790 744 111700 753100 825805 33 51 75 63 841 44 675 49 41 711 799 703 100 101 139654 625 160 1001 1005 1009 1010 1004 930 975945929931 948 181 940 960 145900 955 999875 853 925 81 855 901-907 909 87 98 917 921 925 735 849 707 847 842828 820248 230-232 212 825 829833 839 800 812818 882 165831 801 815 809801 841 791153 718 774 761 795745 201 209 834836 845 895 926 190 934 942 948 203 209 219 225 929200 240 904 910 926 270 935 904 909909A 217 222 148 171 421 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131 129 355301 235 258 212 163 115 291247 210 201 207 64 202 235 251249 252 247 244250 177220 261 251-257 205245 231225213205 70 2206 234240 183 251 270 241-247 215- 237 210-216 219 235 62 202 245 54 52 50 203 215 221 313-317318 220- 224 238 542-550 531-539 532 759 223-239 905 911-917907 188190 251- 293 202 206208 210 212 216 220 1008 275 539 201 400 27 168 865857 302 324 340 795 848 918 903903A 408412 440 483A - F 435 751 735 745 532 210 727 733 335 328 330 345 214 350 800 806 441441A 230302306308312316 301 303 305 307 309 325 251 807 821 829 801 818-824 420 424 430 832A 832 842A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 355A 355 359A 359 363A 363 367A 367 425 911 943 951 918 936 940 944 271 253 241 301 319 919A919 935 949 928 936 940-946 353 264 367 361 310 1005 1010 423425413 - 419 457-467 469-471473-481 454 729 A-D 733-743 734-740 724-732 936 824-828 920 949 943941 715 95 445 324 328 545 590 425447 827 565585595 904 315 507 561 706 536 200 100 280-290 150 158164 276 516 698 161 159 157777 132 127 180 528 120 247 372 524 548550 538 152 345 336 515 658 227 27 29 539 115 135 321 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 965 140 350 808 915 461 435433 945 1012 421 727 A-C 218 255 206 739 260 840 650 642 351 451 551 375 530 643 415 12 700 802 99 89 87 901 560564568572576580584588592594 906908 910912914 916918920 922924 548 423 668 901 305 -313 423 405 352354 611 320322 346 323 471 484 528 426 264 430 1001 508 756 -760 940 930 544546 515 7 745 7 549 211213 151 160 257 433-457 482 330 349 401 539 440 691 755 67 312 202 651 443445 447 716 218 398 998 262 335 218 640-646506 327 469 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 101 819 301 725 595 705 541 Quarry Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Ch a n n i n g A v e n u e Alma Street El Camino Real Mitchell Lane Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Everett Avenue Waverley Street Cowper Street Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Lane A West L L La Addison Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue La Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Webster Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Channing Avenue Ramona Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 W Lane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Palo Road ay Pear Lane Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Emerson Street talm Dr iv e Alma Street Lytton Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Zone A (Ground Floor) - Zone B (Upper Floors) abc Zone B 0' 500' Downtown Palo AltoBusiness ImprovementDistrictArea Map CITY O F PALO A L TO INC OR P ORATE D C ALIFORN I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f AP RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2012-04-30 16:57:54CPA BID (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) Overview: Today’s Downtown Palo Alto is a far different place than it was when the organization was founded in 2004. The downtown is now a dynamic, youthful, entrepreneurial neighborhood that boasts clean and safe walkable streets, a well balanced confluence of small, medium and large businesses and an almost even balance of independently owned retail and restaurants operating along side national chains. It is a globally recognized mecca for innovating the social and the technical. Without hyperbole, it is not only a valuable asset to the City of Palo Alto; it has become a valuable asset for the rest of the country if not the world. At a glance, there are approximately 88 restaurants and 72 retail establishments. 13 national chain restaurants or franchises exist amongst 75 privately owned restaurants. Amongst retail, there are approximately 21 national retailers and 51 independently owned stores. * The commonly held perception of downtown being dominated by chains and restaurants is simply that, a myth. It is the second largest generator of sales tax revenue for the City of Palo Alto. Strategic partnerships, execution and outcomes Real estate investments in the past decade have drawn the spotlight to the area and paved the way for growth. While some nearby cities have emulated Downtown Palo Alto’s live/work/play environment, this growth has not surprisingly resulted in a variety of challenges. To maximize our efforts to address those new and ongoing challenges we brought together partners to facilitate dialogue and develop programs between business, government and non- profits that have resulted in positive outcomes. In no particular order: • Collaborated with City of Palo Alto Public Works Division and the Public Arts Commission on the systematic replacement of downtown benches to both enhance the esthetics of downtown and inhibit loitering. A combination of a more utilitarian bench design along with a small variety of artful benches will be installed in late Spring 2016. • Collaborated with Zero Waste and the Pubic Arts Division to identify replacement trash receptacles that inhibit illegal and unsavory reclaiming of refuse and update the decades old current receptacles. Scheduled to be installed in late Spring 2016. • Initiated programs with non-profits Food Runners, Go Box and others in order to reduce food waste and divert edible food to resources that help feed the needy as well as recycle to-go containers. • Partnered with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to develop a walking and interactive map promoting Downtown Palo Alto. • Offered recommendations as a member of the City of Palo Alto’s Parking Technology Working Group, identifying systems that will ease the search for available parking spaces in both downtown garages and surface lots. • Provided guidance as a member of the Parking Way-finding Task Force helping to develop graphic and electronic smart signage helping to inform and direct drivers to available parking options. • Supported the newly formed Transportation Management Association as a member of its 15-month long Steering Committee with resulting development of association bylaws, missions statement, goals and non-profit status. • Major member outreach efforts promoting American Express’s “Shop Small” annual event helping to promote locally owned retail in downtown Palo Alto including the development of social, web and print campaign. • Designed and managed the downtown Lamppost banner program which provided Holiday, Spring and Summer banners and now has complied a library of banner designs that can be used in years to come. • Developed, managed and promoted the 6 week long Summer concert series, “Music On the Plaza” including the development and design of social media, web and print efforts as well as raising the $40K in sponsorships needed to execute the series. The results were an increase in attendees well over that of the previous year’s “Concerts at Cogswell.” • Initiated dialog with City of Palo Alto Engineering Department to audit existing conditions and possible consolidation and removal of downtown news racks. Program expected to begin Summer 2016 with the majority of the tasks executed by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association. • Engaged with Sa Jose State University Professor K. Rohrmeir and SFSU students on the “Activate the Alleys” project with the intent to identify ways to make downtown Palo A lot’s alleyways more efficient, clean and attractive. • Partnered with the Friends of Lytton Plaza to add umbrellas, foliage, public art and banners to the plaza to enliven and soften the hardscape of the plaza. • Sponsored, participated and promoted the annual Holiday Tree Lighting ceremony that resulted in hundreds of attendees in a family friendly atmosphere benefiting the downtown merchants and restaurants and highlighting Lytton Plaza . • Participated a s the Master of Ceremonies for the annual Avenidas New Year’s Holiday Brunch and Auction. • Partnered with Green Waste on an educational program directed towards restaurants regarding the importance of alleyway cleanliness and maintenance. • Helped develop and launch the first “Meet the Street” event including logo map and advertising design as well as the design and installation of lamp post banners that highlight the side streets of downtown Palo Alto including Emerson, Bryant, Ramona and Waverely. • Provided outreach to members of the downtown district regarding advertising opportunities on the newly developed walking and interactive map. • Promoted the City of Palo Altos’ Business Registry in order to help that program become more robust and successful with data collection. • Worked with Green Waste/Zero Waste o educating district members about newly created composting regulations. • Met with the Palo Alto Police Department leaders to discuss homeless and panhandling issues. Letter submitted to council regarding these ongoing concerns. As a result, parking garage issues have decreased dramatically. • Worked with Santa Clara County Small Business Administration to educate restaurants about the county’ new health inspection regulations and placard program. • Participated in the development of the Public Arts Commission Downtown Public Art master Plan. • Developed relationship with Hertz Rental Car to provide a Downtown Palo Alto Discount Program available to all downtown district members. • Participated in the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce regular Public Policy Forum meetings. • Engaged in annual new board member recruitment and nomination process including the development and execution of election materials. • Built upon the downtown brand and welcomed new business to Downtown Palo Alto with the presentation fo the “Downtown Crown” at grand openings including Hana House, Opa, Coupa Café on Lytton and more. • Provided administrative oversight of the Palo Alto Downtown parking Assessment District subcommittee. • Worked with MuniServices LLC to provide invoicing, database management, reporting and collections. • Suppoted the Downtown Streets Team. * Methodology: Ratio estimates based on one time data collection through quick probability samplings considered a “windshield survey.” Margin of error is estimated to be 10-15%. With the addition of the City’s Business Registry data, this summary is expected to become even more accurate in the future. Section II: Ongoing and Planned Activites for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Summary: Creating a spotless downtown. The sidewalks downtown are steam cleaned once per month with powerful equipment that helps remove stubborn stains like chewing gum. (For the record, individual businesses can sweep but are prohibited from using water to “hose down” the sidewalks, as that debris will flow directly to the bay. Steam cleaning is the most effective and the most environmentally responsible method.) These increases in frequency along with better equipment and the help of the Downtown Streets Team, (founded by The Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association in 2004) help to keep downtown Palo Alto “spotless.” Creating a safe downtown. The Palo Alto Downtown Business and Improvement Association also administers the standing committee known as the Downtown Parking Assessment District Subcommittee, a committee charged with oversight of the funds and activities associated with the garages. As a reminder, in addition to the association fees, many merchants in the downtown district also contribute fees to the downtown parking district, which helped fund the building of the parking garages downtown and fund the ongoing maintenance of the garages at an approximate cost of $1million each year. The garages are patrolled by the Palo Alto Police Department and outreach efforts by the Downtown Streets Team—both are currently funded by these fees. The return of dedicated patrols downtown with two officers assigned to the beat also ensure a presence downtown that helps deter crime and provides rapid response to downtown incidents was initiated three years ago and last year, the number of dedicated officers was increased to four. Creating a destination. Keeping downtown a great place to do business, whether you are a retailer, restaurant, start-up or a one- person office is our mission. Making certain that downtown is its own unique brand, one that differentiates itself from any other downtown, is an area of focus for The Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association. Creating this brand comes from not only ensuring an attractive downtown, but also a downtown that prides itself on the reputation it has earned as a center of innovation. Photos above: City Hall announcement of “Meet the Street event. Graphics deigned by The PADB&PA. Fashion runway showcasing local downtown boutiques and street musicians celebrating Bell’s Books anniversary as part of the Meet the Street festivities. Dancing crowds enjoying “Music on the Plaza” Summer Concert series. Photos below: Adding umbrellas, foliage and banners have added to the experience of relaxing in Lytton Plaza making it a better destination than ever before. Holiday banners and the Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony give downtown a festive atmosphere, just right for shopping and dining. Creating an environment that is business friendly. The Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association provides a conduit to leaders and staff at city hall for its dues paying members We don’t work for the city of Palo Alto; we work with it on behalf of all the business located downtown. From helping to develop public policy to helping find funding sources for events, the Downtown Association plays a vital role with the best interests of the business community in mind. The “Downtown Crown” as presented to each business that chooses to open downtown. Section III. Budget for 2016-17 The total funds available for activities for this fiscal year are estimated to be $197,721. The budget for providing the activities is set forth as follows: BID 2016/17 Budget INCOME Total Non-Assessment Sources Assessments $130,000 Allowance for Uncollectible Assessments ($25,000) Other Revenue $54,000 $54,000 15-16 Surplus Carryover $13,721 TOTAL INCOME $197,721 EXPENSES Operating Expenses Staff Salaries Executive Director Salary $74,600 Payroll taxes and expense $7,460 Office Supplies & Expenses $150 Internet/Website/ Phone Maintenance $861 Rent $7,200 Reauthorization Advertising $2,650 Audit-Tax Returns $5,700 Legal $1,000 $1,000 Insurance - Liability $2,300 Workman's Comp $800 Nominating $1,500 Invoicing $16,500 Contingencies $3000 Subtotal -- Operating Expenses $123,721 $1,000 Programs, Marketing and Events Banners $16,000 $8,000 Location Specific Banners $1000 Summer Concert Series $40,000 $40,000 Events $5000 $5000 Outreach & Communication $3000 Downtown Streets Team $5000 District Opportunity Reserve $4000 Subtotal --Programs, Marketing & Events $74,000 $54,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $197,721 Section IV: Method and Basis of Levying the Assessment Cost Benefit Analysis / Bid Assessments The method and basis of levying the assessment is provided in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year 2016-17 and is not changed from the FY 2015-16 assessment. There have been no changes made to the Cost-Benefit Analysis or to the BID Assessments since they were approved by City Council on February 2, 2004. The method of calculation used to determine the cost and benefit to each business located in the BID is described below. The BID assessments are based on three criteria: the type of business, the location of the business and the size of the business. It has been consistently demonstrated that the typical BID program places a higher priority on activities such as commercial marketing. As a result, the retail and restaurant establishments in the BID are assessed more than service and professional businesses in the district. While service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit more than professional businesses such as medical, dental, architectural, consultant and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs. For these reasons, various business types are assessed according to the benefit that they receive from the BID, as follows: Ø Retail and Restaurant 100% of base amount Ø Service 75% of base amount Ø Professional 50% of base amount Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. The location of a business also determines the degree of benefit that accrues to that business. Centrally located businesses tend to benefit more, as do businesses located on the ground floor. For this reason, A and B benefit zones have been identified for the BID. In Palo Alto, Zone A benefit businesses are assessed 100% of the base benefit assessment while Zone B businesses are assessed 75%. A third criterion is used in the BID to determine benefit. This criterion, the size of the business, takes into consideration the number of full time employees employed by the business. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a more complete understanding of the application of these three variables to establish BID benefit. Attachment 2 is the BID assessment for each business located within the BID boundaries. Applying the criteria identified in Attachment 1, a summary of the assessment that applies to each business by size, type and location is outlined. In addition to the Cost-Benefit Analysis, the assessments include the following criteria: Ø An exemption for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or fewer full time equivalent (“FTE”), including the business owner. This covers employees who work less than 10 hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week; an FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually) Ø An assessment specifically for “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of the BID (An FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually) Ø The tiering of other professional businesses by size based (according to benefit) on the “single person business” criteria This outline provides information by which a business can determine its annual assessment based on objective criteria. Except where otherwise defined, all terms shall have the meanings identified below: Definitions of Business Types in the Downtown Business Improvement District Retailers and Restaurants: Businesses that buy or resell goods such as clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies as well as businesses that sell prepared food and drink. Service Businesses: Businesses that sell services such as beauty or barber shops, repair shops, most automotive businesses, dry cleaners, art and dance studios, printing firms, film processing companies, travel agencies, entertainment businesses such as theatres, etc. Hotel and Lodging: These include businesses that have as their main business the lodging of customers. This is restricted to residential businesses that provide lodging services to customers for less than 30 days. Professional Businesses: Businesses that require advanced and/or specialized licenses or academic degrees such as architects, engineers, attorneys, chiropractors, dentists, doctors, accountants, optometrists, realtors, insurance brokers, venture capital firms, consultants, advertising and marketing professionals and mortgage brokers and similar professions. Financial Institutions: Includes banking, savings and loan institutions and credit unions. Additional clarification on business definitions will be defined according to Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Advisory Board recommends that the following businesses be exempt from the BID assessment: Ø New businesses established in the BID area following the annual assessment for the year in which they locate in the BID area Ø Non-profit organizations Ø Newspapers Ø “Single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the business owner The Assessment calculated shall be paid to the City no later 30 days after receipt of the invoice with the amount of the annual assessment sent by the City. A second notice will be mailed as a reminder to businesses that have not remitted payment by that date. Late payment will be subject to a 10% late fee. Section V: Revenue Surplus or Deficit The Assessment calculated shall be paid to the City no later 30 days after receipt of the invoice with the amount of the annual assessment sent by the City. A second notice will be mailed as a reminder to businesses that have not remitted payment by that date. Late payment will be subject to a 10% late fee. Section V: Revenue Surplus or Deficit Based on the revenue balance on 3/27/16 of $82,644, the PAd expects a surplus carryover of $13,721. Expected expenses for the remainder of FY 16-17 are as follows: Current Revenue Balance $82,644 Expected expenses for remaining FYE6/30/2016 Staff Salaries $36,300 Payroll Taxes $3,300 Banners $2,302 Downtown Streets Team $2,500 Rent $3,600 Workers Comp $350.50 Audit & Tax Return $6,900 District Opportunity Reserve $0 Nominating/elections $0 Invoicing $8500 Office Expense $0 Internet maintenance $0 Reauthorization advertising $1370 Contingencies $2000 Outreach & Communication $0 Total Expected Expense $68,923 Expected Carryover $13,721 Section VI: Non-assessment Income It is estimated that $54,000.00 will be raised in fundraising, and sponsor support. Additionally, we anticipate in kind contribution towards expenses for fiscal year 2016-17. Projected Income for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Legal (donation) $1,000 Banners $8,000 Summer Concert Series $40,000 Events $5,000 Total $54,000 Section VI: PAd Board of Directors by Business Type Retailers and Restaurants Georgie Gleim, Gleim the Jeweler Alex Giovanotto, Joya Travis Nichols, Keen Garage Susan Graf, Susan Graf Mistie Cohen, Oren’s Hummus Service Businesses Robert Peterson, Peterson Architects Hospitality Barbara Gross, Garden Court Hotel Financial Institutions Patricia Behoumonde, Boston Private Bank & Trust Company* Katie Seedman, Presidio Private Bank and Trust Professional Organizations Brad Ehikian, Premier Properties Patty McGuigan, Cornish & Carey Commercial Sheila Liskar, Palo Alto Laser Skin Care Mila Zelkha, Palintir* Carlie Factor, Salesforce/RelateIQ* Non Profit Organizations Chris Richardson, Downtown Streets Team Zia MacWilliams, Downtown Street Team* Phil Carter, Palo Alto Farmer’s Market COMMUNITY PARTNERS Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Judy Kleinberg, President & CEO Downtown Streets Team Eileen Richardson, Executive Director City Of Palo Alto Eric Filseth, Palo Alto City Council Liaison Thomas Fehrenbach, Manager of Economic Development *nominated ATTACHMENT 1 A General Statement Regarding Cost-Benefit Analysis For BID Businesses Using The Traditional Three Criteria Formula Criteria 1) Type of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Type Of Business: In a review of 200 California Business Improvement Districts, it is consistently demonstrated that the typical BID Program places a higher priority on Commercial Marketing Programs than on Civic Beautification and Commercial Recruitment Programs. With that trend in mind, retail and restaurant businesses, with their emphasis on, and need for, commercial marketing, are traditionally assessed more than less marketing-sensitive service-oriented or professional-oriented businesses. However, while service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit more, (from commercial marketing programs), than professional businesses such as medical, dental and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs. Therefore, set forth below, is an example of how various business types might be considered regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment. • Retail and Restaurant: 100% of base amount • Service: 75% of base amount • Professional: 50% of base amount Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. Lodging businesses are assessed based on the total number of rooms because it is a more equitable manner of determining size. Many lodging businesses have many part time employees, but revenues are based on the room occupancies of the hotel, not the goods sold or serviced provided by employees. Criteria 2) Location of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Location of Business: It has also been consistently demonstrated that the more centrally located businesses tend to benefit from BID activities and services to a greater degree than businesses located toward the periphery of the proposed BID boundaries. Events and activities tend to originate in the central core of the Downtown area and spread benefit to the outer areas with diminishing energy and impact, much like the ripple effect of a stone tossed into a body of calm water. Furthermore, ground floor businesses tend to benefit to a greater degree than businesses located in upper floors. Therefore, in some cases, a new BID's annual benefit assessment formula also takes these street level criteria into account. As mentioned above, special events, fairs, festivals and other activities tend to take place within, or along, the Main Street core rather than in the areas at the periphery of the Downtown core. Additionally, Attachment 2 BID-sponsored seasonal decorations, public art projects, street banners and street furniture tend to be located within the immediate core area. Therefore, businesses located within the most central area of the proposed BID are considered to be within "Zone A" which should be considered the primary benefit zone. There is typically a "secondary zone" or "Zone B" within most proposed BID areas. This area receives less benefit than Zone A and should be assessed accordingly. An example of how different zones might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment is as follows. • Zone A: 100% of base benefit assessment • Zone B: 75% of base benefit assessment In the case of Downtown Palo Alto, it is recommended that all Zone A upper floor businesses, as well as any other businesses located at the periphery of the proposed BID, be considered as Zone B businesses. Please refer to the map in Attachment I. Criteria 3) Size of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Size of Business: In approximately 50% of newly established BIDs, a third assessment criterion is used. This criterion involves the size of each individual business that is based upon the businesses’ total number of full-time employees. Full-time employees are those working a total of 2,000 hours per year. Part-time employees are grouped into full-time job positions, i.e., two half-time employees total one full-time. Fractions are rounded down to the nearest whole number with no less than one person as a minimum for business. An example of how various business sizes might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment is as follows: Retail/Restaurants Service Businesses Small 50% of base amount Under 6 FTE* Under 4 FTE Medium 75% of base amount 6 to under 11 FTE 4 to under 7 FTE Large 100% of base amount 11 or more FTE 7 or more FTE * FTE = full time employees Additionally, an exemption was established for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the business owner. This covers employees who work less 10 hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week) Since “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of the BID benefit the very least from the assessment, their assessments have been tiered by size based (according to benefit) on the new “single person business” criteria. Attachment 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District Annual BID Assessments ZONE A ZONE B (75% of Zone A amount) Restaurants & Retailers Under 6 FTE (50% of base amount) $225 $170 6 to under 11 FTE (75% of base amount) $340 $260 11 or more FTE (100% of base amount) $450 $340 Service Businesses Under 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $170 $130 4 to under 7 FTE (75% of base amount) $260 $200 Over 7 FTE (100% of base amount) $340 $260 Professional Businesses 25% or fewer FTE, including owner (0% of base amount) Exempt Exempt 26% FTE to under 1 FTE (25% of base amount) $60 $50 2 to 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $110 $90 5 to 9 FTE (75% of base amount) $170 $130 10+ FTE (100% of base amount) $225 $170 Lodging Businesses Up to 20 rooms (50% of base amount) $2258 $170 21 to 40 rooms (75% of base amount) $340 $260 41+ rooms (100% of base amount) $450 $340 Financial Institutions $500 $500 Note 1: For retail, restaurant, service, and professional businesses, size will be determined by number of employees either full-time or equivalent (FTE) made up of multiples of part-time employees. A full FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually. Lodging facilities will be charged by number of rooms available and financial institutions will be charged a flat fee. Note 2: Second floor (and higher) businesses located within Zone A will be assessed the same as similar street-level businesses located within Zone B. Note 3: Assessment amounts are rounded to the nearest ten dollars. The minimum assessment will be $50.00. Not Yet Approved 160330 jb 0131515 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2017 and Setting a Time and Place for June 6, 2016 at 7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the Council Chambers R E C I T A L S The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby DECLARES as follows: SECTION 1. The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (the "Law"), California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq., authorizes the City Council to levy an assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement area which is in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the City. SECTION 2. Pursuant to the Law, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4819 establishing the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (the "District") in the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 3. The City Council, by Resolution No. 8416, appointed the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, to serve as the Advisory Board for the District (the "Advisory Board"). SECTION 4. In accordance with Section 36533 of the law, the Advisory Board prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report entitled "Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District, Annual Report 2016-2017" (the "Report”). The City Council hereby preliminarily approves the report. SECTION 5. The boundaries of the District are within the City limits of the City of Palo Alto (the "City") and encompass the greater downtown area of the City, generally extending from El Camino Real to the East, Webster Street to the West, Lytton Avenue to the North and Addison Avenue to the South (east of Emerson Street, the boundaries extend only to Forest Avenue to the South). Reference is hereby made to the map of the District attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference for a complete description of the boundaries of the District. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby declares its intention, in addition to any assessments, fees, charges or taxes imposed by the City, to levy and collect an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2017 (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017). Such assessment is not proposed to increase from the assessment levied and collected for the prior fiscal year. The method and basis of levying the assessment is set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. Not Yet Approved 160330 jb 0131515 2 SECTION 7. The types of improvements to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District are the acquisition, construction, installation or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more. The types of activities to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District are the promotion of public events which benefit businesses in the area and which take place on or in public places within the District; the furnishing of music in any public place in the District; and activities which benefit businesses located and operating in the District. SECTION 8. New businesses established in the District after the beginning of any fiscal year shall be exempt from the levy of the assessment for that fiscal year. In addition, non-profit organizations, newspapers and professional "single-person businesses," defined as those businesses which have 25% or less full time equivalent employees, including the business owner, shall be exempt from the assessment. SECTION 9. The City Council hereby fixes the time and place for a public hearing on the proposed levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2016 as follows: TIME: 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter DATE: Monday, June 6, 2016 PLACE: City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons regarding the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2017 shall be heard. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings must be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made. Every written protest must be filed with the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The City Council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest and at the public hearing may correct minor defects in the proceedings. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest must contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a Not Yet Approved 160330 jb 0131515 3 person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business. A written protest which does not comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph will not be counted in determining a majority protest (as defined below). If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the District which will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent (i.e., there is a majority protest), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment, as contained in this resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvement or activity within the District, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated. SECTION 10. For a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for fiscal year 2017, the boundaries of the District and the proposed assessments to be levied against the businesses within the District for fiscal year 2017, reference is hereby made to the Report of the Advisory Board. The Report is on file with the City Clerk and open to public inspection. SECTION 11. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide notice of the public hearing in accordance with law. // // // // // // // // // Not Yet Approved 160330 jb 0131515 4 SECTION 12. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of 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 Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 934 - 9 4 4 927 932 233 281 933 - 9 3 7 943 327 1001 94 2 469 475 74 4 459 832 801 A P T 1 - 5 427-453 920 912 362 370 900 838 846 471 459 835 - 8 5 5 460 81 5 840 836 834 845 400 803 928930 931 933 835 - 8 3 7 831 - 8 3 3 451453 802800 81 0 - 8 1 6 81 8 - 8 2 0 82 8 - 8 3 0 817 - 8 1 9 82 3 - 8 2 5 567-569 559563 536 526 100 1 101 1 - 540 483 904 912 468 918 926 537 965-971505-507 519-521 939-945 931-935 923-925 518-520 539541543 515-517 809 811 420 1001 1011 1010 376 370 980960 990 34 354 326 426 4 1000 448 944 471 483948952 959947925 915 933 935 425-443 451449 463-465 936-940 458 460 440 428426 527-533 543 551 510520 558-560 903 825 837 581 575 940934 813-823 501-509 511-519 521-529 531-539 541-547 556 596 904 926 561-567 569 845 580 574 566 991- 997 136 610 116-122 150 535529 525 542516140 102 116 124 163 145 566 556 167 528 643635 635 645- 685 660- 666 620 180 164 158156 624628 632 636 640 644 617 621 151-165 171-195 203 642640 636 200 151 115 125 135 514 101 440 444 436432 427 425 117119 630616 208 228220 240-248 575 530- 534 536 540 552 177 156 201 209215 225 595 229231 611-623 180 508500 625-631 170 172-174 542544 538- 542 552 548 546 541- 547 230-238 734 723 721 702- 730220-244 744 701 731 755757 771 200 160 728-732 762- 776740-746 250 275 270 255 741 265 724 730 651 221-225 227 668 707 205 201203 451449 209 219 221 233 235450 460 470 442 444 400 420 430 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171-169 441- 445 435- 439 346344 333 335 342 344 431 460 450 235530 220 220 B 222 240 514278 274270 250 545 540 251485255 271 281 300 310 301 581 259-267 533535537 261 267 518-526 532- 536 520-526 530-536 271 281 252 270 240-248 202- 216 228226 234238 244 242 210- 216 228- 234 223- 229 209215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 251 344 326 340 337339 323317 400 420 332330 314 353 355 367 305 347 265272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 300- 310 431401 366 436 426 #1-7 369 335 319 390 301 315 375 307- 311 325330 332 1&2330 1-3 324 326316 318 373- 377 416- 424 361 338 340 560 345 321325 315 529 285 555 650636 628 1-12 628 A-E 385 365 375380 345 664 325650-654 661635300 690 675 555541-549533 535- 539 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405403453 461 383460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432428 460-476 450 635 446 430 400 745 720706 385744 734 724-730 720 712 704 360 351 315737 332 300 653 -681 683 685 512 501619 609605 518 482486 496 610 630 455 400 651-687 543-545 532534 542544 550 552 554556 558560562564 635-6 643-6 470 313 334 333 325326 342 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 321 335 228220 356-360 347-367 351357 369-379360 258- 296 350 210 204 302- 316 379310 320 328 332 340 437 412 311 A-B 404 313 325 327 333 407 401385 411 452 378-390 360 - 1A - 1C360 - 2A - 2C360 - 3A - 3C360 - 4A - 4C360 - 5A - 5C360 - 6A 344-348 418420 482 328 456 321 325 330204 218 236 240 250- 252 477 475 467 457 453249235225221 201 60 275 505-509 239- 243 209- 213 210- 214 513-519 460 474472228- 230 535 558 201 16 12 20 209 215 223 231 521 80 239-245 530-540 544-554 212- 216 218-222 333 335- 337 351 457451 465463 489-499360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451443437411 405 419405401 441 480-498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 425415 400 570568 556 550 543 327321315305 343 515 525 551 555 328 309-311 518-528 536-540 552-554 558-562 573 A-E 591-599 557-571 330-332 318-320 406-418 417 542 548568 524 550 500-528 578 564 550 546 540 530 531-535 541 505 525 537 555 565 571 530 619-6 520 440-446 579 567 523610 600 555 581 420-438 437 566 224 228 A-F 244 579 575 565 559 251 355 A-J 335329 604 576 566 345-347 243245 25725920921922723502 505 610-616 727 678 676 674672 642 636-638 567 555 711 701705 725 525 759 730 718 734 738-740 760 746-750 701 721-7 600 827 835 899 850 530 609 759 751753 7 737-62611 601 600 1013 10041000 1006 1001 623 137 145 700 780 790 744 111700 753100 825805 33 51 75 63 841 44 675 49 41 711 799 703 100 101 139654 625 160 1001 1005 1009 1010 1004 930 975 945929931 948 181 940 960 145900 955 999875 853 925 81 855 901-907 909 87 98 917 921 925 735 849 707 847 842828 820248 230-232 212 825 829 833 839 800 812 818 882 165831 801 815 809801 841 791153 718 774 761 795745 201 209 834836 845 895 926 190 934 942 948 203 209 219 225 929200 240 904 910 926 270 935 904 909 909A 217 222 148 171 421 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131 129 355301 235 258 212 163 115 291247 210 201 207 64 202 235 251 249 252 247 244250 177220 261 251-257 205245 231225213205 70 2 206 234240 183 251 270 241-247 215- 237 210- 216 219 235 62 202 245 54 52 50 203 215 221 313-317318 220- 224 238 542-550 531-539 532 759 223-239 905 911-917907 188 190 251- 293 202 206 208 210 212 216 220 1008 275 539 201 400 27 168 865857 302 324 340 795 848 918 903 903A 408 412 440 483A - F 435 751 735 745 532 210 727 733 335 328 330 345 214 350 800 806 441 441A 230302 306 308 312 316 301 303 305 307 309 325 251 807 821 829 801 818-824 420 424 430 832A 832 842A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 355A 355 359A 359 363A 363 367A 367 425 911 943 951 918 936 940 944 271 253 241 301 319 919A 919 935 949 928 936 940-946 353 264 367 361 310 1005 1010 423425413 - 419 457-467 469-471473-481 454 729 A-D 733-743 734-740 724-732 936 824-828 920 949 943941 715 95 445 324 328 545 590 425447 827 565 585 595 904 315 507 561 706 536 200 100 280-290 150 158164 276 516 698 161 159 157777 132 127 180 528 120 247 372 524 548550 538 152 345 336 515 658 227 27 29 539 115 135 321 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 965 140 350 808 915 461 435433 945 1012 421 727 A-C 218 255 206 739 260 840 650 642 351 451 551 375 530 643 415 12 700 802 99 89 87 901 560564568572576580584588592594 906 908 910 912 914 916 918920 922 924 548 423 668 901 305 -313 423 405 352354 611 320322 346 323 471 484 528 426 264 430 1001 508 756 - 760 940 930 544546 515 7 745 7 549 211 213 151 160 257 433-457 482 330 349 401 539 440 691 755 67 312 202 651 443 445 447 716 218 398 998 262 335 218 640-646506 327 469 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 101 819 301 725 595 705 541 Quarry Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Ch a n n i n g A v e n u e Alma Street El Camino Real Mitchell Lane Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Everett Avenue Waverley Street Cowper Street Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Lane A West L L La Addison Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue La Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Webster Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Channing Avenue Ramona Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 W Lane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Palo Road ay Pear Lane Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Emerson Street tal m D r iv e Alma Street Lytton Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Zone A (Ground Floor) - Zone B (Upper Floors) abc Zone B 0' 500' Downtown Palo Alto Business ImprovementDistrict Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2012-04-30 16:57:54CPA BID (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6851) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and Adopt an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Sections 12.32.010 (Water Use Restrictions) and 12.32.020 (Enforcement) From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend the City Council adopt: 1. A resolution (Attachment B) approving the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Attachment A); and 2. An ordinance (Attachment C) amending Municipal Code Sections 12.32.010, Water Use Restrictions, and 12.32.020, Enforcement. Executive Summary For the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has updated the 2010 UWMP and addressed any changes as required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and related legislation. In terms of water supply sources, the 2015 UWMP policy and direction is the same as in the 2010 UWMP. Apart from state requirements for reporting, the City already implements water resource planning on an ongoing basis. The main approach the City uses is to prepare a Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP), in which all water resource options are evaluated, as well as a Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, which includes projections and plans for implementing water efficiency measures. The 2015 UWMP provides background on the WIRP and other supply planning efforts as well as an updated analysis of current and planned Demand Management Measures (DMMs) developed to meet new State requirements for potable water use reductions. A detailed description of these measures is included in the DMM1 section of this report and in the 2015 UWMP. 1 Although commonly referred to as Demand Side Management (DSM) measures, the California Water Code specifically requires an urban water supplier to report on Demand Management Measures (DMM), therefore this terminology is used throughout the 2015 UWMP and related reports. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The 2015 UWMP contains the following highlights: Public involvement and coordination with other agencies; Description of current and potential water sources, including the potential for expanded use of recycled water in the City; The City's water demand projections; Plans to implement water efficiency (conservation) programs; Discussion of (non-drought) emergency plans; The sufficiency of supplies from San Francisco, particularly in droughts; and Drought response plans for droughts of varying severity. Each of these sections, including new developments since the 2010 UWMP was adopted, is summarized below. Background The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) requires every California water agency supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water per year or providing service to more than 3,000 connections to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is prepared every five years by urban water suppliers to assess the reliability of water sources over a 20-year planning horizon under both normal and dry hydrologic conditions and to ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Senate Bill x7-7 (SBx7-7), adopted in November 2009, mandates a statewide per capita potable water use reduction of 20% by the year 2020. Urban water suppliers are required to identify a baseline usage (expressed in gallons per capita per day, or GPCD) for their service area, calculate a target to meet the 20% reduction, and include a plan for compliance in the 2015 UWMP. The City’s 2015 UWMP addresses these items. The City must adopt the 2015 UWMP by July 1, 2016 and submit it to the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of adoption. Discussion Sections of the 2015 UWMP are summarized below. Public Involvement and Coordination with Other Agencies The City has actively encouraged community participation in its urban water management planning efforts. The City also coordinates its planning activities with neighboring communities and water agencies. Various stakeholders were notified of the City’s plan to review and update the UWMP in December 2015. Letters explaining how to access the City’s draft 2015 UWMP were also sent to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the County of Santa Clara, the Cities of Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Redwood City, the Purissima Hills Water District, Stanford University and the Palo Alto Regional Water City of Palo Alto Page 3 Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) for review and comments. The City maintains a web site with background information and links to related resources to educate the public and encourage participation in the process (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp). Consideration of the 2015 UWMP by the Utilities Advisory Commission and Council affords the public an opportunity to participate in the process prior to the meeting when the City Council considers adoption of the Plan. In addition, notices will be placed in the local daily and weekly newspapers informing the public of the opportunities to comment on the City’s 2015 UWMP update. The draft 2015 UWMP is available on the City’s web site, and hard copies are available at City Hall for public review. Current and Potential Water Sources San Francisco Public Utilities Commission The City’s potable water is supplied by the SFPUC from the Regional Water (Hetch Hetchy) System. In June 2009, the City signed a Water Supply Agreement (WSA) with the City and County of San Francisco (CMR:269:09). The WSA expires in 2034, and the City anticipates maintaining the current level of reliance on SFPUC supplies for the foreseeable future. In order to enhance the ability of the SFPUC water supply system to meet service goals for water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability and water supply, the SFPUC undertook the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), which was approved on October 31, 2008. The WSIP is aimed at enhancing the SFPUC’s ability to meet its water service mission of providing high quality water to customers in a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable manner. Many of the water supply and reliability projects evaluated in the WSIP were originally put forth in the SFPUC’s 2000 Water Supply Master Plan. The WSIP is 90% complete with the largest outstanding project, the Calaveras Dam replacement, scheduled to be completed by November 2018. Groundwater As of 2015, the City has implemented the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (Emergency Project) including five refurbished wells, three new wells and a new 2.5 million gallon storage tank. The primary purpose of the Emergency Project was to provide water supply and fire suppression in the event of a catastrophic disruption of supply. However, the Emergency Project also enables the use of groundwater for supplemental supplies in droughts, as was done on several occasions during previous water shortages. There are no current plans to use groundwater in normal (non-drought) years for water supply although the City is partnering with the SCVWD to analyze the shallow and deep aquifers in the Northwestern portion of the county, including the potential for groundwater recharge and indirect potable reuse. Recycled Water The City currently uses recycled water for certain non-potable uses. The largest current uses are irrigation of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and Greer Park and processes at the Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Page 4 RWQCP. In September 2015, the City Council certified the project Environmental Impact Report to expand the current recycled water system to serve customers in the Stanford Research Park. Recycled water use for the project expansion is not included in the 2015 UWMP water production forecast, as no decision has been made to proceed with the project. Staff is preparing a financial plan for the project and evaluating alternatives such as purifying the recycled water to use for potable water supplies or to recharge groundwater aquifers. Other Water Supply Options Other supply options include executing water transfer agreements with other agencies and constructing a desalination plant. The City has no current plans for either of these options, but is coordinating with BAWSCA and the SCVWD on efforts to identify and evaluate new supply sources. In addition, and as mentioned above, the City is partnering with the SCVWD to study and explore groundwater and indirect potable reuse as a potential water supply source. Water Demand Incorporating the profound effects of the current drought and state-imposed mandatory potable water use reductions presented an additional challenge when developing the water demand projections for this 2015 UWMP. A model developed in-house was used to forecast SFPUC purchases assuming the continuation of the City’s existing DMMs. Water savings from future DMMs were developed using the same end use model that was used to develop the projections in the 2010 UWMP. The City developed baseline projections for the purchased SFPUC water using an econometric model built in-house. The model uses historical water usage data as well as assumptions regarding population, economic growth, and development. Current DMMs are implicitly accounted for in the model. Breaking down demand at the end-use level was accomplished by applying the 2015 water use percentages for each type of water service account (single‐family, multi‐ family, commercial, irrigation, etc.) to the total projected demand. The end use model was used to forecast the impact of future DMMs. For 2015 and future population and employment projections, staff relied upon projections prepared in 2013 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Using the 2013 ABAG projections does not indicate that the City agrees with these projections. In fact, staff is aware that many believe these projections are too high. However, for purposes of planning water supply needs, using the 2013 ABAG projections is a conservative assumption. It is prudent to ensure that the City accounts for unexpected growth and other unforeseen factors for future water demand projections. The population and employment projections used for the 2015 UWMP are shown in Table 1 below. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Table 1: Population – Current and Projected 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Service Area Population 67,400 70,500 73,700 77,100 80,800 84,600 Five Year Precent Increase 4.6%4.5%4.6%4.8%4.7% Total Employment 96,900 104,820 107,870 110,940 115,110 119,470 Five Year Precent Increase 8.2%2.9%2.8%3.8%3.8% The City has a contractual entitlement (Individual Supply Guarantee, or “ISG”) from the SFPUC regional water system of 17.07 million gallons per day (mgd), or 19,118 acre-feet per year (AFY). Current and projected water demands are considerably lower than the ISG and staff does not anticipate water usage will exceed the contractual entitlement in the foreseeable future. The City purchased 10,724 AF of water from the SFPUC in 2015. In 1985, the City’s water purchases were 18,700 AF and in 1976, the City purchased over 20,000 AF. The observed water use reduction can be attributed to many factors, including the 1976-77 drought, the 1987-92 drought, the 2015 SWRCB-mandated water use reductions and early adoption of efficiency measures and conservation. Table 2 provides the projection for SFPUC purchases for the 2015 UWMP planning horizon. Table 2: Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AF/Y) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Palo Alto Demand for SFPUC Water 10,724 11,883 11,411 11,132 10,879 Individual Supply Guarantee 19,118 19,118 19,118 19,118 19,118 Difference 8,394 7,235 7,707 7,986 8,239 The 2015 UWMP addresses the City’s requirements under the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBx7-7). The statute requires water suppliers to reduce average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. Water suppliers can choose one of four different methods to calculate the baseline from which the 20% reduction is calculated. Staff has evaluated the four methods based on several criteria and has determined that the method that is most suitable for the City is Method 1, which allows water suppliers to select a baseline of the average use over a 10-year period ending no earlier than 2004 and no later than 2010. For the City, the optimal 10-year period is from 1994 to 2004. Using future water usage and population projections, staff has determined that the planned water efficiency measures will result in enough savings to meet the SBx7-7 target as shown in Figure 1 below. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Figure 1: SB 7 Compliance Projection (in gallons per capita per day, or GPCD) Demand Management Measures (DMM) The City is committed to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to water conservation programs. Since 2002, the City has partnered with SCVWD to promote and cost- share water efficiency programs for Palo Alto customers. Through this cost-sharing agreement, the City pays roughly half of the cost of the programs, with SCVWD administering many of these programs including onsite water audits, and rebates for landscape conversion as well as water efficient fixtures and appliances. The City also administers other water conservation programs in-house or through separate contracts with outside vendors, such as the Home Water Report program. The City continues to evaluate opportunities for program partnership opportunities with BAWSCA and other regional alliances. The 2015 UWMP addresses the following seven areas of water demand management that have been implemented over the past five years and/or will be implemented to achieve the City’s SBx7-7 target: 1. Water waste prevention ordinance 2. Metering 3. Conservation pricing 4. Public education and outreach 5. Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss 6. Water conservation program coordination and staff support 7. Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in GPCD, including innovative measures, if implemented City of Palo Alto Page 7 Descriptions and implementation details of each of the above DMMs are provided in the 2015 UWMP. Reliability and Emergency Planning The reliability of the City’s water system depends upon two basic factors: (1) the reliability of the local distribution system under the City’s control, and (2) the reliability of the Regional Water System under the control of the SFPUC. The Regional Water System’s reliability deficiencies are being addressed as part of the WSIP. The WSIP is 90% complete with the largest outstanding project, the Calaveras Dam replacement project, scheduled to be completed by November 2018. Since the SFPUC’s Regional Water System still has some vulnerability, local distribution system reliability is important. In addition, the SFPUC’s Regional Water System is subject to temporary outages due to such factors as water quality events that could mean that service from SFPUC could be cut off for short periods. In 1999, a study of Palo Alto’s distribution system revealed that it needed additional storage and the capability of reliably using groundwater to endure such an emergency.2 The study also identified capital improvements to allow the City to provide eight-hour emergency water supplies. Subsequent studies showed that the capital improvements recommended by the study could assist in shortages such as a multi-year drought and 30 to 60 day outages as well as the eight-hour outage they were designed to handle.3 To address the deficiency, City Council completed the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. The City’s wells and storage system are now capable of providing fire suppression and serving the community’s water needs for up to eight hours during peak usage times. Drought-time Availability of SFPUC Supplies In July 2009, as part of the WSA, the wholesale customers4 and San Francisco adopted a Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) to allocate water from the regional water system to retail and wholesale customers during system-wide shortages of 20% or less (the “Tier 1 Plan”)5. The Tier 1 Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any wholesale customer and between wholesale customers themselves. In addition, water “banked” by a wholesale customer through reductions in usage greater than required, may also be transferred. The Tier 1 Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA on June 30, 2034, unless extended by San Francisco and the wholesale customers. 2 Carollo Engineers, Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution Study, December 1999. 3 Carollo Engineers, Long-Term Water Supply Study, May 2000. Carollo Engineers, Groundwater Supply Feasibility Study, April 2003. 4 The wholesale customers are the entities that purchase water from the SFPUC regional system and are members of BAWSCA 5 The previous water shortage allocation plan expired in 2009 with the termination of the previous Water Supply Agreement with the SFPUC. Details of the previous allocation plan are provided in the 2005 UWMP. City of Palo Alto Page 8 The wholesale customers adopted the “Tier 2 Plan”, which allocates the collective wholesale customer share among each of the 26 wholesale customers. The City of Palo Alto approved the Tier 2 plan in February 2011 (Staff Report 1308). The Tier 2 allocation plan is based on a formula that takes into account multiple factors for each wholesale customer. The Tier 2 Plan requires that the water allocation factors for each agency be calculated each year in preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. The Tier 2 Plan will expire in 2018 unless extended by the wholesale customers. As the wholesale customers change their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in SFPUC purchases and use of other water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns or changes in residential per capita water use), the final drought allocation for each wholesale customer will also change. It is difficult to predict what that allocation may be in the future. For illustration purposes, staff is providing one possible outcome using the example provided in the Tier 2 Plan adopted by the City Council, as calculated for FY 2013. Table 3 below illustrates how much water would be available to the City from the regional system under different reduction scenarios using actual water purchases from FY 2013. Table 3: Palo Alto Share of Available Water (AF/Y) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 System-wide Shortage 0%10%10%22%22% BAWSCA 163,429 170,934 170,934 144,722 144,722 City of Palo Alto 12,692 12,692 12,692 11,425 11,425 Availability of Water for Palo Alto 100%100%100%90%90% Allocations During Multiple Dry Years Demand (FY 2013) One Critical Dry Year Allocation Drought Contingency Plan Palo Alto has experience with both severe droughts resulting in the SFPUC rationing Regional Water System supplies and with the current SWRCB-mandated potable water use reductions. In both cases, residents and businesses reduced water consumption to meet the reduction targets. The City’s actions included the implementation and enforcement of emergency water restrictions and focused public outreach campaigns to provide information on ways to efficiently use available water. As shown in Table 4, the 2015 UWMP outlines actions that the City could take to achieve varying degree of water use reduction. Voluntary water use reduction are estimated to cost the City $30,000-$50,000 in outreach costs and, based on the experience in 2015, implementation and enforcement of mandatory reductions are estimated to cost $400,000-$600,000. Table 4: Drought Response Strategy Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Target Water Savings 5% - 10% 10% -20% 20%- 35% 35% - 50% City of Palo Alto Page 9 Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Information Outreach and Audit Program Continuation of existing programs plus a low level media campaign Increased advertising, availability of kits with low-cost devices Escalated outreach efforts and media campaign. High water users targeted. Further escalated outreach efforts. Focus on survival strategies and prioritization of water use. Demand-Side Management Programs Continuation of existing programs, evaluation of new programs Augmented programs as necessary to achieve reduction targets Programs continued with monitoring of reductions to determine whether to increase program incentive levels Additional program efforts targeted to indoor water use, if that area shows potential. Rate Structures Standard rates already encourage conservation Implementation of rates with consumption tiers for non single-family residential customers Rates as in Stage II with steeper prices for higher usage tiers Allocation method introduced for first time. Water Use Restrictions Only permanent water use ordinance – no new restrictions apply. More vigilant enforcement of water use restrictions and addition of new restrictions. Commence issuance of warning citations. Additional emergency water use restrictions added. Enforcement efforts increased. Severe emergency water use restrictions. Rigorous enforcement Recycled Water Use Advertise availability of recycled water for trucked delivery Advertise availability of recycled water for trucked delivery Advertise availability of recycled water for trucked delivery Water Use Restrictions Four water uses are permanently restricted in Chapter 12.32 (Water Use Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The proposed and attached ordinance (Attachment C) will cause to be permanent four additional common sense water use restrictions, and clarifies the enforcement process for Chapter 12.32. The irrigation of turf or ornamental landscapes, which serve purely decorative purposes, and are distinguished from trees, edible gardens or landscapes that provide more than a purely aesthetic function, with potable water shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except via hand watering with a bucket or a hose with an operating shut- off valve. The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature is prohibited, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. The use of potable water for street sweepers and washers is prohibited if non-potable water is available, as determined by the Director of Utilities, or his or her designee. Commercial car washes must use recycled water systems, if recycled water is available, as determined by the Director of Utilities, or his or her designee, and economically feasible. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Commission Review and Recommendation The 2015 UWMP was presented to the UAC at its April 12, 2016 meeting. After hearing the staff presentation, the UAC voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the City Council approve staff’s recommendation. Chair Foster, Vice Chair Cook, Commissioners Ballantine, Danaher, and Schwartz voted yes and Commissioners Eglash and Hall were absent. The draft minutes of the UAC’s April 12, 2016 meeting are provided as Attachment D. Timeline Date Meeting/Activity Topic April 12, 2016 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Review and Recommendation on UWMP April 2016 Publish Notice of Public Hearing Newspaper (Council meeting) on UWMP Newspaper (Council meeting) on SBx7‐7 Reductions May 16, 2016 City Council Review and Discussion on SBx7‐7 Reduction Targets Review and Adoption of UWMP June 2016 Final UWMP and Council Resolution Copy to DWR and Stakeholder Agencies June 2016 Final UWMP and Council Resolution Available to the Public Resource Impact Adoption of the 2015 UWMP has no direct impact on budget and staff resouces as this work is part of the FY 2016 work plan. Policy Implications The City is required by State law to prepare an UWMP every five years. The 2015 UWMP is consistent with several objectives in the Utilities Strategic Plan including ensuring a reliable supply of resources, offering programs to meet the needs of customers and the community, and promoting the efficient use of resources. Environmental Review The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the preparation and adoption of the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan pursuant to California Water Code Section 10652, and adoption of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Sections 12.32.010 (Water Use Restrictions) and 12.32.020 (Enforcement) is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15307 and 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (actions taken by regulatory agencies for the protection of natural resources and the environment). Attachments: Attachment A: Urban Water Management Plan DRAFT 2015 UWMP (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 11 Attachment B: Resolution Adopting 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (PDF) Attachment C: Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Sections 12.32.010, Water Use Restrictions, and 12.32.020, Enforcement (PDF) Attachment D: Excerpted UAC Minutes of April 12, 2016 (PDF) 2015 Draft URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN JUNE 2016 ATTACHMENT A Cover photo courtesy of Catherine Elvert – Rancheria Falls above the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir City of Palo Alto Utilities 2015 Draft Urban Water Management Plan June 2016 i Table of Contents List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................... v Contact Sheet ........................................................................................................................ 1 Section 1 – Plan Development and Adoption ......................................................................... 2 Plan Structure ........................................................................................................................... 2 Plan Adoption............................................................................................................................ 2 Public Participation ................................................................................................................... 2 Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................. 4 Internal City Coordination .................................................................................................. 4 Interagency Coordination ................................................................................................... 5 Section 2 – Service Area ....................................................................................................... 10 Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 10 Climate Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 11 Section 3 – System Supplies ................................................................................................. 12 Historical Background ............................................................................................................. 12 SFPUC Supply .......................................................................................................................... 16 Description of SFPUC Regional Water System .................................................................. 16 Water Supply Agreement ................................................................................................. 16 BAWSCA and Its Role .............................................................................................................. 20 Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections .................................................. 20 Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy ...................................................................... 21 Alternative Water Supply Analysis .......................................................................................... 22 Transfer or Exchange Opportunities ....................................................................................... 22 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 23 Deep Aquifer Groundwater .............................................................................................. 23 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater .......................................................................................... 27 Water Recycling ...................................................................................................................... 28 Recycled Water Market Survey ........................................................................................ 28 Participation in Regional Recycled Water Planning .......................................................... 29 Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Palo Alto ......................................................... 30 Wastewater Generation, Collection & Treatment ........................................................... 31 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) ............................................... 31 Wastewater Disposal and Recycled Water Uses .............................................................. 31 Disposal of Wastewater .................................................................................................... 32 Recycled Water Currently Used ........................................................................................ 32 ii Potential Uses of Recycled Water ..................................................................................... 33 Recycled Water Facility Plan ............................................................................................. 33 Encouraging Recycled Water Use ..................................................................................... 35 Current and Proposed Actions to Encourage Use of Recycled Water .............................. 35 Recycled Water Optimization Plan ................................................................................... 36 RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan ................................................................................... 37 BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy ....................................................... 37 Indirect Potable Reuse ...................................................................................................... 37 Desalinated Water .................................................................................................................. 37 Section 4 – Water Demand .................................................................................................. 39 Water Usage ........................................................................................................................... 39 Demand Projections .......................................................................................................... 39 Water Sales ....................................................................................................................... 41 Share of Total Consumption by Customer Type ............................................................... 42 Sales to Other Agencies .................................................................................................... 43 Additional Water Uses ‐ Recycled Water Use ................................................................... 43 Non‐Revenue Water/Water Loss ...................................................................................... 44 Total Water Use ................................................................................................................ 44 Projected Low to Moderate Income Water Use ............................................................... 44 Water Conservation Bill of 2009 ............................................................................................. 46 Measures, Programs and Policies to Achieve SBx7‐7 Water Targets ............................... 48 Economic Impacts of SBx7‐7 Compliance ......................................................................... 49 Section 5 – Demand Management Measures ....................................................................... 50 Water Waste Prevention Ordinance ....................................................................................... 51 Metering ................................................................................................................................. 51 Conservation Pricing ............................................................................................................... 52 Public Education and Outreach .............................................................................................. 52 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution Systems Real Loss .......................................... 53 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support ......................................... 53 Water Conservation Program Partnership with SCVWD .................................................. 53 Home Water Report Program ........................................................................................... 54 Water Conservation Coordinator ..................................................................................... 54 Water Waste Coordinator................................................................................................. 54 Other Demand Management Measures ................................................................................. 55 Landscape Survey and Water Budget Program ................................................................ 55 Real-time Water Use Monitoring Pilot for Commercial Customers ................................. 55 Business Water Reports Pilot Program ............................................................................. 55 Section 6 – Water Supply Reliability ..................................................................................... 56 Water Supply Reliability .......................................................................................................... 56 Frequency and Magnitude of Supply Deficiencies ................................................................. 57 iii Reliability of the Regional Water System ......................................................................... 58 Climate Change ................................................................................................................. 61 Plans to Assure a Reliable Water Supply ................................................................................ 66 Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan ...................................................................... 67 Background ............................................................................................................................. 67 Catastrophic Interruption of Supply ....................................................................................... 67 Regional System Reliability ............................................................................................... 67 Local Distribution System Reliability ................................................................................. 69 Emergency Response Plan ................................................................................................ 69 Water Shortage Contingency Analysis .................................................................................... 71 Palo Alto’s Experience with Drought Management ......................................................... 71 Regional Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan ............................................................ 72 Palo Alto’s Water Shortage Contingency Planning ........................................................... 74 Water Shortage Mitigation Options ....................................................................................... 74 Supply Side Options .......................................................................................................... 74 Demand Side Options ....................................................................................................... 75 Stages of Action ...................................................................................................................... 80 STAGE I: Minimum Water Shortage – 5% to 10% target water savings ........................... 81 STAGE II: Moderate Water Shortage – 10% to 20% target water savings........................ 81 STAGE III: Severe Water Shortage – 20% to 35% target water savings ............................ 82 STAGE IV: Critical Water Shortage – 35% to 50% target water savings ........................... 83 Alternative Water Supplies During a Water Shortage ............................................................ 84 Revenue and Expenditure Impacts and Measures to Overcome Impacts ............................. 84 Impact on Expenditures .................................................................................................... 85 Reduction Measuring Mechanism .......................................................................................... 85 Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance/Resolution ............................................................. 86 Section 8 – Supply and Demand Comparison Provisions ....................................................... 87 Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................................................................... 87 APPENDIX A ‐ Resolution Adopting UWMP .......................................................................... 91 APPENDIX B ‐ Public Participation Notices............................................................................ 94 APPENDIX C ‐ Water Loss Report.......................................................................................... 95 APPENDIX D – DWR Standardized Tables ............................................................................. 97 APPENDIX E – City of Palo Alto Resolution Approving Water Shortage Allocation Plan (w/attachments) ............................................................................................................... 118 APPENDIX F ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Draft Ordinance ....................................... 125 APPENDIX G ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Evaluation Criteria .................................. 127 APPENDIX H ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Use Restrictions ...................................... 130 APPENDIX I – Single and Multi Year Delivery Shortages ...................................................... 134 iv List of Tables Table 1: Calendar for Adoption...................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies ......................................................................... 9 Table 3: Population – Current and Projected ............................................................................... 11 Table 4: Climate ............................................................................................................................ 11 Table 5: Current and Planned Water Supply Sources ................................................................... 16 Table 6: Tier One Drought Allocations .......................................................................................... 17 Table 7: Wastewater Treatment ................................................................................................... 31 Table 8: Wastewater Collected and Treated – AF ........................................................................ 31 Table 9: Disposal of Wastewater (non‐recycled) – AF .................................................................. 32 Table 10: Potential Future Use of Recycled Water in Palo Alto‐ AFY ........................................... 33 Table 11: Historical and Projected Water Sales – by Customer Type .......................................... 42 Table 12: Historical and Projected Water Accounts – by Customer Type .................................... 42 Table 13: Historical and Project Water Sales per Account ........................................................... 42 Table 14: Recycled Water Use (AF/Y) ........................................................................................... 44 Table 15: Non-Revenue Water (AF/Y) .......................................................................................... 44 Table 16: Total Water Use (AF/Y) ................................................................................................. 44 Table 17: Projected Low Income Water Demands (AF) ................................................................ 45 Table 18: Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use for 10-year period (1995 through 2004) ............ 47 Table 19: 2015 UWMP SBx7-7 Performance Metrics (gallons per capita per day) ...................... 48 Table 20: Water Deliveries in San Francisco Regional Water System Service Area ..................... 61 Table 21: Summary of BAIRWMP Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment ............................. 63 Table 22: Interties with other Agencies ....................................................................................... 69 Table 23: SFPUC and Wholesale Customer Share of Available Water ......................................... 72 Table 24: Palo Alto Share of Available SFPUC Water (AF/Y) ......................................................... 74 Table 25: SFPUC System Supply (MGD) ....................................................................................... 87 Table 26: City of Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AF) ............................................................. 88 Table 27: SFPUC Water Supply Assumptions (AF/Y) .................................................................... 88 List of Figures Figure 1: Potential Groundwater Use Area .................................................................................. 25 Figure 2: Phase 3 Recycled Water Project .................................................................................... 34 Figure 3: Water Supply Purchases – Actual and Forecast ............................................................ 41 Figure 4: 2010 Water Sales by Customer Class ............................................................................. 43 Figure 5: 2015 Water Sales by Customer Class ............................................................................. 43 v List of Acronyms AF Acre Feet ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments AF/Y Acre Feet per Year BAWAC Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BCA Baseline Consumption Allowance BMP Best Management Practices CAFR City Audited Financial Report CALTRANS California Department of Transportation ccf Centi Cubic Feet (hundred cubic feet) CCSF City and County of San Francisco CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System COM Commercial CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council DHS Department of Health Services DSM Demand Side Management DMM Demand Management Measures DSS Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision Support System EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ET Evapotranspiration ETO Reference Evapotranspiration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FY Fiscal Year gpm Gallons per minute HET High Efficiency Toilets ICI Industrial Commercial and Institutional WIRP Integrated Resource Plan IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan IT Information Technology IWSAP Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan MF Multi‐family mg/L Milligrams per liter MGD Million Gallons per Day MOU Memorandum of Understanding O&M Operations and Maintenance vi OES Office of Emergency Services RWQCP Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report RWS Regional Water System SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District SF Single‐family SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SFWD San Francisco Water Department TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDS Total Dissolved Solids TRC Total Resource Cost UAC Utilities Advisory Commission UER Utilities Emergency Response ULF Ultra Low Flow ULFT Ultra Low Flow Toilet URS United Research Services, Consultant Firm UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WIRP Water Integrated Resource Plan WPL West Pipeline WSA Water Supply Agreement WSAP Water Shortage Allocation Plan WSIP Water System Improvement Program WSMP Water Supply Master Plan 1 City of Palo Alto Utilities 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Contact Sheet Date plan submitted to the Department of Water Resources: June X, 2016 Name of persons preparing this plan: Karla Dailey, Senior Resource Planner Christine Tam, Senior Resource Planner Phone: (650) 329‐2523 (650) 329‐2289 Fax: (650) 326‐1507 E‐mail address: karla.dailey@CityofPaloAlto.org christine.tam@CityofPaloAlto.org Utility services provided by the City include: electric, natural gas, commercial fiber, refuse, recycled water, storm drain, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Is This Agency a Bureau of Reclamation Contractor? No Is This Agency a State Water Project Contractor? No 2 Section 1 – Plan Development and Adoption Plan Structure The City of Palo Alto (City) has not experienced significant changes in the water supply distribution system and reliability since the preparation of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and has determined the 2010 UWMP provided sufficient guidance to meet the City’s needs during the 2010 UWMP cycle. For the 2015 UWMP report, the City has updated the 2010 UWMP and addressed any changes to the UWMP Act since 2010 as outlined in Appendix C of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) UWMP Guidebook. Plan Adoption The City began preparing this update of its Urban Water Management Plan in winter 2015. The updated plan will be considered by City Council before June 30, 2016 and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of Council adoption. This plan includes all information necessary to meet the requirements of California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6 (Urban Water Management Planning) as well as requirements of the California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.55 (Water Conservation Bill of 2009). Public Participation The City actively encourages community participation in its urban water management planning efforts. The City held public hearings before the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and City Council prior to adoption. An UWMP webpage (www.cityofpaloalto.org/UWMP) was created to educate the public about the UWMP process, provide outreach for public meetings and opportunities to participate, as well as to make available background materials on the City’s urban water management planning activities. Table 2 lists the notified agencies, and Appendix B includes samples of public participation notices. 3 Table 1: Calendar for Adoption Date Meeting/Activity Topic April 12 2016 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Review and Recommendation on UWMP April X, 2016 Published Notice of Public Hearing Newspaper (Council meeting) on UWMP Newspaper (Council meeting) on SBx7‐7 Reductions May 16, 2016 City Council Review and Discussion on SBx7‐7 Reduction Targets Review and Adoption of UWMP June X, 2016 Final UWMP and Council Resolution Copy to DWR and Stakeholder Agencies June X, 2016 Final UWMP and Council Resolution Available to the Public Appendix B contains samples of the public participation notices the City sent in compliance with Water Code 10621(b), 10620(d)(2), and 10642. A sample notice of the City Council meeting will be added to the Final Draft UWMP that will be presented to Council for approval. The City’s Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) provides advice to the City Council on: the acquisition and development of electric, gas and water resources; joint action projects with other public or private entities which involve electric, gas or water resources; wastewater collection and fiber optic issues; environmental implications of electric, gas or water utility projects, as well as conservation and demand management. The UAC meets monthly and reviews the activities of the various utility services. One of the primary tasks of the UAC is to assist with the review and development of long‐term plans for the City’s utilities. The UAC meetings are open to the public and agendas are posted for public review prior to each meeting. The draft schedule for approval of the 2015 UWMP provides the opportunity for the UAC to review and comment on the Draft UWMP prior to submittal to the City Council for final approval. In addition to the review of the UWMP, the UAC has been very active in the review of several other water supply and water management documents. Since the adoption of the 2010 UWMP, this review during public meetings has included discussion and presentations on the following: Preliminary Assessment of Water Resource Alternatives (February 2013) Update on Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project and its Role in the City’s Overall Emergency Response Capabilities (March 2013) Discussion of Potential Transfer of a Portion of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee (October 2013) Water utility Cost and Consumption Benchmarking Report ( January 2014) Drought Rate Design Guidelines (September 2014) Demand Side Management Annual Report (May 2015) 4 Activation of Drought Rates in Response to Mandatory Water Restrictions (June 2015) Certification of the Recycled Water System Expansion Environment Impact Report (September 2015) Monthly Drought Updates (May 2014 to present) Agency Coordination Law California Water Code section 106201 (a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban water management plan in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640). (d) (1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirement of this part by participation in area wide regional, watershed, or basis wide urban water management planning where those plans will reduce preparation costs and contribute to the achievement of conservation and efficient water use. (2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. Internal City Coordination Many members of City staff were involved to coordinate development of this plan, including representatives from all divisions of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) and other City departments including Planning and Community Environment; the City Manager’s Office; the City Attorney’s Office; and Public Works (Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant). The UWMP is coordinated with other City planning and policy level documents to ensure the water policy direction in the UWMP informs future decisions within the City of Palo Alto, including the Urban Forest Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Update. Since completion of the 2010 UWMP, CPAU has completed several important water supply and planning milestones, including: Recycled Water Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certification (September 2015) – Palo Alto City Council certification of the EIR was a major step in the effort to expand the use of recycled water in the city. City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Completion (December 2013) – The City constructed a 2.5 million gallon underground water reservoir and pump station in Palo Alto to meet emergency water supply and storage needs. In addition to this water reservoir, the three new emergency wells were completed and the five existing wells and the existing Mayfield Pump Station were upgraded. The Water Shortage Implementation Plan (June 2015) – In Response to the SWRCB Emergency Water Use Regulation, the Palo Alto City Council passed a resolution that 1 Unless noted, all statutory references herein are to the California Water Code. 5 included a new Water Shortage Implementation Plan and put into place restrictions for a Stage II water shortage. Drought Rate Design and Implementation: In response to the water utility revenue reduction resulting from water conservation, the City Council approved drought rate design guidelines (December 2014) and the approved implementation of drought surcharges as part of the water rates (August 2015). The completion of the plans and agreements listed above required the cooperation of all divisions within the CPAU and several other departments within the City. Data and information from these reports was used in this document. Interagency Coordination The City is an active member of the California water community and coordinated with a number of agencies in preparation of its UWMP. The City is particularly active in the following organizations: The City is a very active member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The BAWSCA members, including the City, receive water from the City and County of San Francisco through a contract that is administered by the SFPUC. The City is represented on the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Commission, the SCVWD Water Retailers Group, the SCVWD Recycled Water Subcommittee, and the SCVWD Water Conservation Subcommittee group. The City has actively participated on several initiatives in relation to the SFPUC, including: • Preparation of the SFPUC’s Program EIR for its Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) • The Interim Supply Limitation imposed by the SFPUC during adoption of the WSIP to limit deliveries from the regional system until 2018. Through BAWSCA, the City is represented in the Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC), a group of the seven largest water agencies in the Bay Area. BAWAC was established to develop regional water planning objectives, coordinate projects and programs that would meet the regional objectives to improve water supply reliability and water quality, and document, coordinate and communicate existing and planned programs and activities being implemented in the Bay Area region in the areas of water use efficiency and water treatment. The City has been a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation with the California Urban Water Conservation Council since 1992. The City is a member of the Bay Area Water Conservation Coordinators group, a consortium of water conservation professionals formed to discuss and share policy and program implementation strategies and research. The City is a member of the WateReuse Association, an organization of governmental, non‐profit and private sector entities working together to encourage increased recycled water use in California. 6 The City is a member of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), through which water and power agencies strive to evaluate and promote water and energy efficient appliances and technologies. The City is a member of the Alliance for Water Efficiency. The City is a Partner in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) WaterSense program, which promotes water efficient products and assists utilities in marketing its programs for water use efficiency. The City Council adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use on October 17, 2005.2 These principles were developed by the Local Government Commission, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to create healthy, walkable, and resource‐efficient communities. The City is a member of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA). BACWA members work together to carry out mutually beneficial projects, and to share scientific, economic and other information about the San Francisco Bay environment. The City is a member of the Western Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC), an organization that pursues highly leveraged, locally managed projects that will help ensure the security of water supplies. The City is a participant in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) working to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of the Bay. The City continually coordinates water‐planning activities that support and inform the City’s creation of this UWMP with neighboring communities and water agencies. The Water Supply Master Plan ‐ One early example of interagency coordination and planning was the development of the Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP). From 1996 through 1999, the BAWSCA agencies, the SFPUC, and the SCVWD worked cooperatively to develop a WSMP. A Palo Alto representative was on the steering committee for this project. The WSMP is intended to address the future water supply needs of the water agencies and 2.3 million people, who are served via the SFPUC water system. On April 25, 2000 the SFPUC formally adopted the WSMP including the implementation schedule for identified, selected projects. Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) ‐ The City has evaluated all its water supply alternatives in an effort to determine what long‐term direction the City should take for water resource planning. In 2000, this effort resulted in the City’s publication of a document3 describing in detail all the identified alternatives. Besides BAWSCA, the agencies that have received this document include: the City of Mountain View, Alameda County Water District, Stanford University, the City of San Jose, California Water Company, the City of Redwood City, 2 Staff Report CMR:367:05: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/5859 3 Preliminary Assessment of Water Resources: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/25619 7 the City of Daly City, the Purissima Hills Water District, the City of Santa Clara, the City of Milpitas and the City of Sunnyvale. In addition, the City continuously interacts with the 26 other BAWSCA agencies in the development of water efficiency programs to be implemented regionally, as well as the regional evaluation of water supply alternatives. In 2013, the City initiated development of a new WIRP by producing a water supply Preliminary Assessment4. This report will provide the basis for an updated WIRP planned for 2016. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan – The Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) convened a broad‐based group of stakeholders to develop an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the Bay Area. The Bay Area IRWMP will facilitate regional cooperation on issues of water supply, quality and reliability, water recycling and conservation, storm water and flood water management, wetlands and habitat restoration and creation, recreation and access. The plan was finalized in November 2006. The City was involved in the development of the Bay Area IRWMP on the water supply and reliability areas through BAWSCA’s representation in BAWAC. In addition, the City also coordinates water recycling and wastewater for the IRWMP implementation through the City’s membership in the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA). BAWSCA Long Term Water Reliable Water Supply Strategy ‐ The BAWSCA agencies identified a need for dry year supplies to meet future demands. The study, completed in February 2015 identified cost‐effective regional and local projects that will meet individual BAWSCA member needs. One of the projects included in the strategy is the City’s Phase 3 recycled water project to serve the Stanford Research Park. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Long Range Facilities Plan ‐ Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) has been in operation since 1934 and now serves the six communities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Stanford, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Aging equipment, new regulatory requirements, and the movement to full sustainability will require rehabilitation, replacement and new processes. The Long Range Facilities Plan was completed in October 2012. Major recommendations in the plan were modeling influent sewer flows, continuing source control and flow reduction efforts, rehabilitating and replacing critical infrastructure, and preparing for regulatory action. In addition, it was recommended the plant be positioned for a possible increase in recycled water demand by reserving space on site for reverse osmosis facilities and being prepared to implement additional storage and pumping capabilities. Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan ‐ The City participated with other stakeholders in the preparation of a 2012 Master Plan to address long range water supply and reliability needs in Santa Clara County. The Water Master Plan includes 4 Report to the UAC, February 2013: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33029 8 an implementation program that schedules projects based on finances, risk, and water supply and infrastructure needs. 9 The City coordinated the 2015 update of the Urban Water Management Plan with the following agencies: Table 2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies AGENCIES Participated in Plan development Sent notice of Plan preparation Commented on the draft Attended public meetings Contacted for assistance Received copy of draft Sent notice of public hearing Not involved / No information SFPUC X X X X BAWSCA X X X X SCVWD X X X City of East Palo Alto X X City of Mountain View X X City of Menlo Park X X Purissima Hills Water District X X City of Redwood City X X Stanford University X X All other BAWSCA agencies X X County of Santa Clara X X 10 Section 2 – Service Area Law 10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following: (a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier's water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available…. Demographics Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County approximately 35 miles south of the City of San Francisco. The City’s population in 2015 was approximately 67,4005. The City is roughly 26 square miles in area and is a part of the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. The City is one of the area's most desirable residential communities with approximately 28,5006 housing units. The City’s desirability is partly due to the excellent public schools, comprehensive municipal services, shopping, restaurants and the community's aesthetics. The City is considered the birthplace of the high technology industry and the Silicon Valley. Located directly adjacent to the City is Stanford University, which attracts major corporations from around the world. The City's 630‐acre Stanford Research Park includes among its tenants such prestigious and innovative high‐tech leaders as Hewlett‐Packard, Varian, Tesla Motors, and VMware. The City has approximately 27 million square feet of non-residential floor‐space, 36 parks and preserves (comprising 157 acres of urban parks and 3,752 acres of open space), tennis courts (51), community centers (4), theaters (3), swimming pools (1), nature centers (3), athletic centers (4), a golf course, an art center, and a junior museum and zoo7. Table 3 shows the population and employment projections for the City from 2015 to 2040 based on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2013 projections. The City relied on ABAG population and employment projections for the 2005 and 2010 UWMPs and several recent water supply and demand forecasts and continues to primarily rely on ABAG projections in this plan8. According to these projections, total expected 2015-2040 population growth is about 26%, or about 0.9% per year on average. Total expected growth in employment from 2015 to 2040 is 23%, or 0.8% per year on average. 5 Association of Bay Area Governments – Projections 2013 6 City of Palo Alto 2015-2023 Housing Element 7 City of Palo Alto 2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 8 The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan which will include updated population projections. 11 Table 3: Population – Current and Projected Climate Characteristics The City enjoys a mild climate surrounded by the San Francisco Bay on the east, and coastal mountains on the west. The monthly average temperature, rainfall and ETO (Reference Evapotranspiration) for the area are presented in Table 4 below. Table 4: Climate Climate Standard Monthly Average ETO9 Average Rainfall (inches)10 Average Max Temperature (degrees F)11 Average Min Temperature (degrees F) Jan 1.4 3.2 57.4 38.5 Feb 1.9 2.9 61.1 41.3 Mar 3.4 2.3 64.2 43.1 Apr 4.4 1.0 68.4 44.7 May 5.5 0.4 72.9 48.5 Jun 6.0 0.1 77.4 52.5 Jul 6.2 0.0 78.4 54.9 Aug 5.5 0.1 78.4 54.8 Sep 4.4 0.2 78.3 52.6 Oct 3.1 0.7 73.0 48.0 Nov 1.7 1.7 64.3 42.6 Dec 1.3 2.7 57.8 38.2 9 Average ETO data for closest active station (Hayward) reported by CIMIS website http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/ 10 Average rainfall data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ 11 Average temperature data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Service Area Population 67,400 70,500 73,700 77,100 80,800 84,600 Five Year Precent Increase 4.6%4.5%4.6%4.8%4.7% Total Employment 96,900 104,820 107,870 110,940 115,110 119,470 Five Year Precent Increase 8.2%2.9%2.8%3.8%3.8% 12 Section 3 – System Supplies Law 10631 (b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five year increments described in subdivision (a)….. Historical Background The water utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the City was incorporated. Local water companies were bought out at that time with a $40,000 bond approved by the voters of the 750‐person community. These private water companies operated one or more shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The City grew and the well system expanded until nine wells were in operation in 1932. In December 1937, the City signed a 20‐year contract with the City and County of San Francisco, administered by the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD), for water deliveries from the newly constructed pipeline bringing Hetch Hetchy water from Yosemite to the Bay Area. Water deliveries from San Francisco commenced in 1938 and well production declined to less than half of the total citywide water demand. A 1950 engineering report noted, "the capricious alternation of well waters and the SFWD water . . . has made satisfactory service to the average consumer practically impossible." However, groundwater production increased in the 1950s, leading to lower groundwater tables and water quality concerns. In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to City customers determined that the City should purchase 100% of its water supply needs from the SFWD. A 20‐ year contract was signed with San Francisco, and the City’s wells were placed in a standby condition. The SFWD later became known as the SFPUC. Since 1962 (except for some very short periods) the City’s entire supply of potable water has come from the SFPUC. BAWSCA is comprised of SFPUC’s 26 wholesale customers. The City largely works through BAWSCA to manage its SFPUC contract and to interact with the SFPUC. In 1993, the City completed a Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP). This IRP was completed because the City was facing a decision regarding participation in a recycled water project. In the 1993 IRP, the City calculated the value of recycled water for water supply. At that time, the City decided not to participate in the recycled water project because the costs exceeded the benefits of the project. In 1999, the City began to prepare a new Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP). As a first step, staff completed a high level overview of each of the City’s water resource options and helped identify the most promising alternatives to be further analyzed in subsequent phases. The second phase in the WIRP process was the development and evaluation of water supply 13 portfolios so policy makers can determine the proper balance between cost, quality, reliability, and environmental factors. At the conclusion of the second phase of the WIRP in 2003, several pieces of missing information were identified that needed to be further developed in order to further analyze the City’s water resource options and alternatives. The WIRP work has been coordinated with infrastructure work by the City to increase the distribution system reliability. Under a contract with the City, Carollo Engineers completed several studies of the water distribution system. These studies are discussed in Section 3, “System Supplies,” under the heading “Groundwater.” The City and other Santa Clara County water retailers coordinated with the SCVWD to examine extending the SCVWD West Pipeline (WPL) that currently ends at Miramonte Road and Foothills Expressway to a point in Palo Alto to serve the City and other neighboring water agencies. In addition, the study examined creating an intertie between the WPL and the SFPUC’s Bay Division Pipelines at Page Mill Road. The SCVWD West Pipeline Conceptual Evaluation, completed in March 2003, concluded that the conceptual projects were constructible, but that no decisions could be made until SCVWD concluded additional studies. These ongoing studies include the SCVWD project to evaluate its system reliability, asset management program, and Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Project. These studies, completed in the fall of 2004, concluded that extending the WPL to serve the City could not be justified from a county‐wide reliability aspect when evaluated against more cost‐effective alternatives. The information obtained from the studies completed on the groundwater and SCVWD’s conceptual study on the WPL Extension was used to characterize the supply options examined in the WIRP. In mid‐2003, the WIRP concluded, based on available information, that supplies from the SFPUC are adequate in normal years, but additional supplies are needed in drought years to avoid shortages. Additionally, the WIRP contained a recommendation not to seek additional supplies for use on a continuous basis unless there is another benefit that can be identified. As a result, the City did not pursue a connection to the SCVWD’s treated water line for ongoing water needs nor evaluate further the use the wells on a continuous basis. The WIRP noted that expanded use of water efficiency programs and recycled water might be worthwhile for the environmental benefits and to reduce the drought‐time deficit. Based on the WIRP analysis, the City Council adopted a set of WIRP guidelines in December 200312. The WIRP guidelines include: 1. Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies With respect to the City’s primary water supply source, the SFPUC, continue to actively participate in the BAWSCA to assist in achieving BAWSCA’s stated goal: “A reliable supply of water, with high quality, and at a fair price.” 12 See City Manager Report 547:03: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cmrs/2732.pdf 14 2. Advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and the SCVWD Work with SCVWD and the SFPUC to pursue the extension of the SCVWD’s West Pipeline to an interconnection with the SFPUC Bay Division Pipelines 3&4. Continue to reevaluate the attractiveness of a connection to an extension of the SCVWD’s West Pipeline. 3. Actively participate in development of cost‐effective regional recycled water plans Re‐initiate discussions with the owners of the Palo Alto RWQCP on recycled water development. In concert with the RWQCP owners, conduct a new feasibility study for recycled water development. Since the feasibility of a recycled water system depends upon sufficient end‐user interest, determine how much water Stanford University and the Stanford Research Park would take. 4. Focus on water DSM programs to comply with BMPs Continue implementation of water efficiency programs with the primary focus to achieve compliance with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) promoted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. 5. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts Review, retain, and prioritize CPAU’s emergency water conservation measures that would be put into place in a drought emergency. 6. Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions Using groundwater on a continuous basis does not appear to be attractive at this time due to the availability of adequate, high quality supplies from the SFPUC in normal years. However, SFPUC supplies are not adequate in drought years and circumstances could change in the future such that groundwater supplies could become an attractive, cost‐ effective option. Examples of changing circumstances could be that the amount of water available from the SFPUC system is reduced due to regulatory or other actions. CPAU should retain the option of using groundwater in amounts that would not result in land surface subsidence, saltwater intrusion, or migration of contaminated plumes. 7. Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water resource portfolio Seek feedback from all classes of water customers on the question of whether to use groundwater during drought to improve drought year supply reliability. At the same time, seek feedback on the appropriate level of water treatment for groundwater if it is to be used during drought. Survey all classes of water customers to determine their preferences as to the appropriate balance between cost, quality, reliability, and environmental impact. Since the major WIRP conclusion was that SFPUC supplies are adequate except in drought years, the focus turned to the options to reduce the supply deficit during droughts. These options include using groundwater, connecting to the SCVWD’s treated water pipeline, developing recycled water, and expanding water efficiency programs. The goal was to find the proper balance between the key factors of cost, availability in a drought, water quality, and environmental impacts in determining the best portfolio for the community. 15 Following Council’s adoption of the WIRP Guidelines, and to gain insight into the question of whether to use groundwater as supplemental supply in droughts, the City surveyed its residential customers. Respondents were asked to rank three options for water supply in a drought: A. Blend Groundwater – Blend the groundwater with water from SFPUC in droughts. Water customers would still need to cut back water usage by 10% in droughts. B. No Groundwater – Use no groundwater during droughts. Instead, community is subjected to larger water usage cutbacks in droughts (20% cutback). C. Treat Groundwater – Highly treat the groundwater (reverse osmosis treatment) before introducing it into distribution system. Water customers would still need to cut back water usage by 10% in droughts. Survey respondents generally preferred Options B (no groundwater) and C (treat groundwater), but Option A (blend groundwater) was not soundly rejected. Based on the survey, any of the three options would probably be accepted by the City’s water customers under drought conditions. Based on the WIRP and the results of the community survey, staff made the following conclusions and recommendations in June 2004: 1. Do not install advanced treatment systems for the groundwater at this time. This option is simply too expensive, both in capital and in operating costs. 2. Blending at an SFPUC turnout is the best way to use groundwater as a supplemental drought time supply while maintaining good water quality. 3. Staff should await the conclusion of the environmental review process for selecting any new emergency well sites before developing a recommendation on whether to use groundwater in droughts. In the selection process for new well sites, the costs for blending with SFPUC water in droughts should be considered. The least expensive location is a well at El Camino Park due to its proximity to an SFPUC turnout. 4. Actively participate in the development of long‐term drought supply plans with SFPUC and BAWSCA. 5. Continue in the efforts identified in the Council‐approved WIRP Guidelines: a. Evaluate a range of demand‐side management (DSM) options for their ability to reduce long‐term water demands; b. Evaluate feasibility of expanding the use of recycled water; and c. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts. While groundwater is a potential supply source for the City, at this time it is not considered to be an existing nor planned water supply source. The City has now completed the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, which provides the City the flexibility to rely on groundwater during a drought if necessary. At this point the City Council has not directed staff to begin using groundwater as a supplemental drought supply. 16 Table 5 below shows the current and planned water supply sources for the City for normal years. As required by 10631(j), this information has been provided to the SFPUC, the City’s wholesale supplier. Table 5: Current and Planned Water Supply Sources Water Supply Sources in AFY 2015 (actual) 2020 2025 2030 2035 SFPUC13 10,732 11,892 11,428 11,148 10,895 Local Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 Local Surface Water 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled Water 845 850 850 850 850 Transfers in or out 0 0 0 0 0 Exchanges in or out 0 0 0 0 0 Desalination 0 0 0 0 0 Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0 Total 11,577 12,742 12,278 11,998 11,745 SFPUC Supply Description of SFPUC Regional Water System Palo Alto receives water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by the SFPUC. This supply is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. The amount of imported water available to the SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers is constrained by hydrology, physical facilities and the institutional limitations that allocate the water supply of the Tuolumne River. Due to these constraints, the SFPUC is very dependent on reservoir storage to ensure water supply availability in dry years. The SFPUC serves its retail and wholesale water demands with an integrated operation of local Bay Area water production and imported water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. In practice, the local watershed facilities are operated to capture local runoff. Water Supply Agreement In July 2009, the wholesale customers and San Francisco adopted the Water Supply Agreement14 (WSA), which includes a Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) to allocate water from the Regional Water System (RWS) to retail and wholesale customers during system-wide shortages of 20 percent or less. The WSAP has two components: 13 Data from internal forecasting model except for 2015 actual usage data 14 Palo Alto City Council approved the WSA in June 2009 – See City Manager Report 269:09: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/15985 17 1. The Tier One Plan, which allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale customers collectively; and 2. The Tier Two Plan, which allocates the collective wholesale customer share among the wholesale customers. Tier One Drought Allocations The Tier One Plan allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale customers collectively based on the level of shortage: Table 6: Tier One Drought Allocations Level of System-Wide Reduction in Water Use Required Share of Available Water SFPUC Share Wholesale Customers Share 5% or less 6% through 10% 11% through 15% 16% through 20% 35.5% 36.0% 37.0% 37.5% 64.5% 64.0% 63.0% 62.5% The Tier One Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any wholesale customer and between wholesale customers themselves. In addition, water “banked” by a wholesale customer, through reductions in usage greater than required, may also be transferred. The Tier One Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA in 2034, unless mutually extended by San Francisco and the wholesale customers. The Tier One Plan applies only when the SFPUC determines that a system-wide water shortage exists and issues a declaration of a water shortage emergency under California Water Code Section 350. Separate from a declaration of a water shortage emergency, the SFPUC may opt to request voluntary cutbacks from San Francisco and the wholesale customers to achieve necessary water use reductions during drought periods. During the current drought to date, the SFPUC has requested, but has not mandated, a 10 percent system-wide reduction since January 2014. The SFPUC has not yet been compelled to declare a water shortage emergency and implement the Tier One Plan because its customers have exceeded the 10 percent voluntary system-wide reduction in conjunction with the state-wide mandatory reductions assigned by the State Water Resources Control Board. Tier Two Drought Allocations The wholesale customers have negotiated and adopted the Tier Two Plan15, the second component of the WSAP, which allocates the collective wholesale customer share among each 15 Palo Alto’s City Council adopted the Tier Two Water Shortage Allocation Plan in February 2011. See Staff Report 1308: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/40970 18 of the 26 wholesale customers. This Tier Two allocation is based on a formula that takes into account multiple factors for each wholesale customer including: Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG); Seasonal use of all available water supplies; and Residential per capita use. The water made available to the wholesale customers collectively will be allocated among them in proportion to each wholesale customer’s Allocation Basis, expressed in millions of gallons per day (MGD), which in turn is the weighted average of two components. The first component is the wholesale customer’s ISG, as stated in the WSA, and is fixed. The second component, the Base/Seasonal Component, is variable and is calculated using the monthly water use for three consecutive years prior to the onset of the drought for each of the wholesale customers for all available water supplies. The second component is accorded twice the weight of the first, fixed component in calculating the Allocation Basis. Minor adjustments to the Allocation Basis are then made to ensure a minimum cutback level, a maximum cutback level, and a sufficient supply for certain wholesale customers. The Allocation Basis is used in a fraction, as numerator, over the sum of all wholesale customers’ Allocation Bases to determine each wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor. The final shortage allocation for each wholesale customer is determined by multiplying the amount of water available to the wholesale customers’ collectively under the Tier One Plan, by the wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor. The Tier Two Plan requires that the Allocation Factors be calculated by BAWSCA each year in preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. As the wholesale customers change their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in SFPUC purchases and use of other water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns, or changes in residential per capita water use), the Allocation Factor for each wholesale customer will also change. However, for long-term planning purposes, each wholesale customer shall use as its Allocation Factor, the value identified in the Tier Two Plan when adopted. The current Tier Two Plan will expire in 2018 unless extended by the wholesale customers. Individual Supply Guarantee San Francisco has a perpetual commitment (Supply Assurance) to deliver 184 MGD to the 24 permanent wholesale customers collectively. San Jose and Santa Clara are not included in the Supply Assurance commitment and each has temporary and interruptible water supply contracts with San Francisco. The Supply Assurance is allocated among the 24 permanent wholesale customers through ISGs, which represent each wholesale customer’s allocation of the 184 MGD Supply Assurance. Palo Alto’s ISG is 17.07 MGD, or approximately 19,118 acre feet per year. 19 2018 Interim Supply Limitation As part of its adoption of the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) in October 2008, discussed separately herein, the SFPUC adopted a water supply limitation, the Interim Supply Limitation (ISL), which limits sales from San Francisco’s RWS watersheds to an average annual delivery of 265 MGD through 2018. All 26 wholesale customers and San Francisco are subject to the ISL. The wholesale customers’ collective allocation under the ISL is 184 MGD and San Francisco’s is 81 MGD. Although the wholesale customers did not agree to the ISL, as further discussed below, the WSA provides a framework for administering the ISL. Interim Supply Allocations The ISAs refer to San Francisco’s and each individual wholesale customer’s share of the ISL. On December 14, 2010, the SFPUC established each agency’s ISA through 201816. In general, the SFPUC based the wholesale customer allocations on the lesser of the projected fiscal year 2018 purchase projections or Individual Supply Guarantees. The ISAs are effective only until December 31, 2018 and do not affect the Supply Assurance or the ISGs, both discussed separately herein. San Francisco’s ISA is 81 MGD. Palo Alto’s ISA is 14.70 MGD or approximately 16,464 acre feet per year. Palo Alto does not anticipate exceeding the ISA before the ISL period ends in 2018. As stated in the WSA, the wholesale customers do not concede the legality of the SFPUC’s establishment of the ISAs and Environmental Enhancement Surcharge, discussed below, and expressly retain the right to challenge either or both, if and when imposed, in a court of competent jurisdiction. Environmental Enhancement Surcharge As an incentive to keep RWS deliveries below the ISL of 265 MGD, the SFPUC adopted an Environmental Enhancement Surcharge for collective deliveries in excess of the ISL effective at the beginning of fiscal year 2012. This volume-based surcharge would be unilaterally imposed by the SFPUC on individual wholesale customers and San Francisco retail customers, when an agency’s use exceeds its ISA and when sales of water to the wholesale customers and San Francisco retail customers, collectively, exceeds the ISL of 265 MGD. Actual charges would be determined based on each agency's respective amount(s) of excess use over their ISA. As of the end of 2015, no Environmental Enhancement Surcharges have been levied. 2018 SFPUC Decisions In the WSA, there are three decisions the SFPUC committed to making before 2018 that will affect water supply development: Whether or not to make the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers, 16 An informational report on the Interim Supply Limitation was provided to the City Council in February 2011. See Staff Report 1321: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/26211 20 Whether or not to supply the additional unmet supply needs of the wholesale customers beyond 2018, and Whether or not to increase the wholesale customer Supply Assurance above 184 MGD. Additionally, there have been recent changes to instream flow requirements and customer demand projections that will affect water supply planning beyond 2018. As a result, the SFPUC has developed a Water Management Action Plan (Water MAP) to provide necessary information to address the 2018 decisions and to begin developing a water supply program for the 2019 to 2035 planning horizon. The water supply program will enable the SFPUC to continue to meet its commitments and responsibilities to wholesale and retail customers, consistent with the priorities of the SFPUC. The SFPUC plans to take the water MAP to its Commission in May 2016. The discussion resulting from the questions described in the Water MAP will help guide the water supply planning objectives through 2035. While the Water MAP is not a water supply program, it presents pertinent information that will help develop the SFPUC’s future water supply planning program. At this time, and for purposes of long-term planning, it is assumed that deliveries from the RWS to San Francisco’s wholesale customers will not exceed 184 MGD. BAWSCA and Its Role BAWSCA provides regional water reliability planning and conservation programming for the benefit of its 26 member agencies that purchase wholesale water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Collectively, the BAWSCA member agencies deliver water to over 1.74 million residents and nearly 40,000 commercial, industrial and institutional accounts in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. BAWSCA also represents the collective interests of these wholesale water customers on all significant technical, financial and policy matters related to the operation and improvement of the SFPUC’s Regional Water System (RWS). BAWSCA’s role in the development of the 2015 UWMP updates is to work with its member agencies and the SFPUC to seek consistency among the multiple documents being developed. As a member of BAWSCA, the City is formally represented on the BAWSCA Board of Directors on matters involving decision‐making, policy setting and issues of interest to the BAWSCA members. On the staff level, the City participates on several advisory and policy committees, including the Water Quality Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. Staff also represents the City with the other BAWSCA members on other issues that may arise from time to time. Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections In September 2014, BAWSCA completed the Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projections Report (Demand Study). The goal of the Demand Study was to develop transparent, 21 defensible, and uniform demand and conservation savings projections for each wholesale customer using a common methodology to support both regional and individual agency planning efforts. The Demand Study projections were incorporated into BAWSCA’s Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy (Strategy) discussed below. Through the Demand Study process, BAWSCA and the wholesale customers (1) quantified the total average-year water demand for each BAWSCA member agency through 2030, (2) quantified passive and active conservation water savings potential for each individual wholesale customer through 2040, and (3) identified conservation programs for further consideration for regional implementation by BAWSCA. The Demand Study projected that by 2040 the collective active conservation efforts of the wholesale customer’s would yield an additional 16 MGD in savings beyond what has already been achieved for the BAWSCA service area. Based on the revised water demand projections, the identified water conservation savings, and other actions, the collective purchases of the BAWSCA member agencies from the SFPUC are projected to stay below 184 MGD (206,080 AF/Y) through 2018. As part of the Demand Study, each wholesale customer was provided with a demand model that can be used to support ongoing demand and conservation planning efforts, including UWMP preparation. The City utilized that model to estimate water use reduction from future demand-side programs. Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy BAWSCA’s Strategy was developed to quantify the water supply reliability needs of the BAWSCA member agencies through 2040, identify the water supply management projects and/or programs (projects) that could be developed to meet those needs, and prepare an implementation plan for the Strategy’s recommendations. Successful implementation of the Strategy is critical to ensuring that there will be sufficient and reliable water supplies for the BAWSCA member agencies and their customers in the future. Phase II of the Strategy was completed in February 2015 with release of the Strategy Phase II Final Report. The water demand analysis done during Phase II of the Strategy resulted in the following key findings: There is no longer a regional normal year supply shortfall. There is a regional drought year supply shortfall of up to 43 MGD. In addition, the project evaluation analysis done during Phase II of the Strategy resulted in the following key findings: Water transfers score consistently high across the various performance measures and within various portfolio constructs and thus represent a high priority element of the Strategy. Desalination also potentially provides substantial yield, but its high effective costs and intensive permitting requirements make it a less attractive drought year supply alternative. However, given the limited options for generating significant yield for the 22 region, desalination warrants further investment in information as a hedge against the loss of local or other imported supplies. The other potential regional projects provide tangible, though limited, benefit in reducing dry year shortfalls given the small average yields in drought years17. BAWSCA is now implementing the Strategy recommendations in coordination with BAWSCA member agencies. Strategy implementation will be adaptively managed to account for changing conditions and to ensure that the goals of the Strategy are met efficiently and cost- effectively. Due to the size of the supply and reliability need, and the uncertainty around yield of some Strategy projects, BAWSCA will need to pursue multiple actions and projects in order to provide some level of increased water supply reliability for its member agencies. On an annual basis, BAWSCA will reevaluate Strategy recommendations and results in conjunction with development of the work plan for the following year. In this way, actions can be modified to accommodate changing conditions and new developments. Alternative Water Supply Analysis In anticipation of extended periods of drought and mandatory potable water reduction imposed by the State, the City is evaluating a wide range of alternative water supplies. Recycled water and groundwater are two such resources that are interrelated in their development and potential. Therefore, the City is taking an integrated approach to evaluating non-potable recycled water, shallow aquifer groundwater, deep aquifer groundwater, Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) and Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR). The end product will be a recycled water strategic plan for the most flexible and robust use of these resources. In addition, the City, through BAWSCA, has been working on a water transfer opportunity. Each is discussed in more detail below. Transfer or Exchange Opportunities Law 10631 (d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short‐term or long‐ term basis. 17 While specific projects were not developed or evaluated for the Strategy, regional discussions on indirect/direct potable reuse have accelerated dramatically in the last year, making this a water supply management project BAWSCA is tracking closely. 23 Because the existing San Francisco regional water system does not have sufficient supplies in dry years, dry‐year water transfers are potentially an important part of future water supplies. As a result, in February 2011, the Palo Alto City Council approved a new Water Shortage Implementation Plan to allocate water between the BAWSCA members. This plan includes the ability to transfer water allocated to the BAWSCA agencies between BAWSCA members during drought periods. All the BAWSCA agencies adopted the Plan by April 2011. In addition, BAWSCA is investigating water transfer opportunities as part of the Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy discussed above. Groundwater Deep Aquifer Groundwater The City is located in Santa Clara County. SCVWD is the groundwater management agency in Santa Clara County as authorized by the California legislature under the SCVWD Act, California Water Code Appendix, Chapter 60. The 2012 Groundwater Management Plan, which was adopted by the District Board of Directors in July 2012, describes the district's groundwater basin management objectives and the strategies, programs, and activities that support those objectives. In September 2014, Governor Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to promote the local, sustainable management of groundwater supplies. SGMA requires sustainable groundwater management for all medium and high priority basins in California. SGMA identifies the District as the exclusive groundwater management agency for Santa Clara County. The District actively manages the Santa Clara sub-basin, designated as medium priority by the California Department of Water Resources. The groundwater basins in Santa Clara County are not adjudicated nor have the basins been identified by the Department of Water Resources as being in overdraft. Although groundwater resources, particularly in South Santa Clara County, have been heavily relied upon during the last four years of drought, groundwater levels throughout the county are generally good, as potable water demand has been reduced and as SCVWD efforts to prevent groundwater basin overdraft, curb land surface subsidence, and protect water quality have been largely successful. The groundwater quality of the City’s wells is considered fair to good quality, though significantly less desirable in comparison to SFPUC’s supplies. The groundwater is approximately six times higher in total dissolved solids (TDS) and hardness than SFPUC’s supplies. The City has not pumped groundwater since 1991, and, although not a planned future water supply source, groundwater is an available alternative that is evaluated and reviewed on a regular basis. Five wells were constructed in Palo Alto in the mid‐1950s and were operated continuously until 1962. In 1988, the wells were operated to provide supplemental supplies while SFPUC 24 implemented mandatory rationing. Two of the wells were operated for about a month and a half in 1991 when it appeared that the City was facing a severe (45%) cutback requirement. Besides normal annual operational testing, the wells have not been used since 1991. From 1999 to 2003, the City completed numerous studies that provided significant analysis of City‐owned wells and the local distribution system. The analysis is discussed in detail in the 2005 UWMP. The results of the studies provided a significant amount of information regarding the costs and operational issues of wells for emergency use, drought‐only supply and full‐time operation. Since the publication of the 2010 UWMP, the City completed the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. The project consisted of the repair and rehabilitation of the five existing wells, construction of three new wells, and construction of a 2.5 million gallon storage reservoir and associated pump station, and other upgrades to the water distribution system. The Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s primary goal was to correct the deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply. The well system can now support a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level. The groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent for water supply during drought conditions (up to 1,500 acre feet per year), and is capable of providing normal wintertime supply needs during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system. Up to 11,000 gpm of reliable well capacity is available for emergency use as well as 13 million gallons (MG) of storage. Figure 1 shows the potential groundwater use area in the City’s service territory. 25 Figure 1: Potential Groundwater Use Area 26 In April 2010, the California Department of Public Health18 (CDPH) approved a permit amendment to add the new Library/Community Center Well and the Eleanor Pardee Park Wells to the City’s existing water supply permit. CDPH permitted the new El Camino Park well in 2014. As part of the permit process, all three wells were tested for primary and secondary drinking water quality standards. The results of the test indicate the wells currently meet primary and secondary water quality standards, but the potential remains for exceedance of secondary standards for manganese, iron and TDS. The wells are planned to remain as standby sources, and no additional treatment to ensure compliance with secondary standards is required at this point. In an emergency situation, the City can provide emergency chlorination treatment at several of the well sites, including the Library/Community, Eleanor Pardee, Hale, Peers, and Rinconada wells. The City has identified the wells as a potential supply source for use during a prolonged drought. As specified in the EIR for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, concern about prolonged groundwater pumping in the area resulted in a maximum production limitation of 1,500 AFY during a drought19. If the wells were to be used as a dry year supply option, coordination with CDPH would be needed to ensure necessary treatment is in place to meet regulatory standards. In addition, several other issues need to be addressed prior to the use of the wells during a drought, including the capital costs of any treatment or blending upgrades, water quality compared to the City’s SFPUC source and customer acceptance, SCVWD groundwater production costs, and the exact mechanism for how groundwater would form a part of any drought response portfolio. Groundwater may hold some advantages in the long term for the City and may be useful during water supply shortage events. However, a water supply portfolio that includes potable groundwater not benefit under the type of potable water reductions mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRC) in 2015. Under those regulations, the City was required to reduce potable water consumption by 24% regardless of the supply source. As the City considers groundwater to supplement potable water supplies during water supply shortages or as a long-term water supply source, a better understanding of the hydrology in north Santa Clara County is imperative. To that end, the City is working with the SCVWD to gather data regarding private well use within the City and to develop a model of the shallow and deep aquifers, particularly focusing on potential recharge zones and the connectivity between the aquifers. Results of this effort will be used to inform the both the evaluation of groundwater as a long-term supply source and the overall recycled water supply strategy with respect to the potential for IPR. 18 CDPH issues and has the authority to revise domestic water supply permits pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 116525 (City of Palo Alto permit #4210009 and # 4310009) 19 Final EIR, City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, SCH #2006022038 27 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater The drought and resulting water use restriction have increased public concern over basement construction groundwater pumping in Palo Alto. Concerns range from the apparent wasting of water by discharging to storm drains, potential impacts on groundwater elevation and flow volume, as well as potential impacts on neighboring properties, such as subsidence and cracks, and impacts on trees and other landscaping. Basement construction is often required for non-residential, mixed use and multifamily residential buildings, particularly if underground parking is involved. Additionally, the high value of land and housing in the City has resulted in more residential property owners seeking to increase the size of their single family homes by constructing basements. Basement construction groundwater pumping occurs when a basement is constructed in areas of shallow groundwater, typically in the neighborhoods closer to the bay or near current or former creek beds. Dewatering continues until enough of the house has been constructed to keep the basement in place. While the City has long regulated several aspects of basement groundwater pumping for both residential and commercial sites, recent public concern over the appearance of wasted water resulted in Council’s adoption of several new requirements for builders. Where groundwater pumping is needed, builders must install a fill station and submit a Groundwater Use Plan describing how use of the pumped groundwater will be maximized. On February 1, 201620, Council approved the following additional requirements and actions: Public outreach to encourage greater fill station use; Increased outreach on the water cycle and value of fresh water flows to storm drains, creeks and bay; Additional requirements for Groundwater Use Plans such as maximizing on-site water reuse (e.g. watering on-site and nearby vegetation), providing water truck hauling service for neighbor and City landscaping, and piping to nearby parks or major users where feasible; Expansion of fill station specifications to address water pressure issues from multiple concurrent users, including separate pumps for neighbors where needed and sidewalk bridges for hoses to reduce tripping hazards; and Submission of a determination of the effects of groundwater pumping on nearby buildings, infrastructure, trees, or landscaping. The shallow and deep aquifer research described in the section above and to be undertaken by the City in coordination with the SCVWD will provide valuable insight to the relationship between the aquifers in the north part of Santa Clara County. 20 See Staff Report 6478: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50690 28 Water Recycling Law 10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies and shall include all of the following: (a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier's service area… The City operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Wastewater from these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior to discharge to the Bay. Approximately 220,000 people live in the RWQCP service area. Of the wastewater flow to the RWQCP, about 60 percent is estimated to come from residences, 10 percent from industries, and 30 percent from commercial businesses and institutions. The RWQCP uses physical, biological, and chemical treatment to remove about 99 percent of the solids and organic materials from influent wastewater. In 1992, the City and the other RWQCP partners completed a Water Reclamation Master Plan (Master Plan). This Master Plan identified a five‐year, three‐stage implementation for recycled water development in the service area of the RWQCP. In 1995, City Council certified the final PEIR for the Master Plan projects. At the same time, the City decided not to pursue any of the recommended expansion stages of a water recycling system as the cost of the projects could not be justified. In addition, Council adopted a Water Recycling Policy, which includes continuation of the existing recycled water program and monitoring of the conditions that would trigger an evaluation of the Master Plan projects studied in the Program EIR. The Water Recycling Policy described five conditions that would trigger evaluation of the Master Plan projects: 1. Changes in the RWQCP discharge requirements; 2. Increased mass loading to the RWQCP; 3. Requests from partner agencies or other local agencies; 4. Availability of federal or other funds; and 5. Water supply issues – Issues which may lead to an increase in the value of recycled water from a water supply perspective include: a. Water supply shortages; b. Regulatory or legislative initiatives; or c. Advanced treatment for potable reuse. Recycled Water Market Survey Since the Council adopted the Water Recycling Policy in 1995, several factors have altered the feasibility of recycled water use in the City, including the following: 29 The SFPUC has nearly finished implementing the WSIP to repair and improve the regional water system’s infrastructure. This $4.8 billion program has resulted in steadily increasing wholesale water rates. Wholesale water rates are projected to double from the current (FY 2016) rates of $1,800/AF to nearly $2,500/AF in FY 2020. In addition, the current drought and state-mandated potable water use reductions have negatively impacted water sales that will result in additional upward pressure on supply costs. At these prices, and considering the local benefits of a recycled water supply source, recycled water is increasingly competitive with the cost of SFPUC water; The RWQCP completed a project to replace an existing deteriorating pipeline to Shoreline Golf Course in Mountain View and to extend the pipeline to the Mountain View‐Moffett area. The pipeline replacement restored the golf course connection and provides recycled water services to the Shoreline community. CPAU paid $1 million of the cost for this pipeline to ensure the pipeline will be sized to meet possible future needs in the City. In addition, CPAU has committed to pay another $1 million if and when it taps into the new pipeline; and There are potential partners for expanding the use of recycled water in the City. Since there is a regional benefit to maximizing local sources, neighboring communities and the Bay Area at large may wish to participate financially in an expansion of recycled water use in the City, especially if there are no feasible sites in their own communities. In 2005, the City engaged a consultant to complete a Recycled Water Market Survey (Market Survey). Completed in 200621, the objectives of the study were to review and update the list of potential recycled water users identified in the 1992 Master Plan and to update the estimated recycled water use potential and the cost estimates for the delivery of recycled water. The Market Survey included site investigations, market analysis, conceptual project design, and preparation of a preliminary financing and revenue plan. In December 2008, the City completed the Recycled Water Facility Plan investigating the expansion of the regional recycled water system to serve areas in Palo Alto22. As described in the narrative regarding potential future uses for recycled water, in September 2015, City Council certified the project EIR for the expansion of the City’s recycled water system to serve the Stanford Research Park. Participation in Regional Recycled Water Planning The City has participated in various regional recycled water planning initiatives. 21 The report was provided to the UAC in October 2006 and the Council in November 2006: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac- meetings/documents/Item1AttachmentARecycledWaterMarketSurveyfinalreport.pdf 22 Report provided to the UAC in March 2009: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/14932. The executive summary of the report provided to Council in April 2009 in informational Staff Report 203:09: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/15501 30 The City is a stakeholder in the ABAG‐led effort to secure grant funding for a Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) and for projects identified in that IRWMP. CPAU and the partners of the RWQCP assisted in the funding of a project to build a new recycled water pipeline from the RWQCP to Mountain View. The project was completed in summer 2009. This project does not have new connections to end uses in the City, but the pipeline is sized to accommodate future expansion of recycled water use in the City. The City is a member of the California WateReuse Association, which helps promote and implement water recycling in California. The City is a member of the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, a group of regional recycled water project proponents that advocate for and seek funding from the Federal Bureau of Reclamation under Title 16. The City is a member of Bay Area Clean Water Agencies, a group of wastewater treatment plants that advocate and seek funding from State propositions and State Revolving Fund loans. The City actively participates on the SCVWD recycled Water Subcommittee. The Committee is a group of recycled water retailers and wholesalers that meets bimonthly to discuss issues and challenges surrounding the use and promotion of recycled water. The City is working with the SCVWD to explore possible funding mechanisms to expand the City’s recycled water system in Palo Alto and to East Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto is currently a member of the Joint Recycled Water Task Force with the Santa Clara Valley Water District which seeks future recycled water expansion projects. Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Palo Alto The City’s wastewater flows to the RWQCP. The RWQCP is an EPA award winning Class V tertiary treatment facility featuring primary treatment (bar screening and primary sedimentation), secondary treatment (fixed film reactors, conventional activated sludge, clarification and filtration), and tertiary treatment (filtration through a sand and coal filter and UV disinfection). Through these treatments, 99% of ammonia, organic pollutants, and solid pollutants are removed. While the plant was not designed to remove metals, the treatment process through optimization has reduced the quantity of mercury, silver, and lead by 90%. The removal rates for other heavy metals range from 20 to 85%. The plant's discharge meets very high standards that are among the most stringent discharge standards in the nation. The quality of the water leaving the plant approaches the standards for drinking water. Table 7 provides some data on the RWQCP. A full description of the treatment facility is included in the 1992 Water Reclamation Master Plan and is not reproduced here. 31 Table 7: Wastewater Treatment Treatment Plant Name Location (City) Average Daily Flow (2015) Maximum Daily Flow (2015) Year of Planned Build‐out Planned Maximum Daily Volume RWQCP City of Palo Alto 21,616 AF 55,000 AF Plant built out 90,000 AF = Maximum Design Daily Flow 44,000 AF = Average Design Daily Flow (Dry weather capacity) Wastewater Generation, Collection & Treatment Law 10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies and shall include all of the following: (a) A […] quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated… (b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) The RWQCP has an average dry weather flow design capacity of 39 MGD (43,680 AF/Y) with full tertiary treatment, and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 80 MGD (89,600 AF/Y) with full secondary treatment. Current average flows are approximately 19 MGD (21,280 AF/Y). The plant capacity is sufficient for current dry and wet weather loads and for future load projections. There are no plans for expansion of the plant or to “build‐out” the plant. All of the wastewater treated at the RWQCP can be recycled. As shown in Table 8, the plant already has some capability to produce recycled water that meets the Title 22 unrestricted use standard (approximately 4.5 MGD of capacity). Current production is about 25% of capacity. Table 8: Wastewater Collected and Treated – AF Wastewater Disposal and Recycled Water Uses Law 10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies and shall include all of the following: 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Waste Water Collected and Treated 21,616 21,280 21,280 21,280 21,280 21,280 Recycled Water Available if Full Capacity is Used 5,040 5,040 5,040 5,040 5,040 5,040 32 (c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area, including but not limited to, the type, place and quantity of use. (d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. (e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision. Disposal of Wastewater Current and future City of Palo RWQCP discharges of treated wastewater to the San Francisco Bay are shown in Table 9. Table 9: Disposal of Wastewater (non‐recycled) – AF Recycled Water Currently Used The recycled water produced by the RWQCP in FY 2015 was used for the following: Trucked water mostly for irrigation with some construction dust control (25 AF) Irrigation water for Palo Alto Parks (28 AF) Irrigation water for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (166 AF) Water for the Duck Pond (29 AF) Irrigation water for CalTrans freeway landscape medians (11 AF) The pipeline serving Shoreline Park and other customers in Mountain View (410 AF) Water for irrigation in and around the RWQCP and in processes at the plant itself. The amount of recycled water that replaces potable water for this use (560 AF). That usage is about 112 AF/Y for landscape irrigation and about 448 AF/Y for industrial use. Total industrial water use for the plant is about 1,960 AF/Y. Because the water is recirculated through the plant, it was assumed approximately 20% of the total water use is newly recycled water, the amount of fresh water that would need to be continuously added if recycled water was not available. Due to the drought, actual recycled water use in Palo Alto in 2015 was slightly lower than the projection in the 2010 UWMP (818 AF versus 850 AF). Method of Disposal 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Discharged to San Francisco Bay 19,759 18,676 18,676 18,676 18,676 18,676 Discharged to Bay by way of Emily Renzel Marsh 629 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 33 Potential Uses of Recycled Water On September 28, 2015 the Palo Alto City Council adopted a resolution certifying the EIR for an expansion of the existing recycled water distribution system23. The primary objectives of extending the recycled water pipeline would be: 1. To allow the City to maximize recycled water as a supplemental water source, thereby improving potable water supply reliability by conserving drinking water, which is currently used for irrigation and other non-potable uses; 2. To provide a dependable, drought-proof locally controlled non-potable water source; 3. To increase recycled water use from the RWQCP and reduce discharge to San Francisco Bay; and 4. To reduce reliance on imported water. The potential uses in Palo Alto for recycled water are shown in Table 10 below. The table shows current use continuing for 2015 and the most recently-assessed potential for expansion is shown in the totals for 2020 and beyond. A business plan for the recycled water distribution system expansion project, the Phase 3 expansion (discussed in more detail below), will include an updated analysis of potential uses for the water as well as a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. The potential landscape use increase starting in 2020 in Table 10 reflects the possibility of the Phase 3 recycled water system expansion. As noted in the groundwater discussion above but not included in Table 10, recycled water is also being considered for indirect potable reuse. Table 10: Potential Future Use of Recycled Water in Palo Alto‐ AFY Recycled Water Facility Plan Following completion of the recycled Water Market Survey, the City applied for and secured grant funding for the project planning from the SWRCB through the Regional Water Recycling Facilities Planning Grant Program. The grant provided a 50% cost share with the City for up to $75,000 to fund the preparation of a Facilities Plan for the recycled water project. The purpose of the Facility Plan was fourfold: 1. Define recycled water alternatives (i.e. reuse sites and demands, distribution alignment, sizing, construction alternatives, etc) and identify a recommended project; 23 See Staff Report 6071: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49059 Treatment 2015 (Actual) Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 Landscape (no golf courses)175 1,072 1,072 1,072 1,072 Golf Course 166 196 196 196 196 Industrial 448 448 448 448 448 Groundwater Recharge 0 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Duck Pond 29 34 34 34 34 Total 818 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 Type of Use 2020 2025 2030 2035 Tertiary treatment plus additional disinfection (Title 22 unrestricted use standard) 34 2. Develop a realistic funding strategy for the recommended project; 3. Develop an implementation strategy for the recommended project; and 4. Provide the basis for any future State and Federal grant requests for the recommended project. The City engaged a consultant in April 2007 to assist in preparing the Facility Plan. Based on the analysis in the Facility Plan, the report identified a recommended project to serve customers in the Stanford Research Park area and potentially offset the need to import approximately 900 AFY of potable water. Figure 2: below illustrates the areas currently being provided recycled water (Phases 1 and 2) and the future potential Phase 3 project to serve the Stanford Research Park. Figure 2: Phase 3 Recycled Water Project 35 The Facility Plan provided a comprehensive analysis of the Stanford Research Park project, including detailed costs estimates. The Facility Plan identified a gross project cost of approximately $2700/AF (2007 dollars), as compared to a current SFPUC projection in 2020 of approximately $2,500/AF. Potential grant and low cost financing opportunities may decrease the project cost to Palo Alto. In December 2008, the Facility Plan was deemed complete by the State Water Resources Control BoardThe City is in the process of developing a Recycled Water Strategic Plan that will include an assessment of all possible scenarios for recycled water in Palo Alto. Encouraging Recycled Water Use Law 10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies and shall include all of the following: (f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre‐feet of recycled water used per year. The City encourages Recycled Water usage in the following ways: Participating in the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan process Encouraging businesses and City departments to utilize the existing recycled water capability within the City Participating as an active member of the WateReuse Association, including hosting meetings of the Northern California Chapter of the Association Offering recycled water for free to users willing to pick it up at the RWQCP by truck Adoption of the Recycled water Mandatory Use Ordinance Adoption of the Salinity Reduction Policy Current and Proposed Actions to Encourage Use of Recycled Water Since completion of the 2010 UWMP, the City has continued to pursue several approaches to encourage recycled water use. If the Phase 3 recycled water expansion project is approved by City Council, the actions taken by the City to encourage the use of recycled water are estimated to increase recycled water use by approximately 900 AF/Y, more than twice the volume used today. In May 2008, the City approved a Mandatory Use Ordinance to require customers to prepare for recycled water delivery in the future24. For most new construction and some renovations that meet certain criteria, the applicant must install dual‐plumbing and prepare the site for irrigation with recycled water. Compliance with the ordinance is administered through the 24 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.12. The Ordinance applies to non‐residential customers. The City has no plans to provide recycled water to residential customers. 36 permit process with the Building Department. CPAU provides plan review services of landscape and irrigation design plans, in order to ensure compliance with outdoor water efficiency and recycled water requirements. The City Council approved a Salinity Reduction Policy25 in January 2010 to address the elevated salinity levels in the recycled water. The policy identified inflow and infiltration as a likely contributor to the elevated salinity levels, and provided a target salinity level based on minimum inflow and infiltration into the wastewater collection system. As a result, several steps were implemented to lower the TDS levels in the recycled water: The RWQCP continues to monitor potential saltwater intrusion "hotspots" and communicate the results to the RWQCP partners; The RWQCP tracks salinity data and perform other investigative work to support the effort; CPAU coordinated implementation of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan to manage the Palo Alto wastewater collection system and identify inflow and infiltration reduction actions; and The RWQCP developed a plan to coordinate salinity reduction activities with the RWQCP partners and prepare for expanded recycled water application. This plan26 was coordinated with the SCVWD, which has jurisdiction over the groundwater basins in Santa Clara County. Nevertheless, customer concerns regarding potential negative effects of recycled water on redwood trees and other sensitive plants led the City to identify several mitigation measures in the EIR if the City is unable to meet the goal for a TDS of 650 mg/l by project start-up: The City may utilize its existing Recycled Water Ordinance exemption process to exempt redwood trees and/or other salt sensitive species from the use of recycled water; The City may blend recycled water and other lower salinity water prior to application; and/or The City may treat recycled water to reduce TDS prior to application, or shortly thereafter. Additionally, the City is initiating a feasibility analysis to treat and blend recycled water prior to delivery. The feasibility analysis is also supported by the City of Mountain View, a RWQCP partner agency, since it already uses the recycled water and has an interest in improving the water quality of the recycled water it delivers. Recycled Water Optimization Plan Law 25 City Council Resolution 9035: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/21246 26 The SCVWD updated its groundwater management plan in 2012 37 10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies and shall include all of the following: (g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems and to promote recirculating uses. The City continues to create a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water. Completion of the Recycled Water Market Survey, the Facility Plan, and the EIR are steps in that direction. The City expects that the costs of implementing expanded recycled water use can be reduced through a combination of regional coordination and state and federal matching funds. RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department completed a Long Range Facilities Plan for the Palo Alto RWQCP. Aging equipment, new regulatory requirements, and the movement to full sustainability will require rehabilitation, replacement and new processes. The Long Range Facilities Plan maps out these changes and focuses on biosolids treatment and disposal, waste‐ to‐energy technologies, energy use, major pipeline repairs, recycled water treatment, carbon footprint impacts, and the best alternatives for rehabilitation, replacement or improvement. BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy Palo Alto was a participating agency on the BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy. The Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy evaluated potential new supply sources to meet normal and dry year BAWSCA member needs. The City’s Phase 3 recycled water expansion project was included in the plan. Indirect Potable Reuse The City is working with the SCVWD, the principle agency responsible for the groundwater in Santa Clara County, to gather data and study the potential for IPR in the North County. The City also anticipates that the SCVWD’s Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan will evaluate IPR as part of any future supply portfolio. The recycled water expansion project is an asset that could potentially benefit aquifer recharge activities. Desalinated Water Law 10631 A plan shall be adopted . . . that shall do all of the following: (h) Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply. Development of desalinated water is not feasible at this time. In its Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy, BAWSCA considered a wide range of desalination projects, ranging in size from 1 MGD to 20 MGD, and ranging in type from brackish groundwater to an ocean water open 38 intake. Two types of projects were included in the final report: 1) a project that produces 15 MGD of water sourced from an open intake in San Francisco Bay; and 2) a project that produces up to 6.5 MGD from brackish water sourced from either shallow vertical brackish groundwater wells or horizontal directionally drilled (HDD) wells extracting higher salinity brackish groundwater from under the Bay. BAWSCA is committed to facilitating desalination partnerships and pursuing outside funding for related studies. The City is currently aware of one regional collaborative effort between different water agencies to evaluate a large scale Bay Area desalination project, The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project. The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project is a collaboration between the East Bay Municipal Utility District, SCVWD, the SFPUC, Contra Costa Water District, and Zone 7 Water Agency to jointly explore developing the feasibility of a regional desalination facility that could directly or indirectly benefit 5.4 million San Francisco Bay Area residents and businesses served by these agencies. 39 Section 4 – Water Demand Law 10631 (e) (1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five‐ year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses: (A) Single‐family residential; (B) Multifamily; (C) Commercial; (D) Industrial; (E) Institutional and governmental; (F) Landscape; (G) Sales to other agencies; (H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof; (I) Agricultural; and (J) Distribution system water loss. (2) The water use projections shall be in the same 5‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. (3) (A) For the 2015 urban water management plan update, the distribution system water loss shall be quantified for the most recent 12-month period available. For all subsequent updates, the distribution system water loss shall be quantified for each of the five years preceding the plan update. (B) The distribution system water loss quantification shall be reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or developed by the department through a public process. The water loss quantification worksheet shall be based on the water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association. 10631.1 (a) include projected water use for single‐family and multi‐family residential housing for lower income households, as identified in the housing element of any City, County, or City and County in the service area of the supplier. 10608.2 Provide baseline daily per capita water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the basis for determining those estimates. Water Usage Although the City has experienced several drought periods since 1975, the current drought has had a particularly profound effect on City and customer attitudes regarding water. The current state-mandated water use reductions resulted in large numbers of landscape conversion projects as well as a dramatic shift in customer behavior regarding water use. In addition, new construction in every sector is subject to increasingly stringent regulations regarding water‐ using appliances and fixtures. Demand Projections Incorporating the profound effects of the current drought and state-imposed mandatory potable water use reductions presented an additional challenge when developing the water 40 demand projections for this 2015 UWMP. A model developed in-house was used to forecast SFPUC purchases assuming the continuation of the City’s existing Demand Management Measures (DMMs). Water savings from future DMMs were developed using the same end use model that was used to develop the projections in the 2010 UWMP. The City developed baseline projections for the purchased SFPUC water using an econometric model built in-house. The model uses historical water usage data as well as assumptions regarding population, economic growth, and development. Current DMMs are implicitly considered in the model. Breaking down demand at the end-use level was accomplished by applying the 2015 water use percentages for each type of water service account (single‐family, multi‐ family, commercial, irrigation, etc.) to the total projected demand. The end use model (also known as the Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision Support System, or DSS model) was used to forecast the impact of future DMMs discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report. Figure 3: below shows the City’s potable water use since 1988 and a projection of water supplies through 2040. Present water consumption at its lowest level in the more than 25-year history. The reduction in current water consumption is the result of state mandated water reductions and permanent water conservation measures implemented during the past 25 years. Under the current drought to date, the SFPUC has called for, but has not mandated, a 10% system-wide reduction since January 2014. SFPUC has not yet been compelled to impose mandatory system-wide rationing because its customers have exceeded the 10 percent voluntary system-wide reduction as a result of the state-wide mandatory reductions imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board. The SWRCB required the City to reduce potable water use by 24% for the period June 2015 through October 2016 compared to usage in 2013. As of the end of calendar year 2015, the City is on track to meet or exceed that reduction target. Because many permanent water use changes including landscape conversion has occurred as a result of rebate programs and public outreach, and because the City detects a shift in the community’s attitude regarding water use, the City’s water consumption is forecast to remain relatively stable in the future, with slight increases due to a post-drought rebound and continued increases in economic development and population. By 2025, it is predicted that the overall trend of decreasing per capita water use will resume. 41 Figure 3: Water Supply Purchases – Actual and Forecast Water Sales Total water sales decreased by 11%, from 11,375 AF/Y to 10,177 AF/Y between 2010 and 2015. Table 11 shows historical and projected sales by customer type before and after incorporating the impact of planned DMMs discussed in Section 5 – Demand Management Measures. Table 12 shows the number of accounts in each category, and Table 13 shows the sales per account for each customer type. The City does not have sales to other agencies, agricultural use, or saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof. 42 Table 11: Historical and Projected Water Sales – by Customer Type Table 12: Historical and Projected Water Accounts – by Customer Type Table 13: Historical and Project Water Sales per Account Use per account decreased for every customer type from 2010 to 2015. Overall water use per account decreased by 14%. During this period, water use per account decreased by 17% for single family residences, 3% for multifamily, 18% for commercial, 14% for industrial, 18% for public facilities, 10% for irrigation customers and 34% for City facilities. Share of Total Consumption by Customer Type In 2015 residential and multi-family water sales were responsible for 60% of total water consumption in the City. The business sectors including commercial and industrial customers consume 23%, while irrigation customers consumed 11%. Public and City facilities consume the AF/Y 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single Family 5,372 4,554 4,972 4,829 4,712 4,605 4,523 Multifamily 1,685 1,530 1,670 1,622 1,583 1,547 1,519 Commercial 1,942 1,911 2,086 2,026 1,977 1,932 1,898 Industrial 705 397 434 421 411 402 394 Institutional 368 357 390 379 370 361 355 Other 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Landscape 1,012 1,163 1,269 1,233 1,203 1,176 1,155 Government 288 263 287 279 272 266 261 Total Water Sales 11,375 10,177 11,111 10,793 10,530 10,292 10,108 Future DMM 123 121 120 119 Net Water Sales 11,375 10,177 11,111 10,669 10,409 10,172 9,989 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single Family 14,659 15,029 15,179 15,210 15,240 15,271 15,301 Multifamily 2,058 1,923 1,923 1,923 1,923 1,923 1,923 Commercial 1,245 1,494 1,494 1,494 1,494 1,494 1,494 Industrial 139 91 91 91 91 91 91 Institutional 42 50 50 50 50 50 50 Other 535 669 669 669 669 669 669 Landscape 289 371 371 371 371 371 371 Government 171 236 236 236 236 236 236 Total Water Acounts 19,139 19,863 20,014 20,044 20,075 20,105 20,136 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single Family 0.366 0.303 0.328 0.318 0.309 0.302 0.296 Multifamily 0.819 0.795 0.868 0.843 0.823 0.804 0.790 Commercial 1.560 1.279 1.396 1.356 1.323 1.293 1.270 Industrial 5.065 4.348 4.747 4.611 4.499 4.397 4.319 Institutional 8.673 7.148 7.804 7.580 7.396 7.228 7.099 Other 0.007 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 Landscape 3.497 3.132 3.419 3.321 3.240 3.167 3.111 Government 1.686 1.115 1.217 1.183 1.154 1.128 1.108 Total Use per Account 0.594 0.512 0.555 0.538 0.525 0.512 0.502 43 remaining 6%. The relative share of water consumed has not changed significantly between customer types since 2010. Figure 4 and Figure 5 below show the breakdown of consumption by customer type for 2010 and 2015. Figure 4: 2010 Water Sales by Customer Class Figure 5: 2015 Water Sales by Customer Class Sales to Other Agencies The City has not, and does not plan to, sell water supplies to other agencies. Additional Water Uses ‐ Recycled Water Use Recycled water use is discussed in Section 3, “System Supplies,” under the heading “Water Recycling.” Past use and future recycled water use projections are presented in Table 14 below. Although the City is exploring an expansion of its recycled water system, the Council has not made a commitment to expand the use of recycled water in the City and, therefore, the table reflects no increase in the use of recycled water in the future. The 2010 UWMP projected 44 future recycled water use to be 850 AF/Y. Actual use in 2015 was slightly lower (818 AF) resulting from drought-related water use reductions. Table 14: Recycled Water Use (AF/Y) Non‐Revenue Water/Water Loss Non‐Revenue water, or unaccounted‐for water, is the difference between the amount of water purchased and the amount sold to customers. Non‐revenue water typically amounts to about 7% of total purchases. From CY 2005 to 2008, the City’s non‐revenue water volumes significantly increased, with a peak in CY 2006 of 12.45%. In response, the City initiated a comprehensive leak detection, meter locating and meter calibration program. As of 2009, the non‐revenue water volumes have returned to expected levels. Appendix C contains the water loss audit report for the most recent year of date, FY 2014. Real losses in that year, as per the audit, were 563 AF. Table 15 presents the historical and projected non‐revenue volumes for the City’s water system. Table 15: Non-Revenue Water (AF/Y) Total Water Use Table 16 shows total water use in the City. Table 16: Total Water Use (AF/Y) Projected Low to Moderate Income Water Use Palo Alto was one of the first jurisdictions in California to establish an official low to moderate income housing requirement in 1974. The Below Market Rate (BMR)27 program now requires 27 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 – Housing Element 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Water Trucks 7 25 29 29 29 29 29 Palo Alto Parks 20 39 31 31 31 31 31 Golf Course 167 166 196 196 196 196 196 Duck Pond 56 29 34 34 34 34 34 RWQCP 560 560 560 560 560 560 560 Total 810 818 850 850 850 850 850 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Non-Revenue Water 936 547 772 742 724 707 694 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Retail Sales 11,375 10,177 11,111 10,669 10,409 10,172 9,989 Non-Revenue Water 936 547 772 742 724 707 694 Recycled Water 810 818 850 850 850 850 850 Total 13,121 11,542 12,733 12,261 11,982 11,729 11,534 45 developers of projects with five or more units to comply with the City’s BMR requirements. The BMR program objective is to obtain actual housing units or buildable parcels within each development rather than off‐site units or in‐lieu payments. At least 15% of the housing units developed in a project involving fewer than five acres of land must be provided as BMR units. Projects involving the development of five or more acres must provide at least 20% of all units developed as BMR units. (Projects that cause the loss of existing rental housing may need to provide a 25 percent BMR component). The BMR units must be comparable to other units in the development. Due to the BMR requirements and the cost of housing in Palo Alto, the City has few single‐ family BMR units and does not anticipate this will change in the future. Approximately 2058 units in the City meet lower income levels as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety code28. Of these, 456 rental and ownership units, or 1.5% of the total housing units meet the BMR requirements. The remaining 1,602 units, or 5.4% of total housing units, are subsidized housing.29 For purposes of the current lower income projections, the 2015 UWMP assumes: 2,058 units out of the total housing stock in 2015 are considered affordable housing as determined by the classification of very low to moderate incomes. Affordable housing units in Palo Alto are categorized as multi‐family. An average of 2.4330 individuals per multi‐family unit. This is approximately 5,000 individuals or 7% of the total population in 2015. Multi‐family usage in Palo Alto averages 75 GPCD (from the end use model). An additional of 527 units will be added for each 5-year increment in the planning horizon.31 Table 17: Projected Low Income Water Demands (AF) The City anticipates the current low income BMR program will remain in effect in its current form for the foreseeable future. Future housing and population projections inherently assume that increases in housing stock will include growth in lower income households through the 28 The difference between the total BMR units and the units that meet the requirements in the UWMP Act is due to the inclusion of additional units that meet 81% to 120% of the Average Median Income in Santa Clara County. The City provides these additional units in recognition of high cost of housing in Palo Alto. 29 Current figures provided by the City of Palo Alto Planning Department. 30 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, assumes an average of 2.43 persons per multi‐family dwelling unit. 31 Affordable Housing Forecast estimates includes “Very Low”, “Low”, and “Moderate” based on State Housing & Community Development (HCD) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA ) income definitions. Forecast estimates are derived from average of “need” for the City of Palo Alto per income category for the last three RHNA cycles (1998-2006, 2007-2014, & 2015-2023). Average “Very Low” – 26%, Average “Low” – 16%, & Average “Moderate” – 20%. 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Single-family Residential 0 0 0 0 0 Munti-family Residential 420 528 635 743 850 Total 420 528 635 743 850 46 BMR program. Based on future projected demand forecasts shown in Table 11, the City expects to have ample water supplies to meet all customers’ demands during a normal year. During a drought, the City will follow the steps outlined in Section 8 (Water Shortage Contingency Plan). The Water Shortage Contingency Plan addresses the City’s response depending on the severity of the drought. The City will implement measures to maximize potential savings while at the same time minimizing the impact to the wellbeing of the citizens and businesses in Palo Alto. As part of this process, the City Council will have an opportunity to balance the needs of different customer classes with the need to achieve meaningful reductions32. Water Conservation Bill of 2009 The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBx7‐7) was enacted in November 2009. It requires water suppliers to reduce the statewide average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. To monitor the progress towards achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the bill also requires urban retail water providers to reduce per capita water consumption 10% by 2015. Water agencies that are not in compliance with the provisions of the bill could be ineligible for State grants and/or a low cost financing program. Water suppliers have some flexibility in setting and revising water use targets leading up to the 2020 compliance period, including: A water supplier may set its water use target and comply individually, or as part of a regional33 alliance. The City is in discussions with BAWSCA and SCVWD regarding a potential future alliance with other water agencies. A water supplier may revise its water use target in its 2015 or 2020 urban water management plan or in an amended plan. A water supplier may change the method it uses to set its water use target and report through an amendment to the 2010 plan or in its 2015 urban water management plan. Urban water suppliers are not permitted to change target methods after they have submitted their 2015 urban water management plan. SBx7‐7 provided four potential compliance methods that are summarized below: 1. 80% of the urban water user’s baseline gallons per capita per day (GPCD) water use; 2. The per capita daily water use that is estimated using several performance measures, subdivided between different customer classes; 32 Water Utilities typically do not possess income information for their customers and are limited in their ability to offer differential rate treatment for low income customers due to Proposition 218 restrictions. During a drought, it is more common for water utilities to differentiate between customers in a Class based on water usage patterns and relative efficiency. For example, accounts with extremely low water use could be exempted from penalty rate treatment. 33 SBx7‐7 allows entities to comply individually or as a group. The intent of this provision is to ensure there is equity among small agencies and large water agencies or districts that serve large areas that may span different socioeconomic and evapotranspiration zones. 47 3. Ninety‐five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target, as set forth in the state’s draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (dated April 30, 2009); or 4. A method that was identified and developed by the department, through a public process, and released on December 31, 2010. The fourth method uses a combination of metered sales data and achieved water use reductions across the different customer classes. The City Council, by Resolution 9174, adopted a compliance methodology based on the first option, or 80% of an urban water user’s baseline GPCD. Under this methodology, the City is required to prepare the following calculations for compliance purposes: Baseline daily per capita water use — The City must determine for baseline purposes how much water is used within an urban water supplier’s distribution system area on a per capita basis. It is determined using water use and population estimates from a defined range of years. For the City, the range selected is from fiscal year 1995 to 2004 (Table 18). Urban water use target — The value is equal to 80% of the baseline daily per capita water use value. Interim urban water use target — The planned daily per capita water use in 2015 is halfway between the baseline daily per capita water use and the urban water use target. Compliance daily per capita water use – The gross water use during the final year of the reporting period, reported in gallons per capita per day. This value will be adjusted during the 2015 and 2020 compliance period based on actual usage data. Table 18 illustrates the methodology to calculate the 10‐year average baseline per capita34 water use. Table 18: Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use for 10-year period (1995 through 2004) 34 US Census Fiscal Year Distribution System Population Daily System Gross Water Use (MG) 1995 56,647 203.8 1996 56,885 220.8 1997 57,420 203.8 1998 57,868 203.8 1999 58,136 198.2 2000 58,467 203.7 2001 59,334 199.6 2002 60,028 209.1 2003 59,930 202.5 2004 59,894 251.1 225.3Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use 48 Based on future water use and population growth projections, Table 19 summarizes Palo Alto’s 2010 UWMP SBx7‐7 target and compliance goals. Table 19: 2015 UWMP SBx7-7 Performance Metrics (gallons per capita per day) The City met the interim 2015 SBx7‐7 target and is projected to meet the 2020 target. As stated previously in this section, an urban water retailer has the flexibility to adjust the compliance target and to adjust the methodology in 2015. The City is continuing to apply the baseline per capita daily water use methodology. After 2015, the urban water supplier may not adjust the methodology, but there is the potential to adjust the compliance target as more current water use data becomes available. In addition, an agency that is at risk of non‐ compliance may, under limited circumstances35, seek to adjust its compliance daily per capita water use. Eligible circumstances include: Differences in evapotranspiration and rainfall in the baseline period compared to the compliance reporting period; Substantial changes to commercial or industrial water use resulting from increased business output and economic development that have occurred during the reporting period; and Substantial changes to institutional water use resulting from fire suppression services or other extraordinary events, or from new or expanded operations, that have occurred during the reporting period. Measures, Programs and Policies to Achieve SBx7‐7 Water Targets Table 19 provides a preliminary analysis of the City’s SBx7‐7 metrics, and the data shows the City will far surpass the water use reduction goal. The City will continue to monitor progress, however, and make program adjustments if needed. Potential adjustment to meet any shortfall could include the following: The City is currently evaluating an extension of the current recycled water system to serve customers in the Stanford Research Park area. This project was discussed in Section 3, but has not been included in the long‐term water use projection identified in the 2015 UWMP, largely due to the uncertainties surrounding project feasibility. Full build‐out of the project would result in an anticipated yield of approximately 900 AFY36 The City is committed to promoting all cost‐effective conservation programs that meet both the City’s water reduction goals and community interest. Palo Alto shifts emphasis between different conservation programs depending on various factors, including community acceptance. Over time, the program mixture may change, though the overall savings goals will remain constant. 35 CA Water Code; Section 10608.24 36 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan, June 2008 2015 2020 Baseline GPCD 225.3 225.3 Target GPCD 202.8 180.3 Actual/Projected GPCD 142.0 150.5 49 Economic Impacts of SBx7‐7 Compliance There are no incremental economic impacts associated with SBx7‐7 compliance at this time because it is anticipated the City will meet the target. The decision to implement additional conservation measures in the future will not necessarily depend on the need to comply with SBx7‐7; Palo Alto typically evaluates all measures that are cost effective compared to the incremental cost of purchasing additional water supplies from the SFPUC system37. 37 DMMs discussed in Section 5 50 Section 5 – Demand Management Measures Law 10631 (f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: (1) (A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measures that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. (B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures: (i) Water waste prevention ordinances. (ii) Metering. (iii) Conservation pricing. (iv) Public education and outreach. (v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss. (vi) Water conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii) Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented. 10620 (f) An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water management tools and options used by that entity that will maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. The City is committed to support conservation and efficient use of its water supply. It is the goal of the City to continue to look for opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost-effective programs that best utilize the City’s water conservation budget. The City has been working with other Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) members, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and other water agencies in the Bay Area to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to water conservation programs. The California Water Code Section 10631 (f) requires that an urban retail water supplier provide descriptions that addresses the nature and extent of the following DMMs that have been implemented over the past five years and/or will be implemented to achieve its water use target pursuant to SBx7-7: A. Water waste prevention ordinance. B. Metering. C. Conservation pricing. D. Public education and outreach. E. Programs to asses and manage distribution system real loss. F. Water conservation program coordination and staff support. G. Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented. In addition, the DMMs described below are water management tools and options used by the City that maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. 51 Water Waste Prevention Ordinance The City has enforced water waste prevention as part of the City’s Municipal Code since 1989 (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 12.32). Enforcement includes written warning notices to violators and may result in fines and installation of a flow restrictor on the service connection of the customer or purchaser of water whose service connection was used in the violations observed or established, and billing the costs of such installation to said customer or purchaser. In 2015, Palo Alto City Council approved an updated Green Building Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.14) that incorporates the state’s 2013 Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which sets permit requirements for water efficiency design, including irrigation systems, in new development. In addition to the CALGreen standards, the City requires the installation of a “laundry to landscape ready” irrigation system for all residential new construction projects. Also, the City’s Green Building Ordinance has a lower square footage trigger for irrigation efficiency than the state’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). For non-residential projects, MWELO requires compliance for landscapes of any size associated with new construction and landscapes of 1,000 square feet for renovation projects. Under the City’s current Green Building Ordinance, compliance with MWELO is required for landscapes of any size on all non-residential construction projects, as well as for landscaped areas of 1,000 square feet or more for residential projects. Palo Alto adopted the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance per Governor Brown’s Drought Executive Order EO-29-15. The new ordinance went into effect February 1, 2016. Metering The City has approximately 20,000 water service connections in its service territory. In 2015, irrigation meters accounted for 2% of the total installed meters, whereas water consumption from irrigation meters accounted for 10% of the City’s total metered water consumption. Non- revenue water (NRW) usage currently accounts for less than 7% of the City’s water consumption (by comparison, the 2015 national average of NRW was 16%.) The City is currently implementing an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) pilot installing advanced electric, gas and water meters at around 300 single-family homes. Customers with these advanced meters can monitor their hourly electric, gas and water usage from a secured website. Customers are alerted via email or text message when a potential water leak is detected and can act immediately to investigate and remedy the problem. So far, the AMI pilot has been very well-received by participating customers, and more than 200 leaks have been fixed by customers alerted to the leak by the program. The City currently plans to deploy advanced water meters to all customers by 2022. Since 2012, the City has begun replacing aging water meters with digital water meters that register water usage down to increments of 0.01 CCF (or hundred cubic feet). Traditional water 52 meters can only register water usage in increments of 1 CCF. The smaller incremental water usage readings help to facilitate water leak detection. Conservation Pricing Since 1976, the City has implemented conservation-based pricing for water usage, within an overall cost-based rate structure. For residential customers, water usage is billed as a two- tiered volumetric charge that increases as monthly water consumption exceeds a threshold level. For non-residential customers, water usage is billed on a uniform volumetric charge. All customers are also billed a monthly service charge that varies depending on the meter size. The City conducted a water cost of service and rate study in 2012 with the assistance of an independent consultant, to ensure continued compliance with the California Constitution’s cost of service requirements for water rates. The 2012 study and water rate structure were evaluated and updated in 2015, in light of new judicial guidance on constitutionally compliant water rates. On an annual basis, City staff reviews and updates the City’s water rates for both residential and nonresidential water customers. Public Education and Outreach Since 2006, the City has partnered with BAWSCA to offer free workshops on water efficient landscaping, irrigation and water conservation. Workshop topics include Creating a Water- Efficient Sustainable Garden, Laundry to Landscape Graywater Systems, Irrigation Basics for Homeowners, Water Conservation 101, Rainwater Harvesting, etc. In addition to public workshops, City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) staff attends community, corporate and school events to promote water conservation programs and practices, in addition to energy efficiency, waste reduction and other sustainability practices. The City carries out various seasonal and general water conservation campaigns via the use of television, online, social media and print advertisements. Palo Alto also regularly updates the City’s website on water conservation programs and public workshops. The City utilizes utility bill inserts, brochures and email newsletters to customers as part of its outreach efforts. In the fall of 2014, due to the drought, the City implemented a web and mobile application known as PaloAlto311 to allow residents and businesses to report incidents of leaks or other water waste issues. In response to prolonged drought conditions, on January 31, 2014 the SFPUC asked its retail and wholesale customers to voluntarily reduce system-wide water consumption by 10 percent. That summer, BAWSCA, in partnership with the SFPUC, launched a regional drought education campaign to heighten awareness and encourage water conservation. The regional campaign drew upon the SFPUC’s “Water Conservation is Smart and Sexy” citywide campaign. The 53 regional campaign appeared in the form of billboards, BART station ads, movie theater ads, and online video advertisements. Following Governor Brown’s Drought Executive Order on April 1, 2015 and conservation regulations mandating a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable urban water use, the SFPUC continued its call for a system-wide 10 percent reduction in water use. The SFPUC and BAWSCA partnered again to launch a new drought campaign for the summer of 2015 to remind customers to keep up their water conservation efforts, focusing in particular on outdoor water savings. Regional messaging was included in the form of billboards, BART station ads, television ads, newspaper ads, and a video campaign. Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution Systems Real Loss For over two decades, the City has pursued an aggressive Water Main Replacement Capital Improvement Program. This program identifies structurally deficient water mains and appurtenances that are undersized, corroded, and/or subject to breaks and leaks, and replaces them with jointless high-density polyethylene (HDPE) NSF 61 piping material using trenchless construction methods. Through this program, approximately 15,000 linear feet of water mains are replaced each year, which has significantly reduced water leaks throughout the system. The City maintains a 24-hour response program to fix water leaks. In addition, the City also maintains a Water Meter Replacement Program that replaces 500 to 1,000 meters per year in accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards. In 2012 through 2014, a “Large Water Meter Testing, Calibration, Repair & Replacement” Program was undertaken that involved a total of 257 large water meters. Of these meters, 136 meters have been tested, repaired, removed, or replaced, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of these meters. Coupled with the aforementioned current AMI pilot, these capital improvement programs further enhance the City’s ability to track volume of water entering and leaving the distribution system, reducing NRW and aligning the Utility's ten-year meter testing and replacement cycle in accordance with industry-standard best management practices. Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support Water Conservation Program Partnership with SCVWD Since 2002, the City has partnered with SCVWD to promote and cost-share a wide range of water conservation programs to encourage residents and businesses to improve water use efficiency. These programs include free indoor and outdoor water audits, as well as rebates for upgrading a wide range of water-using fixtures to high efficiency models, including toilets, urinals, clothes washers, laundry to landscape graywater systems, high water-using landscapes, irrigation hardware, commercial food service and other process equipment. 54 Through SCVWD, the City has been offering the “Water Wise House Call” program that provides free site surveys to customers in both single‐family and multi‐family dwellings. The survey includes a review of customer water use history, water meter check for leak detection assistance, and thorough evaluation of indoor and outdoor water use. A technician provides each customer with free low‐flow showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet dye tablets, and/or toilet flappers when needed. The landscape survey includes an evaluation of the entire irrigation system, catch‐can test for irrigation distribution uniformity, and site‐specific recommendations including changes to the irrigation schedule. The Landscape Rebate Program (LRP) provides rebates for various irrigation hardware upgrades, including rain sensors, high efficiency nozzles, dedicated landscape meters, and weather-based irrigation controllers, as well as for converting high water-using landscapes (turf grass, pools) to a low water-using landscape. In response to the severe drought conditions, in 2014 the City and SCVWD doubled the rebate amounts customers could receive for a limited time period. This resulted in a significant increase in the number of LRP applications during FY 2015. The total square feet of turf grass removed through the LRP program in FY 2015 was more than ten times the area of grass replaced during the previous year. Home Water Report Program Beginning late 2013, the City began delivering quarterly Home Water Reports to single family households in Palo Alto. Approximately 13,000 residential customers received the reports. The Home Water Report compares a household’s water usage to neighbors with similar lot sizes, landscape area, and family demographics. The reports rank a household for how water efficient it is compared to homes with similar demographics, in an attempt to encourage more water efficient behaviors and participation in conservation programs. Annual water savings from this program are estimated at approximately 1.9% for households receiving the reports. The Home Water Report program ended in 2015. However, Palo Alto plans to re-launch a similar program in 2016. Water Conservation Coordinator The City has maintained a full-time Water Conservation Coordinator position for more than 20 years and expects to maintain the position indefinitely. Duties of the Water Conservation Coordinator includes water conservation program planning, implementation and management, reporting on California Urban Water Conservation Council’s Best Management Practices (BMP) implementation, and representing Palo Alto at various water conservation committees and meetings. Water Waste Coordinator In response to the drought in late 2014, the City created a part-time Water Waste Coordinator position. The Water Waste Coordinator performs a wide range of functions associated with the City’s drought response program, including investigating incidents of water waste, enforcing the City’s water use restrictions, and responding to customer inquiries about drought regulations and water conservation programs. 55 Other Demand Management Measures Landscape Survey and Water Budget Program Through SCVWD, the City offers a program that provides landscape irrigation surveys, water budgets and customized water usage reports for customers with large landscape sites. The water budget for each landscape site is calculated based on the area of irrigated landscape, type of plants, irrigation system and real-time weather monitoring. Monthly reports documenting a site’s irrigation performance are distributed to site managers, landscapers, homeowners association board members and other relevant parties, as approved by utility account holders. Through a web portal, customers can access site-specific recommendations, view trends in water use, verify water budget assumptions and request a free landscape field survey from an irrigation expert. This program has been in place since 2012 and to date, there are 132 large landscape sites covered under this program. Real-time Water Use Monitoring Pilot for Commercial Customers In 2012, the City implemented a real-time water use monitoring pilot with selected large commercial customers to actively engage them in reducing water usage and water losses. The pilot deploys a simple, relatively low cost technology that enables standard water meters to track real-time consumption, similar to an advanced water meter. A wireless device attached to the water meter transmits real-time data to a cloud-based software platform. Customers securely log into a web portal to view water usage on a minute by minute interval, identify water leaks or other anomalies in water use, and address these issues before they become maintenance or billing problems. Over a two-year period, the total water use among pilot participants was reduced by approximately 8%. Through grant funding from SCVWD, the City will launch a larger real-time water use monitoring pilot covering 100 city facility meters and 24 business customer sites. Pilot customers will be able to access real-time water consumption data through wireless sensors installed on the water meters. The pilot is expected to launch in early 2016 and will run for two years. Business Water Reports Pilot Program Through grant funding from SCVWD, the City will launch a Business Water Reports pilot to engage small to medium sized businesses in the hospitality and food service industries to actively manage their water use. The format and content of the report may vary slightly for customers in the hospitality versus food service sectors. The key objectives of the Business Water Reports are to communicate water use and potential ways to reduce water consumption, and to motivate behavior change for improved water use efficiency. The pilot is expected to launch in early 2016 and will run for two years. 56 Section 6 – Water Supply Reliability Law 10631 (c) (1) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable. Provide data for each of the following: (A) An average water year, (B) A single dry water year, (C) Multiple dry water years. (2) For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable. 10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of the urban water supplier: (2) An estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next three water years based on the driest three‐year historic sequence for the agency's water supply. 10631 (g) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use, as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program. Water Supply Reliability The weather‐related reliability of the City’s water supply is very dependent upon the reliability of SFPUC’s regional water supply system. The SFPUC defines reliability by the amount and frequency of water delivery reductions (deficiencies) required to balance customer demands with available supplies in droughts. The SFPUC plans its water deliveries anticipating that a drought worse than the worst drought yet experienced may occur. This section discusses these potential system‐wide deficiencies. The SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy supply is vulnerable to periodic, short‐term outages. Due to the fact that Hetch Hetchy water is not filtered, it is subject to strict water quality standards set by the State Water Board. As a result of weather events, turbidity levels can exceed standards requiring the Hetch Hetchy supply to be shut off until levels drop to within standards. Hetch Hetchy supply outages can last a week or longer. During these periods, the entire SFPUC supply comes from the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant and the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant, both of which are supplied by local reservoirs. 57 The City, working in cooperation with SFPUC and BAWSCA, completed several studies and reports analyzing weather‐ and climate‐related reliability of the water supply. Several of these are described in previous sections of this UWMP, including the following: Water Wells, Regional Storage and Distribution System Study (1999) – This study examined the ability of the City’s water system to supply water during an 8‐hour disruption of SFPUC supply. The study concluded the City should invest in certain capital projects. These projects became part of the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, which is currently under construction. The Water Supply Master Plan (2000) – The WSMP was a joint study by BAWSCA and the SFPUC to address the future water supply needs of the 30 agencies and 2.3 million people who are served via the SFPUC water system. The City was actively involved in the development of this plan, participating on the WSMP Steering Committee. This plan is further described below. Alternative Emergency Water Supply Options Study (2001) – This study examined the ability of the City’s distribution system to supply water during various lengths of supply disruption (e.g., 1 day, 3‐days, 30 days) and included an analysis of the vulnerability of the City’s water distribution system. The study concluded that the capital projects in the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, specifically related to groundwater wells, would result in the ability to supply sufficient water in disruptions of SFPUC supply. City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2007) – The City completed construction of a 2.5 million gallon underground water reservoir and pump station in Palo Alto to meet emergency water supply and storage needs. In addition three new emergency supply wells were competed and five existing wells and the existing Mayfield Pump Station were upgraded. Frequency and Magnitude of Supply Deficiencies The City experienced severe droughts during 1976‐77 and 1987‐93. In response to these droughts the City adopted a number of water conservation strategies. In 2015, although the SFPUC system supply conditions only warranted a 10% voluntary reduction request by the SFPUC, the state-mandated 24% reduction in potable water use spurred an aggressive water conservation public outreach campaign. Full descriptions of the City’s water conservation programs are included in Section 5, “Demand Management Measures”. The magnitude of future supply deficiencies is difficult to estimate. The total amount of water the SFPUC has available to deliver during a defined period of time is dependent on several factors which generally include a comparison of: 1) the amount of water that is available to the SFPUC system from natural runoff and reservoir storage; and 2) the amount of that water that 58 must be released from the SFPUC’s system for commitments to purposes other than customer deliveries (e.g., releases below Hetch Hetchy reservoirs to meet Raker Act and fishery purposes). The 1987‐93 drought profoundly highlighted the deficit between SFPUC’s water supplies and the demands on the SFPUC system. Based on the 1987‐93 drought experience, the SFPUC assumes its “firm” capability to be the amount the system can be expected to deliver during historically experienced drought periods. In estimating this firm capability, the SFPUC assumes the potential recurrence of a drought such as occurred during 1987‐93, plus an additional 18 months of limited water availability. The SFPUC used this “design drought” to develop the level of service goals for the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) of meeting at least 80% of customer demands during periods of water shortage. Reliability of the Regional Water System The SFPUC’s WSIP provides goals and objectives to improve the delivery reliability of the RWS, including water supply reliability. The goals and objectives of the WSIP related to water supply are: Program Goal System Performance Objective Water Supply – meet customer water needs in non- drought and drought periods Meet average annual water demand of 265 MGD from the SFPUC watersheds for retail and wholesale customers during non-drought years for system demands through 2018. Meet dry-year delivery needs through 2018 while limiting rationing to a maximum 20 percent system-wide reduction in water service during extended droughts. Diversify water supply options during non-drought and drought periods. Improve use of new water sources and drought management, including groundwater, recycled water, conservation, and transfers. The adopted WSIP had several water supply elements to address the WSIP water supply goals and objectives. The following provides the water supply elements for all year types and the dry-year projects of the adopted WSIP to augment all year type water supplies during drought. Water Supply – All Year Types The SFPUC historically has met demand in its service area in all year types from its watersheds, which consist of: Tuolumne River watershed Alameda Creek watershed San Mateo County watersheds In general, 85% of the supply comes from the Tuolumne River through Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the remaining 15% comes from the local watersheds through the San Antonio, Calaveras, 59 Crystal Springs, Pilarcitos and San Andreas Reservoirs. The adopted WSIP retains this mix of water supply for all year types. Water Supply – Dry-Year Types The adopted WSIP includes the following water supply projects to meet dry-year demands with no greater than 20% system-wide rationing in any one year: Calaveras Dam Replacement Project: Calaveras Dam is located near a seismically active fault zone and was determined to be seismically vulnerable. To address this vulnerability, the SFPUC is constructing a new dam of equal height downstream of the existing dam. The project EIR was certified by the San Francisco City Planning Commission in 2011, and construction is now ongoing. Construction of the new dam is slated for completion in 2018; the entire project should be completed in 2019. Alameda Creek Recapture Project: The Alameda Creek Recapture Project will recapture the water system yield lost due to instream flow releases at Calaveras Reservoir or bypassed around the Alameda Creek Diversion Dam and return this yield to the RWS through facilities in the Sunol Valley. Water that naturally infiltrates from Alameda Creek will be recaptured into an existing quarry pond known as SMP (Surface Mining Permit)-24 Pond F2. The project will be designed to allow the recaptured water to be pumped to the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant or to San Antonio Reservoir. The project’s Draft EIR will be released in the spring of 2016, and construction will occur from spring 2017 to fall 2018. Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements: The Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements were substantially completed in November 2011. While the project has been completed, permitting issues for reservoir operation have become significant. While the reservoir elevation was lowered due to Division of Safety of Dams restrictions, the habitat for the Fountain Thistle, an endangered plant, followed the lowered reservoir elevation. Raising the reservoir elevation now requires that new plant populations be restored incrementally before the reservoir elevation is raised. The result is that it may be several years before the original reservoir elevation can be restored. Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project: The Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project is a strategic partnership between SFPUC and three San Mateo County agencies: the California Water Service Company (serving South San Francisco and Colma), the City of Daly City, and the City of San Bruno. The project seeks to balance the management of groundwater and surface water resources in a way that safeguards supplies during times of drought. During years of normal or heavy rainfall, the project would provide additional surface water to the partner agencies in San Mateo County, allowing them to reduce the amount of groundwater that they pump from the South Westside Groundwater Basin. Over time, the reduced pumping would allow the aquifer to recharge and result in increased groundwater storage of up to 20 billion gallons. The project’s Final EIR was certified in August 2014, and the project also received Commission approval that month. The well station construction contract Notice to 60 Proceed was issued in April 2015, and construction is expected to be completed in spring 2018. 2 MGD Dry-year Water Transfer In 2012, the dry-year transfer was proposed between the Modesto Irrigation District and the SFPUC. Negotiations were terminated because an agreement could not be reached. Subsequently, the SFPUC is having ongoing discussions with the Oakdale Irrigation District for a one-year transfer agreement with the SFPUC for 2 MGD (2,240 acre-feet). In order to achieve its target of meeting at least 80% of its customer demand during droughts at 265 MGD, the SFPUC must successfully implement the dry-year water supply projects included in the WSIP. Furthermore, the permitting obligations for the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements include a combined commitment of 12.8 MGD for instream flows on average. When this is reduced for an assumed Alameda Creek Recapture Project recovery of 9.3 MGD, the net loss of water supply is 3.5 MGD. The SFPUC’s participation in regional water supply reliability efforts, such as the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project, additional water transfers, and other projects may help to make up for this shortfall. Projected SFPUC Regional Water System Supply Reliability The SFPUC has provided the data in the table in Appendix I presenting the projected RWS supply reliability. This table assumes that the wholesale customers purchase 184 MGD from the RWS through 2040 and the implementation of the dry-year water supply projects included in the WSIP. The numbers represent the wholesale share of available supply during historical year types per the Tier One Water Shortage Allocation Plan. This table does not reflect any potential impact to RWS yield from the additional fishery flows required as part of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements Project. Impact of Recent SFPUC Actions on Dry-Year Reliability As noted earlier, in adopting the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements Project, the SFPUC committed to providing fishery flows below Calaveras Dam and Lower Crystal Springs Dam, as well as bypass flows below Alameda Creek Diversion Dam. The fishery flow schedules for Alameda Creek and San Mateo Creek represent a potential decrease in available water supply of an average annual 9.3 MGD and 3.5 MGD, respectively with a total of 12.8 MGD average annually. The Alameda Creek Recapture Project, described above, will replace the 9.3 MGD of supply lost to Alameda Creek fishery flows. Therefore, the remaining 3.5 MGD of fishery flows for San Mateo Creek will potentially create a shortfall in meeting the SFPUC demands of 265 MGD and slightly increase the SFPUC’s dry-year water supply needs. The adopted WSIP water supply objectives include (1) meeting a target delivery of 265 MGD through 2018 and (2) rationing at no greater than 20% system-wide in any one year of a 61 drought. As a result of the fishery flows, the SFPUC may not be able to meet these objectives between 2015 and 2018. Participation in the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project and additional water transfers, as described earlier, may help manage the water supply loss associated with the fishery flows. As a result of the Individual Supply Guarantees described above, the SFPUC has a responsibility to provide 184 MGD to its wholesale customers in perpetuity, regardless of demand. Therefore, the current projections for purchase requests through 2018 remain at 265 MGD, which includes wholesale and retail demand. However, in the last decade including the current drought, SFPUC deliveries have been below this level, as illustrated in the Table 20 below. Table 20: Water Deliveries in San Francisco Regional Water System Service Area38 Fiscal Year Total Deliveries (MGD) 2005-06 247.5 2006-07 257.0 2007-08 254.1 2008-09 243.4 2009-10 225.2 2010-11 219.9 2011-12 220.5 2012-13 223.9 2013-14 222.3 2014-15 196.0 Under the current drought and as of January 31, 2016, the SFPUC has called for, but has not mandated, a 10% system-wide reduction since January 2014. The SFPUC has not yet been compelled to declare a water shortage emergency and impose mandatory system-wide rationing because its customers have exceeded the 10% voluntary system-wide reduction in conjunction with the state-wide mandatory reductions assigned by the State Water Resources Control Board. If current drought conditions worsen between 2015 and 2018, and the SFPUC determines that system-wide rationing would need to be imposed, then the SFPUC would issue a declaration of a water shortage emergency in accordance with Water Code Section 350 and implement rationing in accordance with the WSA and WSAP as described above. Climate Change The issue of climate change has become an important factor in water resources planning in the State, and is frequently considered in urban water management planning purposes, though the extent and precise effects of climate change remain uncertain. There is convincing evidence that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses have caused, and will continue to cause, a rise in temperatures around the world, which will result in a wide range of changes in climate 38 Reference: SFPUC FY 9-10 and FY 2014-15 J-Tables Line 9 “Total System Usage” plus 0.7 MGD for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory use and 0.4 MGD for Groveland. No groundwater use is included in this number. Non-revenue water is included. 62 patterns. Moreover, observational data show that a warming trend occurred during the latter part of the 20th century and virtually all projections indicate this will continue through the 21st century. These changes will have a direct effect on water resources in California, and numerous studies have been conducted to determine the potential impacts to water resources. Based on these studies, climate change could result in the following types of water resource impacts, including impacts on the watersheds in the Bay Area: Reductions in the average annual snowpack due to a rise in the snowline and a shallower snowpack in the low and medium elevation zones, such as in the Tuolumne River basin, and a shift in snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year; Changes in the timing, intensity and variability of precipitation, and an increased amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow; Long-term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires that could affect water quality and quantity; Sea level rise and an increase in saltwater intrusion; Increased water temperatures with accompanying potential adverse effects on some fisheries and water quality; Increases in evaporation and concomitant increased irrigation need; and Changes in urban and agricultural water demand. Both the SFPUC and BAWSCA participated in the 2013 update of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP), which includes an assessment of the potential climate change vulnerabilities of the region’s water resources and identifies climate change adaptation strategies. In addition, the SFPUC continues to study the effect of climate change on the Regional Water System (RWS). These works are summarized below. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Climate change adaptation was established as an overarching theme for the 2013 BAIRWMP update. As stated in the BAIRWMP, identification of watershed characteristics that could potentially be vulnerable to future climate change is the first step in assessing vulnerabilities of water resources in the Bay Area Region (Region). Vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system is exposed to, susceptible to, and able to cope with or adjust to, the adverse effects of climate change. A vulnerability assessment was conducted in accordance with the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR’s) Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning and using the most current science available for the Region. The vulnerability assessment, summarized in Table 21 below, provides the main water planning categories applicable to the Region and a general overview of the qualitative assessment of each category with respect to anticipated climate change impacts. 63 Table 21: Summary of BAIRWMP Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Water Demand Urban and Agricultural Water Demand – Changes to hydrology in the Region as a result of climate change could lead to changes in total water demand and use patterns. Increased irrigation (outdoor landscape or agricultural) is anticipated to occur with temperature rise, increased evaporative losses due to warmer temperature, and a longer growing season. Water treatment and distribution systems are most vulnerable to increases in maximum day demand. Water Supply Imported Water – Imported water derived from the Sierra Nevada sources and Delta diversions provide 66 percent of the water resources available to the Region. Potential impacts on the availability of these sources resulting from climate change directly affect the amount of imported water supply delivered to the Region. Regional Surface Water – Although future projections suggest that small changes in total annual precipitation over the Region will not change much, there may be changes to when precipitation occurs with reductions in the spring and more intense rainfall in the winter. Regional Groundwater – Changes in local hydrology could affect natural recharge to the local groundwater aquifers and the quantity of groundwater that could be pumped sustainably over the long-term in some areas. Decreased inflow from more flashy or more intense runoff, increased evaporative losses and warmer and shorter winter seasons can alter natural recharge of groundwater. Salinity intrusion into coastal groundwater aquifers due to sea- level rise could interfere with local groundwater uses. Furthermore, additional reductions in imported water supplies would lead to less imported water available for managed recharge of local groundwater basins and potentially more groundwater pumping in lieu of imported water availability. 64 Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Water Quality Imported Water – For sources derived from the Delta, sea-level rise could result in increases in chloride and bromide (a disinfection by-product (DBP) precursor that is also a component of sea water), potentially requiring changes in treatment for drinking water. Increased temperature could result in an increase in algal blooms, taste and odor events, and a general increase in DBP formation Regional Surface Water – Increased temperature could result in lower dissolved oxygen in streams and prolong thermocline stratification in lakes and reservoirs forming anoxic bottom conditions and algal blooms. Decrease in annual precipitation could result in higher concentrations of contaminants in streams during droughts or in association with flushing rain events. Increased wildfire risk and flashier or more intense storms could increase turbidity loads for water treatment. Regional Groundwater – Sea-level rise could result in increases in chlorides and bromide for some coastal groundwater basins in the Region. Water quality changes in imported water used for recharge could also impact groundwater quality. Sea-Level Rise Sea-level rise is additive to tidal range, storm surges, stream flows, and wind waves, which together will increase the potential for higher total water levels, overtopping, and erosion. Much of the bay shoreline is comprised of low-lying diked baylands which are already vulnerable to flooding. In addition to rising mean sea level, continued subsidence due to tectonic activity will increase the rate of relative sea-level rise. As sea-level rise increases, both the frequency and consequences of coastal storm events, and the cost of damage to the built and natural environment, will increase. Existing coastal armoring (including levees, breakwaters, and other structures) is likely to be insufficient to protect against projected sea-level rise. Crest elevations of structures will have to be raised or structures relocated to reduce hazards from higher total water levels and larger waves. Flooding Climate change projections are not sensitive enough to assess localized flooding, but the general expectation is that more intense storms would occur thereby leading to more frequent, longer and deeper flooding. Changes to precipitation regimes may increase flooding. Elevated Bay elevations due to sea-level rise will increase backwater effects exacerbating the effect of fluvial floods and storm drain backwater flooding. 65 Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Ecosystem and Habitat Changes in the seasonal patterns of temperature, precipitation, and fire due to climate change can dramatically alter ecosystems that provide habitats for California’s native species. These impacts can result in species loss, increased invasive species ranges, loss of ecosystem functions, and changes in vegetation growing ranges. Reduced rain and changes in the seasonal distribution of rainfall may alter timing of low flows in streams and rivers, which in turn would have consequences for aquatic ecosystems. Changes in rainfall patterns and air temperature may affect water temperatures, potentially affecting cold water aquatic species. Bay Area ecosystems and habitat provide important ecosystem services, such as: carbon storage, enhanced water supply and quality, flood protection, food and fiber production. Climate change is expected to substantially change several of these services. The region provides substantial aquatic and habitat-related recreational opportunities, including: fishing, wildlife viewing, and wine industry tourism (a significant asset to the region) that may be at risk due to climate change effects. Hydropower Currently, several agencies in the Region produce or rely on hydropower produced outside of the Region for a portion of their power needs. As the hydropower is produced in the Sierra, there may be changes in the future in the timing and amount of energy produced due to changes in the timing and amount of runoff as a result of climate change. Some hydropower is also produced within the region and could also be affected by changes in the timing and amount of runoff. Source: 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP), Table 16-3. SFPUC Climate Change Studies The SFPUC views assessment of the effects of climate change as an ongoing project requiring regular updating to reflect improvements in climate science, atmospheric/ocean modeling, and human response to the threat of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change research by the SFPUC began in 2009 and continues to be refined. In its 2012 report “Sensitivity of Upper Tuolumne River Flow to Climate Change Scenarios,” the SFPUC assessed the sensitivity of runoff into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to a range of changes in temperature and precipitation due to climate change. 66 Key conclusions from the report include the following: With differing increases in temperature alone, the median annual runoff at Hetch Hetchy would decrease by 0.7-2.1 percent from present-day conditions by 2040 and by 2.6-10.2 percent from present-day by 2100. Adding differing decreases in precipitation on top of temperature increases, the median annual runoff at Hetch Hetchy would decrease by 7.6-8.6 percent from present-day conditions by 2040 and by 24.7-29.4 percent from present-day conditions by 2100. In critically dry years, these reductions in annual runoff at Hetch Hetchy would be significantly greater, with runoff decreasing up to 46.5 percent from present day conditions by 2100 utilizing the same climate change scenarios. In addition to the total change in runoff, there will be a shift in the annual distribution of runoff. Winter and early spring runoff would increase and late spring and summer runoff would decrease. Under all scenarios, snow accumulation would be reduced and snow would melt earlier in the spring, with significant reductions in maximum peak snow water equivalent under most scenarios. Currently, the SFPUC is planning to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the potential effects of climate change on water supply. The assessment will incorporate an investigation of new research on the current drought and is anticipated to be completed in late 2016 or early 2017. Plans to Assure a Reliable Water Supply The City has completed several studies and projects regarding water supply reliability. Of note, the City completed the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project and certified the Project EIR for Phase 3 of the recycled water project. In addition, the City is continuing to evaluate other water supply alternatives as part of its ongoing Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP). This analysis will include the impact of long‐term water supply shortage on the total water supply. 67 Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan Law 10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of the urban water supplier: (1) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply, and an outline of specific water supply conditions that are applicable to each stage. 10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of the urban water supplier: (3) Actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier to prepare for, and implement during, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, or other disaster. Background Except for recycled water, the City does not currently produce any of its own water supplies, but is dependent upon its suppliers. The City’s primary supplier is the SFPUC. The SFPUC is the only supplier in normal years. The City’s five older wells have been refurbished and the City completed construction of three new wells to remain in standby for use during emergencies and potentially to supplement the SFPUC supply during a severe drought. The SCVWD manages the county’s groundwater and levies a groundwater extraction fee for all water produced by the wells within its jurisdictions. The City has also approved and signed a mutual aid agreement for emergency water supplies with California’s Water Agency Response Network (Coastal group) that has over 75 signatories. To meet the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act and for the purposes of this document, a distinction will be made between a catastrophic interruption of water supplies and a water shortage due to drought. A catastrophic interruption of water supplies may occur due to natural disaster such as an earthquake or due to a sudden problem with water quality, or because of sabotage or terrorism. A water shortage due to drought is the more likely occurrence. The City has experienced three drought water shortages in the past 35 years, in l976‐77, from l987 to l993, and the current ongoing drought. Catastrophic Interruption of Supply Regional System Reliability The City, through BAWSCA, was actively involved in the review of the SFPUC System Vulnerability Report. This study examined the vulnerability of the SFPUC system to catastrophic events (e.g., earthquakes). The study, released in January 2000, indicated that some areas in the regional system could be without water for up to 60 days. To address these deficiencies, the SFPUC developed the WSIP to repair and upgrade the regional system. The program, nearly 68 completed now, included projects to repair, replace and seismically upgrade the regional water system’s pipelines and tunnels, reservoirs and dams. Planning, Training and Exercise Following San Francisco’s experience with the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, the SFPUC created a departmental SFPUC Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The SFPUC EOP, originally released in 1992, has been updated on average every two years. The latest EOP revision was in 2012. The EOP addresses a broad range of potential emergency situations that may affect the SFPUC, and it supplements the City and County of San Francisco’s EOP, which was prepared by the Department of Emergency Management and last updated in 2007. Specifically, the purpose of the SFPUC EOP is to describe the SFPUC’s emergency management organization, roles and responsibilities and establish emergency policies and procedures. In addition, SFPUC divisions and bureaus have their own EOPs that are in alignment with the SFPUC EOP and describe their respective emergency management organization, roles and responsibilities and emergency policies and procedures. The SFPUC tests its emergency plans on a regular basis by conducting emergency exercises. Through these exercises the SFPUC learns how well the plans will or will not work in response to an emergency. Plan improvements are based on exercise and sometime real world event response and evaluation. Also, the SFPUC has an emergency response training plan that is based on federal, state and local standards and exercise and incident improvement plans. SFPUC employees have emergency training requirements that are based on their individual emergency response roles. Emergency Drinking Water Planning With respect to drinking water quality, several SFPUC plans are relevant including the: Cryptosporidium Detection action Plan Revised in 2008 Water Quality Notifications and Communications Plan revised in 2010 Water Contamination and Response and Consequence Management Plan revised in 2012 Regional Water System Emergency Disinfection and Recovery Plan revised in 2012 Water Supply and Treatment Division Emergency Operations Plan revised in 2013 Power Outage Preparedness and Response SFPUC’s water transmission system is primarily gravity fed, from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to the City and County of San Francisco. Within San Francisco’s in‐city distribution system, the key pump stations have generators in place and all others have connections in place that would allow portable generators to be used. Although water conveyance throughout the regional system would not be greatly impacted by power outages because it is gravity fed, the SFPUC has prepared for potential regional power outages as follows: The Tesla disinfection facility, the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant, and the San Antonio Pump Station, have backup power in place in the form of generators or diesel 69 powered pumps. Additionally, both the Sunol Treatment Plant and the San Antonio Pump Station would not be impacted by a failure of the regional power grid because it runs off of the SFPUC hydro‐power generated by the regional system Both the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant and the Baden Pump Station have backup generators in place. Additionally, the WSIP has expanded the SFPUC’s ability to remain in operation during power outages and other emergency situations. Capital Projects for Seismic Reliability and Overall System Reliability As described in Section 6, the SFPUC has undertaken the WSIP to enhance the ability of the SFPUC water supply system to meet identified service goals for water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability, and water supply. The WSIP also included projects related to standby power facilities at various locations. These projects provide for standby electrical power at six critical facilities to allow these facilities to remain in operation during power outages and other emergency situations. Local Distribution System Reliability The City has improved its emergency supply preparedness by rehabilitating five existing wells, drilling three new wells, and building an additional water storage reservoir. The well system can now support a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level. The City also maintains several critical interconnections with neighboring water utilities as shown in Table 22. These interties can be activated during critical events to ensure water supplies are not impacted and also to provide mutual aid to neighboring communities. Table 22: Interties with other Agencies Name Number Diameter (inches) East Palo Alto 1 6 Mountain 2 6 Stanford 2 8 Purissima Hills WD 2 8,12 Emergency Response Plan Response to a catastrophic interruption of supply is handled through a series of interconnected plans. All Disaster or Act of War Plans, from the state to local levels, use the Federal Civil Defense and Emergency Planning systems as role models with additions that take into consideration any unique conditions or situations that may exist within their jurisdictions. At the national level, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) controls all functions of Civil Defense or Emergency Planning for the Federal Government. FEMA will not assume control of an emergency until the President declares a State of Emergency or an Act of War 70 occurs. At that point FEMA will assume control through the State of California Office of Emergency Services (State OES) and make available all of its resources. At the state level, the State OES will control any disaster within the state and make its resources available after a State of Disaster has been declared by the governor. The State OES further controls the Master Mutual Aid Agreement that can also be used in a local disaster (the City is a member of California’s Water Agency Response Network, Region 2, a mutual aid system for water utilities, in accordance with State requirements). At the county level, the Santa Clara County OES will control the unincorporated areas of the County. It will coordinate mutual aid within the County and act as an intermediary between local governments or utilities and the State mutual aid office. On the city level, the City will control all emergencies according to its Emergency Response Plan. The Mayor, City Council or City Manager may declare an emergency at which time representatives of all City departments will report to the Emergency Operations Center. The City’s Emergency Response Plan incorporates the CPAU Water, Gas and Wastewater Operations Emergency Response Plan (the UER Plan), which covers any emergency curtailment of water supplies. The UER Plan is a detailed outline of actions to be taken and procedures to be followed by utility personnel in event of a water emergency. This plan is maintained in the office of Water, Gas and Wastewater Operations and must be updated every 12 months. The UER Plan is designed as both an outline and a procedures manual. It covers the following primary functions: 1) Notification Procedures 2) Water Mutual Aid Agreement 3) Radio/Telephone /Communications 4) Water Receiving Station and Reservoir Check List 5) Boil Water Notifications 6) Highest Water Use Customer Load Reduction List 7) Water Interconnect Locations 8) Disinfecting of Water Mains All CPAU personnel whose duties include work on the system through maintenance or construction operations, or as Utilities Dispatchers, are highly trained and experienced in performing their normal or “common emergency” duties. If a disaster or Act of War were to occur, the City’s construction standards may have to be lowered to make temporary repairs to expedite the restoration of the system, but the procedures and safety rules by which the work would be accomplished will not change. These temporary repairs would be upgraded and made permanent or replaced, as necessary, at a later date. The City’s primary concern is the safety of the general public and all City personnel. 71 To that end, CPAU continues to maintain three diesel emergency generators in order to enhance the water system response reliability during a catastrophic seismic event causing severance from the City’s primary supply source, and is investigating additional purchases or leases. Lease acquisition of these emergency generators will fulfill this reliability goal for the medium- and the long‐term. At the same time, given the uncertainty of the future, acquisition through lease agreements for these emergency gen sets will reduce the City’s risk of generator inoperability. Generators would enable continued operation of water facilities during a transmission grid failure. Water Shortage Contingency Analysis Law 10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of the urban water supplier: (4) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices during water shortages, including, but not limited to, prohibiting the use of potable water for street cleaning. (5) Consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. Each urban water supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its water shortage contingency analysis that would reduce water use, are appropriate for its area, and have the ability to achieve a water use reduction consistent with up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply. (6) Penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable. 10632. (b) Commencing with the urban water management plan update due July 1, 2016, for purposes of developing the water shortage contingency analysis pursuant to subdivision (a), the urban water supplier shall analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 115921 of the Health and Safety Code. Palo Alto’s Experience with Drought Management The City has had considerable experience implementing action plans during a period of water shortage, such as a drought. The City has always been able to comply with any rationing requirement imposed by SFPUC. During the 1976/77 drought period, the City achieved reductions in citywide consumption of 16% in FY 1977 and 37% in FY 1978 compared to consumption in FY 1976. In the 1987‐1993 drought period, the City’s consumption was lower than consumption in 1987, the year just before SFPUC instituted mandatory rationing, by from 19% (in FY 1989) to over 35% (in FY 1992). In response to the voluntary 10% call for rationing in 2008‐2009, the City responded with reductions of approximately 18% relative to 2004 consumption. In 2015, the City responded to state-mandated potable water use reductions by implementing the water restrictions in Stage II of its WSCP. As of the end of January 2016, the City is on track to meet the 24% cumulative reduction target for the June 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016 compliance period compared to calendar year 2013. For the period June 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, the City’s usage was 33% below usage during the same period in 2013. 72 During these periods of water shortage and state-mandated reductions, the community has responded exceedingly well to requests to use water in the most efficient way possible. As a result of experiencing these drought‐time water supply shortages, many residents and businesses have implemented permanent improvements in water use efficiency. During a water shortage period, the Director of Utilities is responsible for executing the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Representatives from appropriate City Departments and Utilities Divisions would need to be involved to oversee outreach and monitoring efforts. Additional resources will need to be dedicated to this effort both for internal and external execution of the plan. A key element to developing water shortage contingency plans for the City is close coordination and cooperation with SFPUC, BAWSCA, and the SCVWD. It is critical to develop a coherent and coordinated regional response to water shortages in order to provide a consistent message to customers. Regional Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan Tier One Drought Allocations In July 2009, as part of the WSA, the wholesale customers and San Francisco adopted a Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) to allocate water from the regional water system to retail and wholesale customers during system‐wide shortages of 20% or less (the “Tier One Plan”)39. The Tier One Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any wholesale customer and between wholesale customers themselves. In addition, water “banked” by a wholesale customer, through reductions in usage greater than required, may also be transferred. The Tier One Plan, which allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale customers collectively, distributes water based on the level of shortage as shown in Table 23: Table 23: SFPUC and Wholesale Customer Share of Available Water Level of System Wide Reduction in Water Use Required Share of Available Water SFPUC Share Wholesale Customer Share 5% or less 35.5% 64.5% 6% through 10% 36.0% 64.0% 11% through 15% 37.0% 63.0% 16% through 20% 37.5% 62.5% The Tier One Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA on June 30, 2034, unless extended by San Francisco and the wholesale customers. 39 The previous water shortage allocation plan expired in 2009 with the termination of the previous Water Supply Agreement with the SFPUC. Details of the previous allocation plan are provided in the 2005 UWMP. 73 Tier Two Drought Allocations In 2010, the wholesale customers negotiated and adopted the Tier Two Drought Implementation Plan (Tier Two Plan), which allocates the collective wholesale customer share among each of the 26 wholesale customers. This Tier Two Plan allocation is based on a formula that takes into account multiple factors for each wholesale customer including: Individual Supply Guarantee; Seasonal use of all available water supplies; and Residential per capita use. The water supplies made available from the SFPUC will be allocated to the individual wholesale customers in proportion to each wholesale customer’s Allocation Basis, expressed in millions of gallons per day (MGD), which in turn is the weighted average of two components. The first component is the fixed wholesale customer’s Individual Supply Guarantee as stated in the WSA. The second component is the Base/Seasonal Component, which is variable and is calculated using each wholesale customers total monthly water use from all available water supplies during the three consecutive years prior to the onset of the drought. The second component is accorded twice the weight of the first component in calculating the Allocation Basis. Minor adjustments to the Allocation Basis are then made to ensure a minimum cutback level, a maximum cutback level, and a minimum level of supply to meet health and safety needs for certain wholesale customers. Each wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor, which represents its percentage allocation of the total available water supplies, is calculated from its proportionate share of the total of all wholesale customers’ Allocation Bases. The final shortage allocation for each wholesale customer is determined by multiplying the amount of water available to the wholesale customers’ collectively under the Tier One Plan, by the wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor. The Tier Two Plan requires that the Allocation Factors be calculated by BAWSCA each year in preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. As the wholesale customers change their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in SFPUC purchases and use of other water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns, or changes in residential per capita water use), the Allocation Factor for each wholesale customer will also change. For long-term planning purposes, each wholesale customer has been provided with the Tier Two Allocation Factors calculated by BAWSCA based upon the most recent normal year to determine its share of available RWS supplies. However, actual allocations to each wholesale customer during a future shortage event will be calculated in accordance with the Tier Two plan at the onset of the shortage. For long‐term planning purposes, the City is using the value identified in the Tier Two Plan adopted by the City Council, as calculated for FY 2013. Table 24 below illustrates how much water would be available to Palo Alto from the regional system under different reduction scenario’s using actual water demand from FY 2013. The Tier Two Plan will expire in 2018 unless extended by the wholesale customers. 74 Table 24: Palo Alto Share of Available SFPUC Water (AF/Y) Palo Alto’s Water Shortage Contingency Planning The City’s primary response to a water supply shortage will be to reduce consumption. The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan describes the response at four water supply shortage stages. (Water use restrictions discussed in these stages can be found in Appendix H). Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions) calls for a low level of informational outreach and enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances. In Stage II (10% to 20%) there will be a stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of some additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules will be implemented. Stage III (20% to 35%) calls for increased outreach activities and additional emergency water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would increase from those in Stage II. Fines and penalties would be applied to users in violation of water usage restrictions. In some cases, water flow restriction devices would be installed on customers’ meters. Stage IV (35% to 50%) requires very close management of the available water supplies. Allocations of water for each customer will be introduced. Informational outreach activities would be operating at a very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a restrictive penalty schedule would be implemented. Water Shortage Mitigation Options Water shortage mitigation options can be classified under two categories: Supply Side Options and Demand Side Options. This section provides descriptions of many different actions and activities that are possible in reaction to a water supply shortage situation. The City’s response to drought‐time shortages depends upon the severity of the shortage. Following this section, specific actions are outlined for the various stages of a potential shortage. Supply Side Options The City’s options to increase its short‐term water supply are limited. The City’s long‐term supply options are discussed in Section 3, “System Supplies.” The section below discusses short‐ term alternatives to increase supply in the event of a water supply shortage. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 System-wide Shortage 0%10%10%22%22% BAWSCA 163,429 170,934 170,934 144,722 144,722 City of Palo Alto 12,692 12,692 12,692 11,425 11,425 Availability of Water for Palo Alto 100%100%100%90%90% Allocations During Multiple Dry Years Demand (FY 2013) One Critical Dry Year Allocation 75 City Wells The status of the City’s emergency wells is discussed in the Groundwater area of Section 3, “System Supplies.” During a drought period, it would be possible to use some water from the wells to supplement the supply from the SFPUC. Recycled Water During a drought or a short‐term water emergency, recycled water would be available to the City, however, a wide distribution of recycled water would require substantial infrastructure that would be difficult to construct in a short period of time. The City or private companies with tanker trucks can obtain permits to utilize recycled water from the RWQCP. These companies can pick up recycled water and deliver it to customers who will pay for this service. During the summer of 2015, the City increased the use of water trucks to irrigate City trees on City-owned medians and several private companies utilized recycled water to deliver water to private citizens. Public awareness is enhanced by greater publicity of the availability of this alternative to customers. This recycled water is available except in a catastrophic disaster (severe earthquake) that severs all sources of water (SFPUC, wells and storage) to the system thereby eliminating the source of water to the RWQCP. However, in the event of a severe earthquake the delivery of recycled water will be a low priority. Water Purchases from Other Suppliers The City could conceivably purchase water from a new supplier in an extreme water supply shortage situation. However, any such purchase would have to be consistent with the requirements specified in the WSA40 and be coordinated with all other jurisdictions between the source and the City to ensure the supply meets deliverability requirements. The SFPUC has made such purchases of water from various suppliers in times of water shortages. The City and all other BAWSCA member agencies have received this water through the SFPUC delivery systems. It is unlikely that the City could negotiate a better deal than the SFPUC or BAWSCA in these extremely complicated arrangements, and therefore it is unlikely that the City would seek to purchase water on its own. The City is a participant in several regional efforts to evaluate and develop new supply sources, including purchasing water from other sources. The SFPUC system has several interties with adjacent water agencies, including EBMUD and the SCVWD. These interties could be used to “wheel” water that is purchased from other sources or agencies. Demand Side Options In droughts, the City expects to achieve significant amounts of demand reduction through its use of DMMs, as that term is used in the California Water Code. (See, for example, §§ 371, 10631.) These options include a combination of information outreach programs, drought rate schedules, demand side programs and water use restrictions. 40 WSA, Section 3.12 76 Defining Water Features The City owns and operates several un-metered water features including two recirculating fountains and one recreational water feature that was turned off in 2015. In addition, Baronda Lake, which uses about 250 AF over the 5 month period from mid-May through mid-October, is used for recreation and education and is habitat for several species of fish, other aquatic life and birds. The lake is also a water source for many different types of mammals. A small number of commercial customers have recirculating fountains. In the proposed and attached Water Use Restrictions ordinance, non-recirculating fountains are prohibited. The City is not aware of any non-recirculating, privately-owned water features. Demand Side Management Programs: Demand side management programs can be offered using many different program design options and delivery mechanisms. Some examples are listed below. Home Water Use Reports Home Water Reports will be used to encourage customers to save water. The Home Water Report compares a household’s water usage to neighbors with similar lot sizes, landscape area, and family demographics. The reports rank a household for how water efficient it is compared to homes with similar demographics, in an attempt to encourage more water efficient behaviors and participation in conservation programs. Information Outreach Programs Customers will be provided with information on ways to achieve needed water use reductions. The City will communicate to the customers how best to prioritize their water use needs and how to implement alternative ways to receive the same level of service while using less water. Information and public outreach programs include utility bill inserts, information on CPAU’s website, local print media campaigns, commercial targeted mailings, workshops and demonstrations, fact sheets on conservation technologies and practices, and coordination with product manufacturers and suppliers. Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs In a persistent water shortage or required water use reduction, most customers will take the quick and easy actions first. More complex and expensive incentive programs to provide demand side management may be needed to achieve additional results. Although incentive programs require time to develop and promote, significant water savings can be achieved. Depending upon market saturation, some programs such as delivery of relatively inexpensive hardware (e.g. low‐flow faucet aerators and showerheads) and services such as leak detection and irrigation system audits can offer quick drought‐time savings. Other programs may include a toilet rebate program or incentives to replace high water use landscapes with water efficient landscape designs and installation of efficient irrigation hardware. 77 Customer Water Use Audit Programs Water audits are provided as an informational service to customers and typically include an individualized, one‐on‐one analysis and site‐specific recommendations for both indoor and outdoor water efficiency improvements. Audits can be enhanced by the delivery of relevant, action‐oriented information the customer can use to change behavioral practices or participate in additional audit or rebate programs. In a water emergency or shortage, additional staff may be needed to provide water audits, rebate program administration, and outreach assistance to residential and commercial customers. Drought Rate Schedules Pricing is one of the most powerful tools that a utility can use to promote its conservation goals. The overarching criteria for constitutionally compliant water rate structures—for use in droughts or not—is that all rates must be based on the cost to serve customers. Both tiered water rates and volumetric-based rates can provide an incentive to conserve. CPAU has had tiered water rates for some time, and the bulk of water revenues are from volumetric rates and not the fixed monthly meter charge. This rate design encourages efficient use of water whether in a drought or not. However, when water use declines in droughts, revenue recovery may become a problem. In September 2015, drought surcharges were developed so that, upon Council action, additional charges could be applied to ensure the financial health of the Water Fund. The drought surcharges were imposed effective September 1, 2015 to recover (via a tiered volumetric charge) the cost of operating the distribution system. Other Potential Rate Schedules and Structures Customer Class Targets In many water shortage situations, no rationing of water is required – ample communication of the water shortage coupled with drought surcharges, if needed, have been sufficient to meet the City’s water reduction targets in the prior and current drought. If rationing of water is required to meet a water reduction requirement in a drought, customer class targets should mirror the required indoor/outdoor water reduction goals that may be established during a drought. Whether there will be different rate schedules (consistent with the cost of service requirement) for each customer class will be determined by: (a) the severity of the water shortage, and (b) the capabilities and limitations of the utility billing system. Experience has shown that separating the single‐ family residential customers—which are more homogeneous than any other customer group—from all other customer groups is generally the only distinction needed. Allocation Methods Any allocation plan would take into consideration the criteria listed in Appendix G. These criteria will be a guide to selecting the most efficient and effective water use reduction method under the particular circumstances of a specific drought situation. 1. Allocations Based on Percentage of Past Use Plans that base a customer’s allocation on a percentage of past use are sometimes perceived as fair and easy to administer. However, these plans have three significant shortcomings. First, 78 selection of a base year is problematic. There have been two water shortage periods in the City since l976. It would be difficult to pick a base year unaffected by shortage year programs on the one hand, or gradually increasing water use after a drought (the “rebound effect”) on the other. The second problem is that each year the turnover of new accounts is approximately 20 to 30% (mostly multi‐family residents). In addition, many businesses have changed their practices to some extent over the years. Therefore to use this plan in 2015 and beyond would mean that a large percentage of water customers would have an allocation based on a previous occupant’s usage, a previous operation, or some alternative situation. Handling the large volume of such cases can create administrative difficulties and perceptions of inequities as revised or new allocations are assigned to these customers. The third major flaw in the “percent of past use” concept is that, regardless of base year selected, historically conservation‐minded customers may feel penalized for their past efforts while profligate users may have too large an allocation. 2. Equal Allocation for Each Home (for single‐family residential) This plan would set an identical allocation for each home designed to meet the target reduction for the class. The first tier in the rate structure41 would be set at this target amount. The second tier would be a “buffer” tier designed to accommodate seasonal water needs. The third and last tier would be a penalty rate block price considerably higher than the first two tiers. All homes would be treated the same under this plan. In addition, it would be inexpensive to administer and easy to understand and implement. However, it could be perceived as unfair by relatively large families or customers with large lots. Under this plan, hardship exemptions would be limited to those who require more water for health or safety reasons. No additional allowances would be provided for the number of persons living in the household or the landscaping requirements of the particular size lot. Enforcement of this plan would involve installing a flow restrictor on those customers who continue to exceed the allotment beyond a two‐month period. 3. Complete Per Capita Allocation Plan (for single‐family residential) Under this plan each person would be allocated a certain amount of water per month. In addition, each household would be allotted a certain amount of water per month for other essential needs, including a base minimum amount for outdoor watering of shrubs and trees. Per capita information would be based on information supplied by the customers through a special mailing. The strength of this plan is that it would probably be more acceptable to the community than the equal allotment per household plan because it takes into account the relationship between water usage and the number of persons living in a household. Its weaknesses are the inability of the current Utilities billing system to record or manage “per capita” data and verification of per capita information. 41 Any rate design must be consistent with “cost of service” principles embedded within the California constitution. 79 4. Default Per Capita Allocation Plan (for single‐family residential) Under this plan each household would receive an allocation sufficient for families of a default size. For households over that size, an additional amount would be allocated per month for the number of people over the default size. This plan is easier to administer than a complete per capita plan since the number of data entries is significantly reduced. The plan’s weakness is its lack of detail or fine‐tuning for households under the default size, which may be perceived as unfair by larger households. Mandatory Water Rationing Plans Applicable to Multi‐Family Accounts, Business, and City Departments Due to the differences between customer classes, it is difficult to construct rationing plans that meet all the criteria listed in Appendix G. During the 1987‐1993 drought period, the City introduced Baseline Consumption Allowances (BCAs) for all customer classes except single‐ family residential accounts. This includes multi‐family residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and city facilities accounts. The BCA was intended to represent the indoor consumption of each customer. It is important for any allocation plan to take into account the specific needs of these customer classes because of their diversity and unique requirements. The BCA does this. Rate structures using the BCAs can be constructed as appropriate to meet the reduction targets required and to provide the economic incentive necessary to prompt customer action. And, the targets and the associated rate block prices could be changed as the reduction requirement changes. Weaknesses of this method are that it may not accurately represent indoor water use. For example, exemptions would have to be considered for customers with cooling towers, since lack of water for cooling towers would effectively end the customers’ ability to cool their building interiors, resulting in possible health and safety impacts of employees. Another alternative in extreme cases (Stage 3 or higher) could be an allocation per fixture plus a cooling tower credit, which is similar to the per capita method for residences. Excessive Use Penalties for All Allocation Methods Penalties for excessive use are expected to vary according to the customer class. For single‐ family residential customers exceeding percent‐of‐past‐use, equal‐allocation‐per‐home, or per capita water use, the penalty could be installation of a flow restrictor when usage continued to exceed the allocation beyond a 2‐month period. Enforcement of this penalty would only occur after customers were notified and any reasonable appeals had been processed. For customers under a BCA (all classes except single family residential), the primary penalty is in the rate structure itself. Water Use Prohibitions, Mandatory Restrictions Adopting water use restrictions is another way to manage how customers use a limited resource. Restrictions can be classified as those preventing water waste, those “setting a tone”, and those that prohibit low priority use in times of severe shortages. 80 In the case of a system-wide water shortage, close coordination with SFPUC is necessary. One of the considerations for selecting which water use restriction ordinances to adopt is what the City’s suppliers recommend for the region. Both the SFPUC and SCVWD provide recommendations, and the City will attempt to follow those recommendations so that regional consistency is achieved. The City’s ability to enforce restrictions is also a critical variable in the selection of water use regulations. For restrictions to be credible and obeyed they must be enforceable and enforced. Therefore certain restrictions, such as limits on indoor uses such as showering, are not practical. Water use restrictions are achieved by using the methods, prohibitions and penalties described in the sections below. Appendix H lists permanent water use restrictions that the City currently has in place and is proposing to put in place, and those that may be adopted on an emergency basis in times of state-mandated reductions or water shortage42. Stages of Action Actions to be taken in response to a water shortage or state-mandated reduction depend on the severity of the shortage or the magnitude of the required reduction. The staged responses (Stage I to Stage IV) depend to some extent upon the local conditions and the length of time that customers have had to focus their attention on the water shortage. For each stage noted below, activity levels in several key areas are described. Appendix H, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, details the planned water use restrictions for each reduction level. Reduction targets will be based on the most recent non‐drought year. If a different base year were to be selected, the programs might require modification. In all stages, action will be taken to ensure City facility water use is reduced by the appropriate amount. Some factors which influence the effectiveness of any water management plan include: (1) the customer’s behavior and perception of the need to conserve; (2) weather; (3) the duration of the shortage or mandate; (4) the customer’s economic situation; (5) the extent to which the City achieves its utility revenue targets; (6) the percentage of exemptions or variances granted; (7) the role of the media; and (8) the customer’s acceptance of the need for water use reduction. Because each water shortage situation is unique in duration, in breadth and in involvement by the state, there is a need for some flexibility in selecting the exact response strategy. Even with the same reduction target, the strategy in the first year of a drought may be different than that 42 Section 12.32.015 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, pertaining to emergency water use regulations, previously codified and containing portions of Ordinance Nos. 3960, 3984 and 4038, was suspended, but specifically not repealed, by Ordinance No. 4150, § 2. In pertinent part, Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4150 states that Section 12.32.015 is "suspended until such time as water shortage emergency conditions shall be subsequently found, determined, and declared by the Council to exist." 81 recommended for an additional year of a long running drought. It is very important early in a drought period to develop outreach messages and policy directions using a longer‐term perspective. In this way, communications with customers throughout the drought period will be consistent and appropriate. STAGE I: Minimum Water Shortage – 5% to 10% target water savings The SFPUC requested voluntary reductions in this range in 1987, 2009, and 2014 which the City was able to achieve. In those years, SFPUC did not impose rationing. Information Outreach and Audit Programs The City provides ongoing informational outreach and audit programs. At this water shortage stage, the focus of these programs would be on water saving information. A low level media information campaign would begin with the emphasis on reducing waste. As water consumption is monitored, the level of emphasis would be adjusted in order to meet the reduction goal. The City has permanent ordinances in place that prohibit the waste of water and additional permanent water use restrictions are proposed to Council via ordinance on a timeline parallel with the UWMP. These ordinances are sufficient for this stage of water shortage. Enforcement would be on an “as reported” basis and mostly via reminder notices. Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs Programs designed to assist customers in demand side management would be continued and augmented, to the extent necessary to provide the savings required. These programs may include a toilet rebate program or incentives to remove lawn turf for less water‐thirsty landscaping or to install advanced irrigation controllers. The City would continue to monitor programs being developed by other utilities in order to take advantage of regional momentum and shorten internal development time. Drought Rate Structures No special drought rate structure is needed at this water shortage stage. The City’s standard single‐family rate structure already encourages conservation by having a relatively small fixed charge and tiered rates. STAGE II: Moderate Water Shortage – 10% to 20% target water savings The City was able to achieve this level of water reduction (19.1%) when rationing was imposed by the SFPUC in FY 1989. The program used at that time is basically the one outlined below. Information Outreach and Audit Programs The frequency of advertising and events comprising the information campaign would be increased. Water kits with low‐cost conservation devices will be available to customers. 82 Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs Programs designed to assist customers in demand side management would be continued and augmented to the extent necessary to provide the savings required. These programs may include incentives for replacing high water using fixtures such as toilets, clothes washers, and irrigation devices, as well as incentives to retrofit landscapes for a low water use, drought tolerant design. The City would continue to monitor programs being developed by other utilities in order to take advantage of regional momentum and shorten internal development time. Drought Rate Structures In response to water shortage conditions in the 1987-1992 drought, the City established separate drought rate schedules for single‐family residential and all other customers and increased the price difference between lower and higher consumption tiers. For all customers except single‐ family residential customers, the consumption tiers were based on a Baseline Consumption Allowance (BCA) concept. This concept is described in the section, Water Shortage Mitigation Options, as applicable to multi‐family, commercial, industrial, public facilities and City facilities accounts. Water Use Restrictions The City would be more vigilant in enforcing the water use restrictions. A system of warnings leading to possible fines and installation of a flow restrictor would be followed. During the summer of 2015, the City developed a mobile application (311) for members of the community to report wasted water. This technology allowed for much wider enforcement by City staff. A small number of emergency water use restrictions would be added. STAGE III: Severe Water Shortage – 20% to 35% target water savings The City achieved usage reductions of 31.5%, 35.4%, and 32.7% in FY 1991, FY 1992, and FY 1993, respectively, in response to SFPUC water rationing. The City is on track to exceed the 24% reduction target for the 2015/2016 state-mandated compliance period. The water conservation program implemented included the following major components: Information Outreach and Audit Programs All activities from Stage II would continue at escalated levels. In addition, emphasis would be put on targeted outreach to high water users and special categories of water users (e.g., car washes, restaurants, etc.). Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs Existing demand side management programs would be continued. Staff would continue to closely monitor overall water savings in order to determine if additional levels of rebate amounts would provide additional savings, or whether other programs would be necessary. Drought Rate Structures To achieve these reduction goals in past droughts, rationing was not implemented. Instead, along with an extensive information outreach effort, drought surcharges may be imposed. 83 If reduction goals were not being met, reduction targets may need to be developed for each customer class. Potential strategies for allocation plans are discussed above. The exact rates and rate structures would be established upon receipt of information regarding both the reduction requirement and applicable penalties and based on the utility’s overall revenue requirements. Water Use Restrictions Additional “emergency” water use restrictions would be added to the existing permanent restrictions. The amount of staff time dedicated to enforcement would be increased. STAGE IV: Critical Water Shortage – 35% to 50% target water savings A program to meet this level of water use reduction has not yet been implemented in the City. However, in the spring of 1991, the SFPUC adopted a program calling for reductions in this range. Although ultimately replaced with a less restrictive program, the City discussed what actions would be taken to meet the critical reduction targets. The program below outlines the major components of the plan to meet such a target. Information Outreach and Audit Programs All activities from Stage III would continue at further escalated levels. A greater focus will be placed on survival strategies and prioritization assistance for all customer classes. Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs Depending on what programs have been implemented prior to this stage, or current market saturations for certain devices, a selected number of indoor conservation incentives will be offered. These may include rebates for and/or free distribution of showerheads and faucet aerators, toilet modifications or retrofits, process water use modifications and use of recycled water. Drought Rate Structures At this level of reduction, an allotment method would be considered for each customer. The allocations would be sufficient for the most critical, high priority uses of water and the availability of water for outside use would be dramatically reduced. Various allotment methods are discussed in the previous section, Allocation/Allotment Methods. Water Use Restrictions Severe “emergency” water use restrictions, many of which will supersede less stringent restrictions imposed in a less critical phase, will be added. Enforcement will be more rigorous in terms of hours of enforcement, number of staff involved, and the speed with which penalties are applied. 84 Alternative Water Supplies During a Water Shortage Recycled Water Use Recycled water offers an alternative source of water to those customers with valuable landscaping. The availability of contractors who can haul recycled water will be advertised. In addition, the City will rent tanker trucks to irrigate valuable City landscaping and street trees that will undoubtedly be stressed by a long‐term drought, the likely precursor to this stage of a water shortage. Groundwater In the event of a water shortage emergency, the City will evaluate the use of groundwater to meet any potable water supply deficiency. The City is limited in the amount of water that can be withdrawn from the local aquifer, so any decision to rely on groundwater will include consideration for operational limitations. Revenue and Expenditure Impacts and Measures to Overcome Impacts Law 10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis which includes each of the following elements which are within the authority of the urban water supplier: …(7) An analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions described in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, on the revenues and expenditures of the urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts, such as the development of reserves and rate adjustments. (1) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply, and an outline of specific water supply conditions that are applicable to each stage. (2) An estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next three water years based on the driest three-year historic sequence for the agency's water supply. (3) Actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier to prepare for, and implement during, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, or other disaster. (4) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices during water shortages, including, but not limited to, prohibiting the use of potable water for street cleaning. (5) Consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. Each urban water supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its water shortage contingency analysis that would reduce water use, are appropriate for its area, and have the ability to achieve a water use reduction consistent with up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply. (6) Penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable. (7) An analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions described in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, on the revenues and expenditures of the urban water supplier, and proposed 85 measures to overcome those impacts, such as the development of reserves and rate adjustments. Impact on Expenditures Water utility expenditures can be generally categorized as fixed or variable expenses. The variable costs are almost entirely related to the costs of purchasing water supplies. Although the SFPUC supply costs are expressed as a variable commodity rate, the SFPUC system, like many water delivery systems, is almost exclusively a fixed cost conveyance and treatment system. As a retail provider, the City’s fixed costs primarily relate to the cost of operating and maintaining the City’s distribution system. Supply Reductions and Service Interruptions From a utility perspective, there is a downside to water conservation: the erosion of sales revenue. As consumers reduce their usage in response to the drought, the utility will experience a decline in sales. This decline in sales revenue will necessarily be greater than the associated decline in fixed expenses due to the volumetric retail rate structure. The impact of decreased revenues on operations can be mitigated to some extent by drawing upon cash reserve balances or enacting a rate increase. An approach for short‐term revenue shortfalls is to draw upon the utility’s cash reserves, if they are sufficient, to cover the financial obligations of the utility. Other options include short term borrowing, financing long‐term capital projects through revenue bonds rather than through current rates, or the implementation of drought surcharges to address the loss in sales revenue. Each of these approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. The appropriate response depends upon the specific circumstances facing the utility at that moment and other factors. Usage Reductions and Bans Implementation cost for the informational outreach programs, monitoring, and reporting during a water shortage increases during periods of voluntary and mandatory water use reductions. The 2015 state-mandated potable water use reductions cost the City an estimated $400,000. Estimates for those costs are $30,000 to $50,000 for voluntary programs. For mandatory programs, estimated costs are $400,000 to $600,000. The net effect is an increase in the expenses per unit of water sold. Penalties Excessive use penalties may be associated with certain drought rate structures described above. While additional staff resources would be needed to monitor customer use and install flow restrictors on excessive water users, it is difficult to quantify the cost of such a program. Reduction Measuring Mechanism Law 10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of the urban water supplier: 86 …(9) A mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use pursuant to the urban water shortage contingency analysis. Under normal water supply conditions, the amount of water coming into the City from the SFPUC regional supply line is metered at the Arastradero, California, Page Mill, Sand Hill and Lytton turnouts. The daily meter readings are maintained at the Utility Control Center. Totals are reported monthly to CPAU for comparison to the billing amounts from the SFPUC. In water shortage periods, the mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use remains largely the same. The Director of Utilities would form an ad hoc Water Committee with representatives of all divisions to oversee outreach and monitoring efforts. During curtailment stages in a water shortage, supply figures are reported a daily basis. The Water Committee would provide timely reports to the City Council on the shortage and success of measures taken. If curtailment reaches Stage III or Stage IV, daily supply figures are reported to the Director of Utilities and the Water Committee. The Water Committee would report monthly to City Council or as frequently as information is requested by the City Council. Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance/Resolution Law 10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of the urban water supplier: …(8) A draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance. The City has experienced three instances of water shortage due to drought in the last 35 years. A shorter duration drought occurred in l976‐77, and a longer water supply deficit occurred between l987 and l993. The current drought is ongoing. Appendix F provides a draft model ordinance that could be implemented during a water shortage emergency. 87 Section 8 – Supply and Demand Comparison Provisions Law 10635 (a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five‐year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from the state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier. Supply and Demand Comparison Since the City’s primary water supply is from the SFPUC, it is useful to examine the supply‐ demand comparison for the entire SFPUC system. Table 25 illustrates total system deliveries for both the retail and wholesale SFPUC customers. It indicates that during normal precipitation years, the SFPUC has adequate supplies to meet its contractual obligation to the wholesale customers of 184 MGD. Table 25: SFPUC System Supply (MGD)43 In adopting the WSIP, the SFPUC approved a water supply plan that provides for an Interim Supply Allocation with an automatic sunset in 2018. For the period up to the sunset of the ISL in 2018, Palo Alto’s Interim Supply Allocation is 14.70 MGD44. The SFPUC has deferred consideration of several supply issues until 2018 pending additional studies and analysis of the SFPUC system. For purposes of the 2015 UWMP, the SFPUC has provided a supply commitment of 184 MGD for the wholesale agencies through 2030. The City has an ISG of 17.07 MGD (or 19,118 AFY) and projects demands will remain below the City’s ISG through the 2010 UWMP planning horizon. Table 26 represents the City’s Supply and Demand balance for the 2015 planning horizon based on the City’s contractual entitlement with the SFPUC. 43 Letter from Paula Kehoe, SFPUC Director of Water Resources, to Nicole Sandkulla, BAWSCA, dated February 22, 2010. 44 As stated in earlier sections, the SFPUC unilaterally imposed the ISL on the BAWSCA agencies without prior agreement or discussion. The legality of the ISL is a potential future issue if deliveries from the regional system exceed the 265 MGD threshold for the ISL. Palo Alto’s ISG is a perpetual entitlement that can only be reduced pursuant to the terms outlined in the WSA. For planning purposes the City relies solely on the ISG. 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Wholesale Supply Total 184 184 184 184 184 SFPUC Retail Supply 81 81 81 81 81 System Supply Totals 265 265 265 265 265 88 Table 26: City of Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AF) As previously discussed, projects as described in the WSIP will be required to meet demands during multiple dry years. The new water sources assumed to be available, with implementation dates, are summarized in Table 27. Table 27: SFPUC Water Supply Assumptions (AF/Y)45 46 Given the additional supplies assumed to be available, Appendix I Illustrates the level of single and multi-year water delivery shortages that can be expected in the future based on historical hydrologic periods and assuming the Wholesale customer normal year demand remains at 184 MGD. 45 Schedule for restoration of Crystal Springs Reservoir storage is tied to permitting requirements for endangered plants. 46 Release from Crystal Springs Reservoir to meet minimum in-stream flow requirement in San Mateo Creek began in January 2015. 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Palo Alto Demand for SFPUC Water 10,724 11,883 11,411 11,132 10,879 Individual Supply Guarantee 19,118 19,118 19,118 19,118 19,118 Difference 8,394 7,235 7,707 7,986 8,239 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2035 Westside Basin Groundwater (AF/Y) 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100 Districts Transfer (AF/Y) 2,240 2,240 2,240 2,240 2,240 Crystal Springs Reservoir Capacity (20.3 BG)x x x x Calaveras Reservoir at Full Capacity x x x x x Alameda Creek Recapture (9.3 MGD)x x x x x Crystal Springs Reservoir Release for In-Stream Flow to San Mateo Creek (3.5 MGD) x x x x x x Calaveras Reservoir Release and Alameda Creek Diversion Dam Bypass for In- Stream Flow to Alameda Creek x x x x x Reservoir Operation Affecting Supply Water Supply Source 89 The impact on the City will depend on how the shortage is applied to the City. For water shortages up to 20%, the Tier One water shortage plan will be applied. The formula included in the Tier One plan indicates that the cutback for the City will be similar to the system‐wide cutback, but less than the average BAWSCA cutback. For system‐wide shortages greater than 20%, the SFPUC will follow the Tier One plan up to the 20% reduction, and meet and discuss incremental reductions above the Tier One plan with the wholesale customers. The SFPUC has the authority to make final allocation decision for the portion above 20%, though the wholesale customers have the contractual right to challenge the proposed approach.47 During a severe drought the City could utilize groundwater to supplement SFPUC supplies, but the City anticipates that even in dire circumstances only a small amount of groundwater would be served (e.g. < 10% of overall demand). In response to a severe drought the City would work with residents and businesses to significantly reduce water use, and groundwater from City wells would be considered a supplemental resource. Additional information on the City’s drought response is included in Section 7, “Water Shortage Contingency Plan.” 47 WSA, Section 3.11 (c )(3) 90 Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing. 91 APPENDIX A ‐ Resolution Adopting UWMP 92 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan to be Submitted to the California Department of Resources R E C I T A L S A. The California Legislature has enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act, California Water Code Sections 10610 - 10656, as amended, which requires every urban water supplier providing water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to prepare an urban water management plan ("Plan") that has as its primary objective the conservation and efficient use of water. B. The City of Palo Alto ("City"), a municipal utility and chartered city, is an urban water supplier providing water to a population over 60,000. C. The Plan must be reviewed at least once every five years by the City, which must amend the Plan, as necessary, after it has conducted a review. D. The preparation of the updated Plan has been coordinated with other public agencies to the extent practicable, and staff has encouraged the active involvement of diverse social, cultural and economic sectors of the population within the City's retail water service area during preparation of the Plan. E. The Plan must be adopted by July 1, 2016, after it is first made available for public inspection and a public hearing is noticed and held, and it must be filed with the California Department of Water Resources within thirty days of adoption. F. After reviewing a draft Plan at their April 12, 2016 meeting, the Utilities Advisory Commission recommended that the Council adopt the Plan as presented; and G. A noticed public hearing on the revised draft Plan was held by the City Council on May _______, 2016, at which time public comments were heard and considered. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan of the City of Palo Alto, which shall be filed with the City Clerk. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan of the City of Palo Alto with the California Department of Water Resources and the State Library. 93 SECTION 2. The Council finds and determines that, under the California Water Code Section 10652, the adoption of the Plan and this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no environmental assessment is required. 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 94 APPENDIX B ‐ Public Participation Notices 95 APPENDIX C ‐ Water Loss Report 96 Water Audit Report for:City of Palo Alto Reporting Year: All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR WATER SUPPLIED Volume from own sources:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr Master meter error adjustment (enter positive value):n/a 0.000 Water imported:9 12,642.684 acre-ft/yr Water exported:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr WATER SUPPLIED:12,642.684 acre-ft/yr . AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION Billed metered:7 11,584.745 acre-ft/yr Billed unmetered:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr Unbilled metered:n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr Pcnt:Value: Unbilled unmetered:158.034 acre-ft/yr 1.25%24061 AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:11,742.779 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption)899.905 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt:Value: Unauthorized consumption:31.607 acre-ft/yr 0.25% Customer metering inaccuracies:5 277.615 acre-ft/yr 0.25% Systematic data handling errors:10 28.962 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses:338.183 Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses:561.722 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES:899.905 acre-ft/yr NON-REVENUE WATER NON-REVENUE WATER:1,057.938 acre-ft/yr = Total Water Loss + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA Length of mains:8 236.0 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections:6 27,701 Connection density:117 conn./mile main Average length of customer service line:5 0.0 ft Average operating pressure:10 72.2 psi COST DATA Total annual cost of operating water system:10 $39,097,916 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses):9 $7.62 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses):10 $1,067.22 $/acre-ft PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Financial Indicators Non-revenue water as percent by volume of Water Supplied:8.4% Non-revenue water as percent by cost of operating system:4.8% Annual cost of Apparent Losses:$1,122,379 Annual cost of Real Losses:$599,480 Operational Efficiency Indicators Apparent Losses per service connection per day:10.90 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per service connection per day*:18.10 gallons/connection/day Real Losses per length of main per day*:N/A Real Losses per service connection per day per psi pressure:0.25 gallons/connection/day/psi Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL):439.30 acre-feet/year From Above, Real Losses = Current Annual Real Losses (CARL):561.72 acre-feet/year 1.28 * only the most applicable of these two indicators will be calculated WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: 1: Customer metering inaccuracies 2: Billed metered 3: Water imported Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: *** YOUR SCORE IS: 82 out of 100 *** Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) [CARL/UARL]: Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed $/100 cubic feet (ccf) A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score 277.615 Choose this option to enter a percentage of billed metered consumption. This is NOT a default value Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed AWWA WLCC Free Water Audit Software: Reporting Worksheet 2014 7/2013 - 6/2014 << Enter grading in column 'E' acre-ft/yr ? ? ? ? ? ?Click to access definition ? ? ? ? ? ? Back to Instructions Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (pipe length between curbstop and customer meter or property boundary) Use buttons to selectpercentage of water supplied OR value ?Click here: for help using option buttons below For more information, click here to see the Grading Matrix worksheet ? Copyright © 2010, American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved. ? ? ? ? WAS v4.2 97 APPENDIX D – DWR Standardized Tables 98 Public Water System Number Public Water System Name Number of Municipal Connections 2015 Volume of Water Supplied 2015 4310009 City of Palo Alto 19,863 10,177 19863 10,177 Table 2-1 Retail Only: Public Water Systems NOTES: TOTAL RUWMP includes a Regional Alliance RUWMP does not include a Regional Alliance Table 2-2: Plan Identification (Select One) Select One: Individual UWMP Regional UWMP (RUWMP) (checking this triggers the next line to appear) NOTES: Agency is a wholesaler Agency is a retailer UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years Unit AF NOTES: Table 2-3: Agency Identification Type of Agency (select one or both) Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one) If Using Fiscal Years Provide Month and Day that the Fiscal Year Begins (dd/mm) Units of Measure Used in UWMP (select from Drop down) 1/7 99 Table 2-4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange The retail supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with CWC 10631. Wholesale Water Supplier Name (Add additional rows as needed) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission NOTES: 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040(opt) 67,400 70,500 73,700 77,100 80,800 84,600 Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected Population Served NOTES: Table 3 in UWMP Use Type (Add additional rows as needed) Use Drop down list May select each use multiple times These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool Additional Description (as needed) Level of Treatment When Delivered Drop down list Volume Single Family Drinking Water 4,554 Multi-Family Drinking Water 1,530 Commercial Drinking Water 1,911 Industrial Drinking Water 397 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 623 Landscape Drinking Water 1,163 10,177 Table 4-1 Retail: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Actual 2015 Actual NOTES: Table 11 in UWMP TOTAL Use Type (Add additional rows as needed) Use Drop down list May select each use multiple times These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040-opt Single Family 4,972 4,829 4,712 4,605 4,523 Multi-Family 1,670 1,622 1,583 1,547 1,519 Commercial 2,086 2,026 1,977 1,932 1,898 Industrial 434 421 411 402 394 Institutional/Governmental 680 661 645 630 619 Landscape 1,269 1,233 1,203 1,176 1,155 11110.84 10792.76 10529.91 10291.67 10107.97 Table 4-2 Retail: Demands for Potable and Raw Water - Projected Additional Description (as needed) Projected Water Use Report To the Extent that Records are Available NOTES: Table 11 in UWMP TOTAL 100 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (opt) Potable and Raw Water From Tables 4-1 and 4-2 10,177 11,111 10,793 10,530 10,292 10,108 Recycled Water Demand From Table 6-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 10,177 11,111 10,793 10,530 10,292 10,108 Table 4-3 Retail: Total Water Demands NOTES: Reporting Period Start Date (mm/yyyy) Volume of Water Loss 07/2013 562 NOTES: Table 4-4 Retail: 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? (Refer to Appendix K of UWMP Guidebook) Drop down list (y/n) No If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, etc… utilized in demand projections are found. Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Drop down list (y/n)Yes Table 4-5 Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections NOTES: Baseline Period Start Year End Year Average Baseline GPCD* 2015 Interim Target * Confirmed 2020 Target* 10-15 year 1995 2004 225 212 180 5 Year 2003 2007 208 Table 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary Retail Agency or Regional Alliance Only *All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: Extraordinary Events Economic Adjustment Weather Normalization TOTAL Adjustments Adjusted 2015 GPCD 153 198 0 0 0 0 153 153 Yes *All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: Table 5-2: 2015 Compliance Retail Agency or Regional Alliance Only* Actual 2015 GPCD 2015 Interim Target GPCD 2015 GPCD (Adjusted if applicable) Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2015? Y/N Optional Adjustments to 2015 GPCD Enter "0" for adjustments not used From Methodology 8 101 Groundwater Type Drop Down List May use each category multiple times Location or Basin Name 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 0 0 0 0 Table 6-1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped Supplier does not pump groundwater. The supplier will not complete the table below. NOTES: TOTAL Add additional rows as needed Name of Wastewater Collection Agency Wastewater Volume Metered or Estimated? Drop Down List Volume of Wastewater Collected in 2015 Name of Wastewater Treatment Agency Receiving Collected Wastewater Treatment Plant Name Is WWTP Located Within UWMP Area? Drop Down List Is WWTP Operation Contracted to a Third Party? (optional) Drop Down List City of Palo Alto Metered 21,616 City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Yes No 21,616 Table 6-2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2015 NOTES: Recipient of Collected Wastewater Total Wastewater Collected from Service Area in 2015: There is no wastewater collection system. The supplier will not complete the table below. Percentage of 2015 service area population covered by wastewater collection system (optional) Percentage of 2015 service area covered by wastewater collection system (optional) Wastewater Collection Add additional rows as needed Wastewater Treated Discharged Treated Wastewater Recycled Within Service Area Recycled Outside of Service Area Regional Water Quality Control Plant San Francisco Bay Bay or estuary outfall Yes Tertiary 21,616 19,759 818 410 Regional Water Quality Control Plant Bay via Emily Renzel Marsh Wetlands Yes Tertiary 629 Total 21,616 20,388 818 410 NOTES: Table 6-3 Retail: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area in 2015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Name Discharge Location Name or Identifier Discharge Location Description Wastewater Discharge ID Number (optional) Method of Disposal Drop down list Does This Plant Treat Wastewater Generated Outside the Service Area? Treatment Level Drop down list 2015 volumes No wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area. The supplier will not complete the table below. Add additional rows as needed 102 General Description of 2015 Uses Level of Treatment Drop down list 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (opt) Agricultural irrigation Landscape irrigation (excludes golf courses)Parks Tertiary 175 172 172 172 172 Golf course irrigation Palo Alto Municipal Tertiary 166 196 196 196 196 Commercial use RWQCP Tertiary 448 448 448 448 448 Geothermal and other energy production Seawater intrusion barrier Recreational impoundment Wetlands or wildlife habitat Palo Alto Duck Pond Tertiary 29 34 34 34 34 Groundwater recharge (IPR) Surface water augmentation (IPR) Direct potable reuse Other Type of Use Total:818 850 850 850 850 0 Recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier. The supplier will not complete the table below. Table 6-4 Retail: Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Name of Agency Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water: Name of Agency Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System: Industrial use NOTES: Supplemental Water Added in 2015 Source of 2015 Supplemental Water Beneficial Use Type These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by the DWR online submittal tool IPR - Indirect Potable Reuse 2010 Projection for 2015 2015 actual use Landscape irrigation (excludes golf courses) Geothermal and other energy production Other Required for this use 850 815 850 815 Recycled water was not used in 2010 nor projected for use in 2015. The supplier will not complete the table below. Table 6-5 Retail: 2010 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2015 Actual Use Type These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool NOTES: Recycled water was used in 2010 but the City did not provide a detailed 2015 recycled water use forecast. Total Groundwater recharge (IPR) Direct potable reuse Agricultural irrigation Industrial use Seawater intrusion barrier Recreational impoundment Wetlands or wildlife habitat Surface water augmentation (IPR) Golf course irrigation Commercial use 32-34 Name of Action Description Planned Implementation Year Expected Increase in Recycled Water Use 0 Table 6-6 Retail: Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use Total NOTES: Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation. Provide page location of narrative in UWMP Add additional rows as needed 103 21-25 Drop Down List (y/n)If Yes, Agency Name No expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the agency's water supply. Supplier will not complete the table below. Some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format. Table 6-7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs Joint Project with other agencies? NOTES: Name of Future Projects or Programs Description (if needed) Planned Implementation Year Expected Increase in Water Supply to Agency This may be a range Planned for Use in Year Type Drop Down List User may select more than one. Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP Add additional rows as needed Water Supply Drop down list May use each category multiple times. These are the only water supply categories that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool Actual Volume Water Quality Drop Down List Total Right or Safe Yield (optional) Purchased or Imported Water SFPUC Regional Water Supply System 10,724 Drinking Water Recycled Water Recycled water from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 858 Recycled Water 11,582 0 Table 6‐8 Retail: Water Supplies — Actual Additional Detail on Water Supply 2015 NOTES: Table 5 in UWMP Total Add additional rows as needed Water Supply Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield (optional) Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield (optional) Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield (optional) Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield (optional) Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield (optional) Purchased or Imported Water SFPUC Regional Water System 12,692 12,692 12,692 12,692 12,692 Recycled Water Recycled water from Regional Water Quality Control Plant 850 850 850 850 850 13,542 0 13,542 0 13,542 0 13,542 0 13,542 0 NOTES: Table 9 and Table 24 in UWMP Table 6‐9 Retail: Water Supplies — Projected Additional Detail on Water Supply Projected Water Supply Report To the Extent Practicable 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (opt) Total Drop down list May use each category multiple times. These are the only water supply categories that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool Add additional rows as needed 104 Volume Available % of Average Supply Average Year 2013 12,692 100% Single-Dry Year 2013 12,692 100% Multiple-Dry Years 1st Year 2013 12,692 100% Multiple-Dry Years 2nd Year 2013 11,425 90% Multiple-Dry Years 3rd Year 2013 11,425 90% Multiple-Dry Years 4th Year Optional Multiple-Dry Years 5th Year Optional Multiple-Dry Years 6th Year Optional NOTES: Table 24 in UWMP Agency may use multiple versions of Table 7-1 if different water sources have different base years and the supplier chooses to report the base years for each water source separately. If an agency uses multiple versions of Table 7-1, in the "Note" section of each table, state that multiple versions of Table 7- 1 are being used and identify the particular water source that is being reported in each table. Table 7-1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data Year Type Base Year Agency may provide volume only, percent only, or both Available Supplies if Year Type Repeats 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt) Supply totals (autofill from Table 6-9)13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 Demand totals (autofill from Table 4-3)11,961 11,643 11,380 11,142 10,108 Difference 1,581 1,899 2,162 2,400 3,434 Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison NOTES: 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt) Supply totals 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 Demand totals 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Table 7-3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison NOTES: SFPUC supply plus recycled water 105 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt) Supply totals 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 Demand totals 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Supply totals 12,275 12,275 12,275 12,275 12,275 Demand totals 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 Difference (1,267)(1,267)(1,267)(1,267)(1,267) Supply totals 12,275 12,275 12,275 12,275 12,275 Demand totals 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 13,542 Difference (1,267)(1,267)(1,267)(1,267)(1,267) Supply totals Demand totals Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Supply totals Demand totals Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Supply totals Demand totals Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison First year Second year Third year NOTES: Fourth year (optional) Fifth year (optional) Sixth year (optional) Percent Supply Reduction1 Numerical value as a percent Water Supply Condition (Narrative description) I 5-10%Minimum Water Shortage II 10-20%Moderate Water Shortage III 20-35%Severe Water Shortage IV 35-50%Critical Water Shortage Table 8-1 Retail Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan Stage Complete Both 1 One stage in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan must address a water shortage of 50%. NOTES: Add additional rows as needed 106 Stage Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Drop down list These are the only categories that will be accepted by the WUEdata online submittal tool Additional Explanation or Reference (optional) Penalty, Charge, or Other Enforcement? Drop Down List I Permanent restrictions in place with increased outreach Yes II Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition No irrigation with potable water within 48 hours after measurable rainfall Yes II Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days 3 days per week April- October and 1 day per week November -March Yes II Other - Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces Health and safety excepted Yes II CII - Restaurants may only serve water upon request Yes II CII - Lodging establishment must offer opt out of linen service Yes III Landscape - Limit landscape irrigation to specific days 2 days per week April- october Yes III Other water feature or swimming pool restriction Filling of newly constructed pools, spas and hot tubs prohibited Yes III Other Water allocations may be imposed Yes III CII - Other CII restriction or prohibition Irrigation with potable water on golf courses limited to putting greens and tees Yes IV Other No new service connections unless customer pays for offsetting ocnservation Yes IV Landscape - Other landscape restriction or prohibition Drought-tolerant landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff required at construction sites Yes IV Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation Ornamental and turf irrigation Yes IV Other - Prohibit vehicle washing except at facilities using recycled or recirculating water Yes IV Landscape - Prohibit certain types of landscape irrigation Sprinkler irrigation prohibited Yes Table 8-2 Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses NOTES: Add additional rows as needed 107 Stage Consumption Reduction Methods by Water Supplier Drop down list These are the only categories that will be accepted by the WUEdata online submittal tool Additional Explanation or Reference (optional) I Expand Public Information Campaign I Offer Water Use Surveys I Provide Rebates on Plumbing Fixtures and Devices I Provide Rebates for Landscape Irrigation Efficiency I Provide Rebates for Turf Replacement II Other Offer free low-cost water saving devises II Increase Water Waste Patrols II Implement or Modify Drought Rate Structure or Surcharge III Other Possible allocations IV Other All of the above at increased levels Table 8-3 Retail Only: Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan - Consumption Reduction Methods NOTES: Pages 80-84 in UWMP Add additional rows as needed 2016 2017 2018 Available Water Supply 12,692 11,425 11,425 Table 8-4 Retail: Minimum Supply Next Three Years NOTES: Table 24 in UWMP 108 City Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Fremont San Mateo Brisbane x x Burlingame x x Daly City x x Hayward x x Millbrae x x Milpitas x x Mountain view x x Redwood City x x San Bruno x x Santa Clara x x Sunnyvale x x Half Moon Bay x x East Palo Alto x x Foster City x x Menlo Park x x Belmont x x Pacifica x x Los Altos Hills x x San Jose x x Stanford x x Hillsborough x x South San Francisco x x San Jose County Name Drop Down List 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Santa Clara County NOTES: Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties Add additional rows as needed Add additional rows as needed 109 SB X7-7 Table 0: Units of Measure Used in UWMP* (select one from the drop down list) Acre Feet *The unit of measure must be consistent with Table 2-3 NOTES: Parameter Value Units 2008 total water deliveries 15,215.00 Acre Feet 2008 total volume of delivered recycled water 968 Acre Feet 2008 recycled water as a percent of total deliveries 6.37%Percent Number of years in baseline period1 10 Years Year beginning baseline period range 1995 Year ending baseline period range2 2004 Number of years in baseline period 5 Years Year beginning baseline period range 2003 Year ending baseline period range3 2007 SB X7-7 Table-1: Baseline Period Ranges 1If the 2008 recycled water percent is less than 10 percent, then the first baseline period is a continuous 10-year period. If the amount of recycled water delivered in 2008 is 10 percent or greater, the first baseline period is a continuous 10- to 15-year period. 2The ending year must be between December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2010. 3The ending year must be between December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2010. 5-year baseline period Baseline 10- to 15-year baseline period NOTES: NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 2: Method for Population Estimates Method Used to Determine Population (may check more than one) 1. Department of Finance (DOF) DOF Table E-8 (1990 - 2000) and (2000-2010) and DOF Table E-5 (2011 - 2015) when available 3. DWR Population Tool 4. Other DWR recommends pre-review 2. Persons-per-Connection Method 110 Population Year 1 1995 56,647 Year 2 1996 56,885 Year 3 1997 57,420 Year 4 1998 57,868 Year 5 1999 58,136 Year 6 2000 58,467 Year 7 2001 59,334 Year 8 2002 60,028 Year 9 2003 59,930 Year 10 2004 59,894 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 1 2003 59,930 Year 2 2004 59,894 Year 3 2005 60,319 Year 4 2006 60,992 Year 5 2007 61,323 67,400 SB X7-7 Table 3: Service Area Population 10 to 15 Year Baseline Population 5 Year Baseline Population 2015 Compliance Year Population NOTES: Year 2015 111 Exported Water Change in Dist. System Storage (+/-) Indirect Recycled Water Fm SB X7-7 Table 4-B Water Delivered for Agricultural Use Process Water Fm SB X7-7 Table(s) 4-D Year 1 1995 13217.4816 0 0 0 0 0 13,217 Year 2 1996 15947.4105 0 0 0 0 0 15,947 Year 3 1997 15277.197 0 0 0 0 0 15,277 Year 4 1998 13676.2121 0 0 0 0 0 13,676 Year 5 1999 14610.8976 0 0 0 0 0 14,611 Year 6 2000 15426.6322 0 0 0 0 0 15,427 Year 7 2001 15449.9908 0 0 0 0 0 15,450 Year 8 2002 14775.4729 0 0 0 0 0 14,775 Year 9 2003 14174.3044 0 0 0 0 0 14,174 Year 10 2004 14978.5445 0 0 0 0 0 14,979 Year 11 0 0 0 0 0 Year 12 0 0 0 0 0 Year 13 0 0 0 0 0 Year 14 0 0 0 0 0 Year 15 0 0 0 0 0 9,836 Year 1 2003 14,174 0 0 0 0 0 14,174 Year 2 2004 14,979 0 0 0 0 0 14,979 Year 3 2005 13,538 0 0 0 0 0 13,538 Year 4 2006 13,322 0 0 0 0 0 13,322 Year 5 2007 14,603 0 0 0 0 0 14,603 14,123 10,724 0 0 0 0 0 10,724 Baseline Year Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Volume Into Distribution System Fm SB X7-7 Table(s) 4-A Annual Gross Water Use Deductions * NOTE that the units of measure must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in Table 2-3 NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 4: Annual Gross Water Use * 2015 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Gross Water Use 10 - 15 year baseline average gross water use 5 Year Baseline - Gross Water Use 5 year baseline average gross water use 2015 Compliance Year - Gross Water Use 112 Volume Entering Distribution System Meter Error Adjustment* Optional (+/-) Corrected Volume Entering Distribution System Year 1 1995 13217.4816 0 13,217 Year 2 1996 15947.4105 0 15,947 Year 3 1997 15277.197 0 15,277 Year 4 1998 13676.2121 0 13,676 Year 5 1999 14610.8976 0 14,611 Year 6 2000 15426.6322 0 15,427 Year 7 2001 15449.9908 0 15,450 Year 8 2002 14775.4729 0 14,775 Year 9 2003 14174.3044 0 14,174 Year 10 2004 14978.5445 0 14,979 Year 11 0 0 Year 12 0 0 Year 13 0 0 Year 14 0 0 Year 15 0 0 Year 1 2003 14174.3044 0 14,174 Year 2 2004 14978.5445 0 14,979 Year 3 2005 13537.5689 0 13,538 Year 4 2006 13321.6506 0 13,322 Year 5 2007 14603.0762 0 14,603 10724.1345 0 10,724 SB X7-7 Table 4-A: Volume Entering the Distribution System(s) Complete one table for each source. 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System 5 Year Baseline - Water into Distribution System 2015 Compliance Year - Water into Distribution System Name of Source Baseline Year Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 * Meter Error Adjustment - See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document NOTES: This water source is: The supplier's own water source A purchased or imported source 2015 SFPUC 113 Gross Water Use Without Process Water Deduction Industrial Water Use Percent Industrial Water Eligible for Exclusion Y/N Year 1 1995 13,217 0%NO Year 2 1996 15,947 0%NO Year 3 1997 15,277 0%NO Year 4 1998 13,676 0%NO Year 5 1999 14,611 0%NO Year 6 2000 15,427 0%NO Year 7 2001 15,450 0%NO Year 8 2002 14,775 0%NO Year 9 2003 14,174 0%NO Year 10 2004 14,979 0%NO Year 11 0 0 NO Year 12 0 0 NO Year 13 0 0 NO Year 14 0 0 NO Year 15 0 0 NO Year 1 2003 14,174 0%NO Year 2 2004 14,979 0%NO Year 3 2005 13,538 0%NO Year 4 2006 13,322 0%NO Year 5 2007 14,603 0%NO 10,724 0%NO NOTES: 2015 SB X7-7 Table 4-C.1: Process Water Deduction Eligibility Criteria 1 Industrial water use is equal to or greater than 12% of gross water use Baseline Year Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Process Water Deduction Eligibility 5 Year Baseline - Process Water Deduction Eligibility 2015 Compliance Year - Process Water Deduction Eligiblity 114 Industrial Water Use Population Industrial GPCD Eligible for Exclusion Y/N Year 1 1995 56,647 0 NO Year 2 1996 56,885 0 NO Year 3 1997 57,420 0 NO Year 4 1998 57,868 0 NO Year 5 1999 58,136 0 NO Year 6 2000 58,467 0 NO Year 7 2001 59,334 0 NO Year 8 2002 60,028 0 NO Year 9 2003 59,930 0 NO Year 10 2004 59,894 0 NO Year 11 0 0 NO Year 12 0 0 NO Year 13 0 0 NO Year 14 0 0 NO Year 15 0 0 NO Year 1 2003 59,930 0 NO Year 2 2004 59,894 0 NO Year 3 2005 60,319 0 NO Year 4 2006 60,992 0 NO Year 5 2007 61,323 0 NO 67,400 0 NO NOTES: 2015 SB X7-7 Table 4-C.2: Process Water Deduction Eligibility Criteria 2 Industrial water use is equal to or greater than 15 GPCD Baseline Year Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Process Water Deduction Eligibility 5 Year Baseline - Process Water Deduction Eligibility 2015 Compliance Year - Process Water Deduction Eligibility 115 Gross Water Use Without Process Water Deduction Fm SB X7-7 Table 4 Industrial Water Use Non-industrial Water Use Population Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Non- Industrial GPCD Eligible for Exclusion Y/N Year 1 1995 13,217 13,217 56,647 208 NO Year 2 1996 15,947 15,947 56,885 250 NO Year 3 1997 15,277 15,277 57,420 238 NO Year 4 1998 13,676 13,676 57,868 211 NO Year 5 1999 14,611 14,611 58,136 224 NO Year 6 2000 15,427 15,427 58,467 236 NO Year 7 2001 15,450 15,450 59,334 232 NO Year 8 2002 14,775 14,775 60,028 220 NO Year 9 2003 14,174 14,174 59,930 211 NO Year 10 2004 14,979 14,979 59,894 223 NO Year 11 0 0 0 0 NO Year 12 0 0 0 0 NO Year 13 0 0 0 0 NO Year 14 0 0 0 0 NO Year 15 0 0 0 0 NO Year 1 2003 14,174 14,174 59,930 211 NO Year 2 2004 14,979 14,979 59,894 223 NO Year 3 2005 13,538 13,538 60,319 200 NO Year 4 2006 13,322 13,322 60,992 195 NO Year 5 2007 14,603 14,603 61,323 213 NO 10,724 10,724 67,400 142 NO NOTES: 2015 SB X7-7 Table 4-C.3: Process Water Deduction Eligibility Criteria 3 Non-industrial use is equal to or less than 120 GPCD Baseline Year Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 10 to 15 Year Baseline - Process Water Deduction Eligibility 5 Year Baseline - Process Water Deduction Eligibility 2015 Compliance Year - Process Water Deduction Eligiblity Service Area Median Household Income Percentage of Statewide Average Eligible for Exclusion? Y/N 2010 $53,046 0%YES NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 4-C.4: Process Water Deduction Eligibility Criteria 4 Disadvantaged Community Use IRWM DAC Mapping tool http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resources_dac.cfm California Median Household Income 2015 Compliance Year - Process Water Deduction Eligibility A “Disadvantaged Community” is a community with a median household income less than 80 percent of the statewide average. 116 Service Area Population Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Annual Gross Water Use Fm SB X7-7 Table 4 Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) Year 1 1995 56,647 13,217 208 Year 2 1996 56,885 15,947 250 Year 3 1997 57,420 15,277 238 Year 4 1998 57,868 13,676 211 Year 5 1999 58,136 14,611 224 Year 6 2000 58,467 15,427 236 Year 7 2001 59,334 15,450 232 Year 8 2002 60,028 14,775 220 Year 9 2003 59,930 14,174 211 Year 10 2004 59,894 14,979 223 Year 11 0 0 0 Year 12 0 0 0 Year 13 0 0 0 Year 14 0 0 0 Year 15 0 0 0 225 Service Area Population Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 Gross Water Use Fm SB X7-7 Table 4 Daily Per Capita Water Use Year 1 2003 59,930 14,174 211 Year 2 2004 59,894 14,979 223 Year 3 2005 60,319 13,538 200 Year 4 2006 60,992 13,322 195 Year 5 2007 61,323 14,603 213 208 67,400 10,724 142 SB X7-7 Table 5: Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) Baseline Year Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 10 to 15 Year Baseline GPCD 10-15 Year Average Baseline GPCD 5 Year Baseline GPCD NOTES: 5 Year Average Baseline GPCD 2015 Compliance Year GPCD 2015 Baseline Year Fm SB X7-7 Table 3 225 208 2015 Compliance Year GPCD 142 SB X7-7 Table 6: Gallons per Capita per Day Summary From Table SB X7-7 Table 5 10-15 Year Baseline GPCD 5 Year Baseline GPCD NOTES: 117 Supporting Documentation Method 1 SB X7-7 Table 7A Method 2 SB X7-7 Tables 7B, 7C, and 7D Contact DWR for these tables Method 3 SB X7-7 Table 7-E Method 4 Method 4 Calculator SB X7-7 Table 7: 2020 Target Method Select Only One Target Method NOTES: 10-15 Year Baseline GPCD 2020 Target GPCD 225 180 SB X7-7 Table 7-A: Target Method 1 20% Reduction NOTES: 5 Year Baseline GPCD From SB X7-7 Table 5 Maximum 2020 Target* Calculated 2020 Target Fm Appropriate Target Table Confirmed 2020 Target 208 198 180 180 SB X7-7 Table 7-F: Confirm Minimum Reduction for 2020 Target * Maximum 2020 Target is 95% of the 5 Year Baseline GPCD NOTES: Confirmed 2020 Target Fm SB X7-7 Table 7-F 10-15 year Baseline GPCD Fm SB X7-7 Table 5 2015 Interim Target GPCD 180 225 203 SB X7-7 Table 8: 2015 Interim Target GPCD NOTES: Extraordinary Events Weather Normalization Economic Adjustment TOTAL Adjustments Adjusted 2015 GPCD 142 203 From Methodology 8 (Optional) From Methodology 8 (Optional) From Methodology 8 (Optional) 0 142.0458502 142.0458502 YES Optional Adjustments (in GPCD) NOTES: SB X7-7 Table 9: 2015 Compliance Did Supplier Achieve Targeted Reduction for 2015? Actual 2015 GPCD 2015 Interim Target GPCD 2015 GPCD (Adjusted if applicable) 118 APPENDIX E – City of Palo Alto Resolution Approving Water Shortage Allocation Plan (w/attachments) 119 120 121 122 TABLE 1- FIXED COMPONENT FOR USE IN TIER TWO ALLOCATION CALCULATION Wholesale Customer Fixed Comnonent ACWD 13.76 Brisbane/GVMID 0.98 Burlingame 5.23 Coastside 2.18 CWS Total 35.68 Daly City 4.29 East Palo Alto 1.96 Estero 5.90 Hayward 25.11 Hillsborough 4.09 Menlo Park 4.46 Mid Pen WD 3.89 Millbrae 3.15 Milpitas 9.23 Mountain View 13.46 North Coast 3.84 Palo Alto 17.07 Purissima Hills 1.62 Redwood City 10.93 San Bruno 3.25 San Jose 4.50 Santa Clara 4.50 Stanford 3.03 Sunnyvale 12.58 Westborough 1.32 123 TABLE 2 - BASE/SEASONAL CUTBACK CALCULATION FOR TIER TWO DROUGHT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (DRIP) (Steps 1b-1f of DRIP Calculation) 124 Page 2 3. Base-Seasonal Alloc-Tbl 2 tables 125 APPENDIX F ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Draft Ordinance 126 127 APPENDIX G ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Evaluation Criteria 128 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. 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 129 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. 130 APPENDIX H ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Use Restrictions 131 WATER USE RESTRICTIONS Water use restrictions will depend on local conditions and on the length of the water shortage or drought. The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan identifies measures appropriate for various stages of action, based on reduction targets for each stage. Section A of this Appendix describes the City’s existing water use regulations. Section A-1 of this Appendix describes additional proposed permanent water use regulations to be adopted by City Council Ordinance. The restrictions in Section B are additional restrictions that could be applied in various stages or a drought or other water supply shortage. These staged restrictions are intended to serve as tools within the broader framework of the Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan, to help the City reduce potable water consumption. Implementation of individual restrictions within each stage shall be carried out at the direction of the City Council, in response to its assessment of local water supply conditions, feasibility, and consumption trends. The Council may, in its discretion, opt to revise, delete or include different elements than those described below, so long as the restrictions implemented serve the overall purpose of reducing local consumption. A. Permanent Water Use Regulations (See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.32.010) 1. Flooding or runoff of potable water into gutters, driveways, sidewalks, streets or other unlandscaped areas is prohibited. 2. An operating shut-off valve is required for hoses used to wash cars, boats, trailers, buses or other vehicles, or to wash sidewalks, building structures, other hard-surfaced areas or parts thereof. Use of a hose for such purposes should be avoided whenever possible. 3. Potable water for consolidation of backfill and other nondomestic uses in construction shall not be used if other water sources, such as reclaimed water, are available, as determined by the Director of Utilities or his or her designee. Applicants for hydrant permits from the city of Palo Alto shall be deemed to have consented to restrictions on water use which may be imposed by the Director of Utilities or his or her designee. 4. Any broken or defective plumbing, sprinklers, watering or irrigation systems which permit the escape or leakage of water shall be repaired or replaced as soon as possible, but no later than the date established by the Director of Utilities, or his or her designee, as reasonable after observation of the broken or defective system. A-1. Proposed Additional Water Use Restrictions, to be added to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.32.010. 5. Ornamental landscape1 or turf irrigation with potable water shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except via hand watering with a bucket or a hose with an operating shut-off valve. 132 6. The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature is prohibited, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. 7. The use of potable water for street sweepers/washers is prohibited if non-potable water is available, as determined by the Director of Utilities, or his or her designee. 8. Commercial car washes must use recycled water systems, if economically feasible. B. Additional Restrictions Available for Council’s Consideration in Droughts or Other Water Supply Shortages Stage I: No additional restrictions Stage II: 1. Irrigation with potable water during and within 48 hours after a measurable rainfall, as determined by the Director of Utilities, or his or her designee, and posted on the Palo Alto website, is prohibited. 2. The irrigation of ornamental landscapes1 or turf with potable water more than three days per week is prohibited during the months of April through October.2 2. The irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water more than one day per week is prohibited during the months of November through March. 2 3. The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. 4. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request. 5. Operators of hotels and motels shall provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. The hotel or motel shall prominently display notice of this option in each guestroom using clear and easily understood language. Stage III: All water use restrictions for Stage II, and the following: 1. The irrigation of ornamental landscapes1 or turf with potable water more than two days per week is prohibited during the months of April through October.2 2. The filling of newly constructed pools, spas and hot tubs is prohibited. 3. Water allocations may be imposed. 4. Irrigation with potable water on golf courses is limited to putting greens and tees. Stage IV: All water use restrictions for Stages II and III, and the following: 1. No new water service connections are permitted unless the customer pays for sufficient conservation measures to be applied elsewhere in the City, to offset anticipated water use at the site to be served by the new water service, as determined by the City of Palo Alto. 133 2. Drought tolerant landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff is required at new construction sites, and non-drought tolerant landscaping is prohibited. 3. Ornamental landscape and turf irrigation with potable water is prohibited. 6. The washing of all vehicles is prohibited except for at commercial washing facility that recirculates its water or uses recycled water. 7. Sprinkler irrigation is prohibited. 1 “Ornamental landscapes” serve purely decorative purposes, and are distinguished from trees, edible gardens or landscapes that provide more than a purely aesthetic function. 2 Customers with a public or private non-residential facility containing ornamental landscapes or turf which supports a demonstrable business necessity or public benefit may apply for City approval of an alternative irrigation schedule. 134 APPENDIX I – Single and Multi Year Delivery Shortages 135 This table shows the SFPUC supplies that would be able to be delivered to the wholesale agencies in different hydrological conditions represented by each year from 1920 through 2011. This assumes that the wholesale customer demand is 184 MGD. The deliveries highlighted in yellow show hydrological years when a system-wide supply shortage of 10% would be experienced and the deliveries to the wholesale customers would be reduced by more than 15%. The deliveries shown highlighted in orange and bold are in years when a system-wide supply shortage of 20% would result in supplies to wholesale customers being reduced by more than 25%. Wholesale Demand=184 MGD Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 1920 184 184 184 184 184 1921 184 184 184 184 184 1922 184 184 184 184 184 1923 184 184 184 184 184 1924 184 184 184 184 184 1925 154.6 184 184 184 184 1926 184 184 184 184 184 1927 184 184 184 184 184 1928 184 184 184 184 184 1929 184 184 184 184 184 1930 184 184 184 184 184 1931 184 184 184 184 184 1932 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 1933 184 184 184 184 184 1934 184 184 184 184 184 1935 154.6 184 184 184 184 1936 184 184 184 184 184 1937 184 184 184 184 184 1938 184 184 184 184 184 1939 184 184 184 184 184 1940 184 184 184 184 184 1941 184 184 184 184 184 1942 184 184 184 184 184 1943 184 184 184 184 184 1944 184 184 184 184 184 1945 184 184 184 184 184 1946 184 184 184 184 184 1947 184 184 184 184 184 1948 184 184 184 184 184 1949 184 184 184 184 184 1950 184 184 184 184 184 1951 184 184 184 184 184 1952 184 184 184 184 184 136 Wholesale Demand=184 MGD Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 1953 184 184 184 184 184 1954 184 184 184 184 184 1955 184 184 184 184 184 1956 184 184 184 184 184 1957 184 184 184 184 184 1958 184 184 184 184 184 1959 184 184 184 184 184 1960 184 184 184 184 184 1961 152.6 184 184 184 184 1962 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 1963 184 184 184 184 184 1964 184 184 184 184 184 1965 184 184 184 184 184 1966 184 184 184 184 184 1967 184 184 184 184 184 1968 184 184 184 184 184 1969 184 184 184 184 184 1970 184 184 184 184 184 1971 184 184 184 184 184 1972 184 184 184 184 184 1973 184 184 184 184 184 1974 184 184 184 184 184 1975 184 184 184 184 184 1976 184 184 184 184 184 1977 152.6 184 184 184 184 1978 136.2 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 1979 184 184 184 184 184 1980 184 184 184 184 184 1981 184 184 184 184 184 1982 184 184 184 184 184 1983 184 184 184 184 184 1984 184 184 184 184 184 1985 184 184 184 184 184 1986 184 184 184 184 184 1987 184 184 184 184 184 1988 152.6 184 184 184 184 1989 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 1990 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 1991 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5 1992 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6 1993 136.2 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5 1994 184 184 184 184 184 137 Wholesale Demand=184 MGD Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 1995 154.6 184 184 184 184 1996 184 184 184 184 184 1997 184 184 184 184 184 1998 184 184 184 184 184 1999 184 184 184 184 184 2000 184 184 184 184 184 2001 184 184 184 184 184 2002 184 184 184 184 184 2003 184 184 184 184 184 2004 184 184 184 184 184 2005 184 184 184 184 184 2006 184 184 184 184 184 2007 184 184 184 184 184 2008 184 184 184 184 184 2009 184 184 184 184 184 2010 184 184 184 184 184 2011 184 184 184 184 184 Not Yet Approved 160229 jb 6053692 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan to be Submitted to the California Department of Resources R E C I T A L S A. The California Legislature has enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act, California Water Code Sections 10610 - 10656, as amended, which requires every urban water supplier providing water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to prepare an urban water management plan ("Plan") that has as its primary objective the conservation and efficient use of water. B. The City of Palo Alto ("City"), a municipal utility and chartered city, is an urban water supplier providing water to a population over 60,000. C. The Plan must be reviewed at least once every five years by the City, which must amend the Plan, as necessary, after it has conducted a review. D. The preparation of the updated Plan has been coordinated with other public agencies to the extent practicable, and staff has encouraged the active involvement of diverse social, cultural and economic sectors of the population within the City's retail water service area during preparation of the Plan. E. The Plan must be adopted by July 1, 2016, after it is first made available for public inspection and a public hearing is noticed and held, and it must be filed with the California Department of Water Resources within thirty days of adoption. F. After reviewing a draft Plan at their April 12, 2016 meeting, the Utilities Advisory Commission recommended that the Council adopt the Plan as presented; and G. A noticed public hearing on the revised draft Plan was held by the City Council on May _______, 2016, at which time public comments were heard and considered. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan of the City of Palo Alto, which shall be filed with the City Clerk. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan of the City of Palo Alto with the California Department of Water Resources and the State Library. ATTACHMENT B Not Yet Approved 160229 jb 6053692 SECTION 2. The Council finds and determines that, under the California Water Code Section 10652, the adoption of the Plan and this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no environmental assessment is required. 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 NOT YET APPROVED 1 160301 jb 6053690 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Section 12.32.010, Water Use Restrictions and Section 12.32.020, Enforcement R E C I T A L S A. Article 10, Section 2 of the California Constitution declares that waters of the State are to be put to beneficial use, that waste, unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that water be conserved for the public welfare. B. The State of California is prone to drought conditions which result in water supply shortages. C. The City of Palo Alto recognizes the continuing need to manage water resources under its jurisdiction and control in a constitutionally compliant manner. D. Section 12.32.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code sets forth permanent water use restrictions applicable to all City water customers, in order to responsibly manage the City’s water resources. E. The Council wishes to adopt additional permanent water use restrictions in order to continue to responsibly manage this limited resource. F. City regulation of the time and manner of water use, rate design, the method of application of water for certain uses, and establishment of enforcement procedures in support of water use management is an effective and immediately available means of conserving water, and is authorized by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.20.010. G. On September 15, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution 9460, establishing the enforcement process for violations of the three outdoor water use restrictions adopted by Council on August 4, 2014 (Resolution 9449). H. The Council now wishes to clarify the enforcement process for the water use regulations set forth in Chapter 12.32 of the Municipal Code. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby modifies Section 12.32.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add the following four water use restrictions to Section 12.32.010, as subsections (e) through (h): e.The irrigation of turf or ornamental landscapes, which serve purely decorative purposes, and are distinguished from trees, edible gardens or ATTACHMENT C 2 160302 syn 6053690 landscapes that provide more than a purely aesthetic function, with potable water shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except via hand watering with a bucket or a hose with an operating shut-off valve. f. The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature is prohibited, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. g. The use of potable water for street sweepers and washers is prohibited if non-potable water is available, as determined by the Director of Utilities, or his or her designee. h. Commercial car washes must use recycled water systems, if recycled water is available, as determined by the Director of Utilities, or his or her designee, and economically feasible. SECTION 2. The Council hereby modifies Section 12.32.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as follows: 12.32.020 Enforcement. In addition to enforcing the provisions of this chapter against any person as a misdemeanor, an infraction, or via the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, the city manager and his designated employees are authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter against customers and water purchasers of the utility as follows: (a) Reports of alleged misuse of water in a manner contrary to the provisions of this chapter shall be called to the attention of the party responsible for the service connection misused and shall be investigated by the utilities department personnel to the extent possible. (b) Utilities department personnel shall issue a written warning to the responsible party or parties. (c) If a second or third incident of misuse of water in a manner contrary to the provisions of this chapter is established to the satisfaction of the utilities department personnel, up to two additional written warnings shall be issued to the responsible party or parties, advising that the City may opt to pursue available enforcement remedies, including the issuance of administrative citations, fines, infractions punishable by penalties, misdemeanors, flow restrictors, and termination of water service. (d) For any subsequent incident by the same party, customer, or water purchaser, or for any willful violation of this Chapter, the city manager or his designee may, in addition to the pursuit of any available enforcement remedies, elect to install a flow restrictor upon the service connection of the purchaser or customer at the purchaser's or customer's expense. 3 160302 syn 6053690 (i) Prior to installation of the water restrictor, the director of utilities shall give written notice to the person responsible for the service connection, which is to be restricted, of his intention to install a restrictor. The person or persons to whom notice is to be given shall have five business days from the date of service of the notice to request a hearing before the city manager or his designee in order to present any and all evidence they may have as to why a restrictor should not be installed or under what conditions it might be installed. (ii) If a hearing is requested, the city manager or his designee shall schedule a date and time for said hearing as soon as possible after the request is filed, but not later than five business days after the filing or such request for hearing. (iii) At the hearing, the person whose service connection is to be restricted may offer evidence as to why the restrictor should not be installed or under what conditions it might be installed. (iv) Utilities personnel shall also be allowed to offer whatever evidence they may have as to why the restrictor should be allowed and under what conditions. The city manager or his designees shall make a determination as to whether the restrictor shall or shall not be installed and what conditions, if any, should pertain. (v) Upon a determination to install a restrictor after hearing, or the failure of the affected party to request a hearing, the director of utilities, under whatever conditions, if any, he may deem advisable under the circumstances, may install a flow restrictor on the service connection of the customer or purchaser of water whose service connection was used in the violations observed or established and bill the costs of such installation to said customer or purchaser in accordance with the following conditions: (1) The first installation shall be for a period of three days; (2) Subsequent installations shall be for a period to be determined by the director of utilities, in an amount sufficient to accomplish the purposes of this chapter. Flow restrictors shall be installed in accordance with water utility rules and regulations. (e) Records shall be kept by the department of utilities of the city of Palo Alto of all enforcement actions taken under subsection (d) of this Section, and such records may be subject to disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act. SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that this ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15307 and 4 160302 syn 6053690 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (actions taken by regulatory agencies for the protection of natural resources and the environment). SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: _____________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _____________________________ ______________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services ______________________________ Director of Utilities EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 2016 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING ITEM 4. ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and Adopt an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Sections 12.32.010 (Water Use Restrictions), and 12.32.020 (Enforcement) Senior Resource Planner Karla Dailey explained that the 2015 UWMP is a regulatory requirement and has many prescribed elements and data. It is not an internal planning document that will determine what the City’s plan is with respect to options such as recycled water and groundwater. She noted that things have changed since the 2010 plan including the completion of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project to refurbish 5 wells, drill 3 new wells, and install a large new storage reservoir. She said that water demand has fallen due to the current drought as well. In addition, the Hetch Hetchy system has nearly completed its long- term capital program, the Water System Improvement Program. The City is embarking on a holistic plan to evaluate recycled water and groundwater, including the potential to recharge groundwater with purified recycled water. The 2015 UWMP includes an evaluation of a group of conservation programs, or “Demand Management Measures”. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan is a significant part of the 2015 UWMP and new permanent restrictions are proposed to be added. The Commission had no questions on the 2015 UWMP following Dailey’s presentation. ACTION: Vice Chair Cook made a motion to recommend that the UAC recommend Council approve staff’s proposal and Commissioner Schwartz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0) with Chair Foster, Vice Chair Cook, Commissioners Ballantine, Danaher, and Schwartz voting yes and Commissioners Eglash and Hall absent. ATTACHMENT D City of Palo Alto (ID # 6800) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Comp Plan 5th Scenario for EIR Title: Direction on the Fifth Scenario Proposed for Analysis in the Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Approval of Amendment Number 5 to Placeworks Contract Number C08125506 for the Analysis, and Approval of a related Budget Appropriation From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: a. Discuss the fifth scenario requested for analysis in the Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and provide direction to staff on the specific parameters for evaluation as part of the scenario; and, b. Approve Amendment Number 5 to Contract C08125506 with Placeworks to add $423,814 for a total not to exceed $2,801,157 for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated EIR; and, c. Amend the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the General Fund by a. Increasing the Planning and Community Environment Department appropriation by $356,140; and, b. Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve by $423,814 Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto has been working on an update to its Comprehensive Plan since 2008 and published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in February 2016 assessing four “scenarios” or alternatives at an equal level of detail, hoping to inform policy direction regarding the location and amount of growth desired by 2030, as well as policies and programs needed to mitigate the impacts of that growth. On February 22, 2016, the City Council indicated their desire to analyze a fifth scenario in a supplement to the Draft EIR and this evening’s discussion is intended to ensure that parameters of the scenario meet the Council’s expectations. Parameters of the original four scenarios are summarized in Table 1 and some options/alternatives for analysis as part of scenario five are City of Palo Alto Page 2 included in Table 2. Table 1. Summary of EIR Scenarios: Population & Employment Parameters (1) Net Change 2015-2030 Resulting Jobs/Housing Balance in 20304 Population/ Housing Non-Res Sq. Ft.2 Jobs 1. Business as Usual 6,600/2,720 3.3M 15,480 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.20 2. Slowing Growth 6,600/2,720 3M 9,850 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.04 3. Housing Tested 8,435/3,545 3.5M 12,755 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.03 4. Sustainability Tested 10,455/4,420 4.M 15,480 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 3.04 5. Quality of Life 3 TBD TBD TBD TBD (1) The scenarios also include different ideas for zoning/implementation actions, transportation investments, and sustainability measures as discussed further in the Discussion section below. (2) This number includes 1.3M sq. ft. that has already been approved at the Stanford Medical Center. The balance of the new nonresidential square footage would be located in areas both inside and outside of the “monitored areas” referenced in Policy L-8 and Map L-6 in the Comp Plan and in areas both inside and outside of the area subject to the interim annual limit of 50,000 square feet new office/R&D space. (3) Per Council direction on February 22, 2016, this new scenario will have somewhat lower job growth and square footage than scenario 2, will incorporate sustainability policies from scenario 4, and will incorporate an adaptive or performance-based set of mitigation strategies aimed at improving the quality of life in Palo Alto. (4) The number of employed residents in 2030 is estimated at approximately 48% of total population based on ABAG Projections 2013. The ratio of jobs to employed residents in this column assumes a 2014 base of 65,685 people and 95,460 jobs. Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, April 2016 To achieve the desired result, which is an improved quality of life for Palo Altans, Scenario 5 would include policies and mitigation strategies to address the impacts of growth (e.g. new traffic that might be generated) and to address quality of life concerns (e.g. traffic calming on neighborhood streets). A performance-based approach would be adopted, with policies and performance standards related to traffic and other quality of life issues. Table 2. Some Options for Scenario 5: Population & Employment Options1 Net Change 2015-2030 Resulting Jobs/Housing Balance in 20305 Population/Non-Res Jobs4 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Housing2 Sq. Ft.3 A. 10% fewer jobs than Scenario 2 & housing equivalent to Scenario 3 8,435/3,546 2.7M 8,868 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 2.93 B. 10% fewer jobs than Scenario 2 & housing equivalent to Scenario 4 10,455/4,418 2.7M 8,868 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 2.85 C. 10% fewer jobs than Scenario 2 & 20% more housing than Scenario 4 12,508/5,301 2.7M 8,868 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratio of 2.78 (1) Other options can also be considered provided there is a reasonable argument that policies and programs in the Comp Plan Update can result in the desired population and employment numbers. (2) On March 21, 2016, a majority of the City Council expressed their desire to pursue removal of housing sites along San Antonio Road and South El Camino Real, and replace those with higher residential densities on sites in Downtown and the California Avenue area. This would result in housing and population projections similar to Scenario 3, as shown in Option A. The Council did not weigh-in on whether they would be interested in exploring higher residential densities and new housing sites in “pedestrian nodes” along the El Camino Real corridor. This is an idea advanced in Scenario 4 and reflected to varying degrees in Option B and C. (3) This number includes 1.3M sq. ft. that had already been approved at the Stanford Medical Center. The balance of the new nonresidential square footage would be located in areas both inside and outside of the “monitored areas” referenced in Policy L-8 and Map L-6 in the Comp Plan and in areas both inside and outside of the area subject to the interim annual limit of 50,000 square feet new office/R&D space. (4) Per Council direction, the new Scenario 5 should have somewhat lower job growth than Scenario 2, which is already quite low for a 15-year period given the amount of land zoned for non-residential uses and given that SUMC alone is estimated to generate 2,400 jobs. See the Discussion section below for more information. (5) The number of employed residents in 2030 is estimated at approximately 48% of total population based on ABAG Projections 2013. The ratio of jobs to employed residents in this column assumes a 2014 base of 65,685 people and 95,460 jobs. Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, April 2016 Any new housing sites (assumed to achieve the housing numbers in Options B and C above) would be intended to provide a mix of housing for Palo Alto residents, including affordable housing, senior housing, housing for special needs populations, micro units, housing with City of Palo Alto Page 4 preferences for members of the local workforce, and housing with reduced parking, reduced traffic impacts, reduced air emissions, and reduced energy and water use when compared with conventional units. See the Discussion section below for more about the potential policy parameters of Scenario 5. Analysis of a fifth scenario will require additional consultant support and both a contract amendment and budget adjustment are also requested as part of tonight’s agenda item. Importantly, analysis of a fifth scenario will inform later decision making regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Council’s direction does not represent a commitment to adopt the fifth scenario once the analysis is complete. The Council will have the opportunity to consider recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) prior to making a final decision to adopt the Comprehensive Plan and may select any alternative or scenario that is adequately described and analyzed in the Final EIR. Background: The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design, transportation, housing, the natural environment, business and economics, community services, and governance. Its policies apply to both public and private properties. Its focus is on the physical form of the City. The Plan is used by the City Council and PTC to evaluate land use changes and to inform funding and budget decisions. It is used by City Staff to regulate building and development and to make recommendations on projects. It is used by citizens and neighborhood groups to understand the City’s long-range plans and proposals for different geographic areas. The Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and the foundation for its capital improvement program. A Comprehensive Plan update was initiated by the City Council in 2006 to focus on preservation of commercial land uses, preservation of retail and community services to support new residential growth, incorporate sustainability concepts, update the housing element and prepare concept area plans for East Meadow Circle and California Avenue/Fry’s areas. The planning work began in 2008 when the consulting firm (now called Placeworks) was engaged to assist, and continued at the Planning and Transportation Commission level until the commission submitted their recommendations in April 2014. At that time, the Council endorsed a new framework for the planning process to include broad community engagement, discussion and analysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies. A community “summit” was held in mid-2015, and a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed to make recommendations to the City Council on policies and programs for inclusion in the update. The EIR Process Concurrent with ongoing policy deliberations by the CAC and the City Council, the City initiated an environmental review process in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA is a state law that requires California agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and describe feasible measures that can be taken to City of Palo Alto Page 5 avoid or mitigate those impacts. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required by CEQA when an agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. An EIR evaluates a proposed project’s potential impacts on the environment, and recommends mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Decision-makers use information in an EIR to help determine whether or not to approve a project. The most common type of EIR assesses potential impacts associated with a specific development project. The Comprehensive Plan Update is not a specific development project, and instead constitutes an effort by the City of Palo Alto to determine comprehensive land uses, policies, and programs that will guide public and private decision making regarding land use and development issues over the next 15 years. As a result, the City is preparing what is referred to as a program-level EIR, which assesses the potential cumulative impacts of development that may occur during the life of the plan, considers potential alternatives, and identifies mitigation measures that should be adopted to reduce or avoid significant impacts. This is the same level of environmental analysis that was prepared for the exiting Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and allows the City to better identify –and mitigate—cumulative impacts of overall growth that may otherwise be missed in a more focused project-specific environmental analysis. CEQA specifically requires that a program EIR be prepared for plans that govern a continuing program. Although the legally required contents of a program EIR are the same as project specific EIR, a program EIR is more conceptual, with a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives and mitigations. CEQA clearance for subsequent projects can provide more specifics by “tiering” off the program EIR. Depending on the complexity of the project, such CEQA clearances can include Negative Declarations and Supplement EIRs. An EIR describes the objectives for a proposed project, the location of the project and actions proposed. It evaluates how the existing environment would be changed if the project was approved and provides feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid or reduce significant adverse changes to existing conditions. A Draft EIR has been prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update and was circulated for public and agency comments beginning on February 5, 2016 (the comment period is now scheduled to end on June 8, 2016). The Draft EIR describes the ongoing Comp Plan Update and examines four alternatives or “scenarios” at an equal level of detail. By doing so, the EIR was intended to inform decision-making and not to prescribe a specific outcome. On February 21, 2016, the City Council requested that a fifth alternative or “scenario” be defined, analyzed, and circulated for public review prior to preparation and certification of a Final EIR. See below for more information on the four scenarios in the Draft EIR and the Council’s request for a fifth scenario. The CAC Process The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is meeting monthly to craft their recommendations for policies and programs for each element of the Comprehensive Plan. Subcommittees of the full CAC meet between the full committee meetings, and have proved instrumental in reaching City of Palo Alto Page 6 consensus where feasible, and in articulating differences of opinion where these need to be elevated to the full committee or the City Council. Members of the CAC are making use of recommendations forwarded by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in 2014, and more recent public input submitted via the “digital commenter” tool on the City’s website. The Sustainability Subcommittee is also using the draft Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (SCAP) as a source document to rekcommend complimentary policies and programs for inclusion in the Comp Plan (which is expected to incorporate the S/CAP by reference). The Committee’s work on the Community Services & Facilities Element was reviewed by the City Council this spring, and their work on the Transportation Element will be reviewed by the City Council shortly. The CAC’s work on the Land Use and Community Design Element is taking more time than originally anticipated and may be affected by the Council’s deliberations on Scenario 5. An updated schedule of the CAC process, including associated meetings of the City Council and other boards/commissions is included as Attachment C. The SCAP Process & Coordination with the Comp Plan Update On April 18, 2016 the City Council considered the draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and endorsed its goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030, which is well ahead of the State’s goal of 80% reductions by 2050. The Council also indicated their support for the guiding principles of the S/CAP and their desire for better coordination between the SCAP and the Comp Plan Update. The Comp Plan Draft EIR includes adoption of the S/CAP as a mitigation strategy, and the Comp Plan CAC is working through a Sustainability Subcommittee to ensure that principles of sustainability are incorporated throughout the relevant elements of the Comp Plan. More detail on this effort and its outcomes will be shared with the City Council at a later date. Discussion As noted above, public agencies are required by CEQA to conduct environmental review to identify significant environmental impacts and adopt feasible mitigation prior to making a final decision on a proposed project. This law ensures that decision-makers and the public understand the implications of agency decisions in advance and consider alternatives that would reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. The current CEQA process is being used to help advance the Comprehensive Plan Update by assessing high-level planning scenarios that illustrate or test various possible policy decisions and the Draft EIR is unusual in that it evaluates the alternatives at an equal level of detail. The four scenarios included in the Draft EIR were developed based on public workshops in the summer of 2014 and are described briefly below. The Four Scenarios in the Draft EIR City of Palo Alto Page 7 At the core of the Draft EIR’s analysis are four high level planning scenarios that were designed to test a range of possible land-use, transportation, jobs and housing choices that must be made before the Comprehensive Plan Update is completed, and to the show what the impacts of those possible choices would be. The four scenarios are: 1. “Business As Usual” – the “business as usual” scenario shows the results if the City continued to operate under the existing Comprehensive Plan with no changes to goals, policies and programs. Any new housing built would be constructed under existing zoning and no innovations in housing or new approaches to address the high cost of housing would be explored. No new growth management measures are anticipated, and any transit or traffic improvements would come from the existing infrastructure plan for the City. This scenario uses a local forecast of housing growth based on the City’s past performance (a long term average of about 150 new dwelling units per year), and ABAG’s 2013 projection of job growth. 2. Scenario Two, or the “Growth Slowed” Scenario, would slow the pace of job growth when compared with Scenario One by moderating the pace of office/R&D development throughout the city. Scenario Two would also ensure that the modest amount of housing growth expected under Scenario One would be built-out as small units and other housing types appropriate for seniors and the Palo Alto workforce. Transportation investments in this scenario would include implementation of the County’s expressway plan. 3. Scenario Three, or the “Housing Reconsidered” Scenario, would implement a growth management regime similar to the interim annual limit on office/R&D adopted by the City Council in 2015 for the fastest changing areas of the City and would eliminate housing sites along San Antonio and South El Camino. In place of these housing sites, Scenario 3 would increase housing densities on sites Downtown, near California Avenue, and in other locations in the City close to transit and services. Policies, regulations, and incentives would be designed to ensure smaller units for the working professional and senior populations of the City. Transportation investments would include grade separating the Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by placing the railroad tracks in a trench. 4. Scenario Four, or the “Sustainability Tested” Scenario, assumes the most growth in housing and employment, consistent with ABAG projections. Rather than moderating the pace of development, this scenario would seek to limit the impacts of development. Potential policies and regulations would be enacted to advance sustainability objectives, including free transit passes for residents in transit-served areas, achieving LEED platinum certification for new development, maximizing local solar energy production, foregoing new natural gas hookups, and utilizing drought-tolerant landscaping. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Transportation investments would include grade separating the Caltrain crossings at Meadow and Charleston by placing the railroad tracks in a trench, and incorporating mix flow bus rapid transit on El Camino Real (with curbside stations and queue jumping for transit vehicles). The Fifth Scenario The Draft EIR anticipated that the City Council might ultimately want to mix and match components of the four scenarios, or pursue a hybrid of two or more. On February 22, 2016, the City Council indicated their desire to craft a fifth scenario for analysis and public review prior to proceeding to a Final EIR. The Council’s motion on February 22, 2016 is excerpted below, and made it clear that the Council would like to define a “quality of life” scenario that has less job growth and less non- residential square footage than Scenario 2, that incorporates sustainability measures from Scenario 4 in alignment with the S/CAP, and that uses an adaptive or performance-based approach to ensure that impacts of growth are avoided to the extent feasible. The Council also requested consideration of ways to possibly regulate employment densities (i.e. the number of workers per sq. foot). Figure 3. February 22, 2016 City Council Motion Restated Direct Staff to develop a “fifth scenario” for analysis in a supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that: A. Adds the sustainability options from the current scenarios, which reduce impacts, including traffic, greenhouse gas impacts, noise, etc.; and B. Includes further mitigations along with prospective mitigation enforcement measures for a scenario that improves the quality of life in Palo Alto by mitigating the impacts of future growth and development; and C. Wherever possible, the scenario will use Palo Alto specific data; and D. Where possible to integrate the Sustainability Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) in the fifth scenario; and E. Evaluate mechanisms for regulating employment densities in existing buildings; and F. Evaluate lower General Office and R/D development than Scenario 2; and G. Evaluate transportation and parking regulation triggers if mitigation measures are failing or exceeding expectations. The following discussion addresses five characteristics of the Fifth Scenario consistent with this motion: (1) Net change in employment & non-residential development 2015-2030; (2) Net change in population and housing 2015-2030; (3) Potential zoning changes to accomplish these levels of development; (4) Infrastructure investments; (5) Potential sustainability measures to reduce impacts; and (6) Other potential performance or mitigation measures to address the impacts of development. The EIR will assess the impacts of the scenario, including the level of growth assumed as well as City of Palo Alto Page 9 the principal investments and policy parameters that are articulated as part of the scenario. The proposed contract amendment in Attachment A provides for an analysis of the scenario with and without mitigation measures and other performance measures or strategies to reduce or eliminate physical impacts and preserve or improve quality of life. 1. Jobs & Sq. Ft. The City Council has articulated their desire for lower office/R&D development and employment than assumed in Scenario 2 and the options presented in Table 2, above, suggest or 10% fewer jobs and square footage than in Scenario 2 (i.e. a total of 8,868 new jobs and 2.8M new sq. ft.). With this projection of future job growth, Palo Alto would see the 2,400 jobs anticipated as part of the SUMC as well as an average of 431 jobs per year over the 15 year life of the Comp Plan. This seems low given the amount of land zoned for non-residential uses and existing building space in use for employment-generating uses in the City. With the projected increase in new square footage, Palo Alto would see completion of the 1.3M sq. ft. approved as part of the SUMC project, plus an average of 93,000 sq. ft. in additional non- residential square footage per year. New non-residential square footage in areas shown on Comp Plan Map L-6 are subject to the square footage cap in Comp Plan Policy L-8, and new office/R&D square footage would be limited to 50,000 square feet in areas subject to the City’s interim annual limit on Office/R&D uses if this program were continued after the two-year trial. [Note that new jobs and new non-residential square footage are not proportionally related because new jobs can be added in existing as well as new building space. Generally, the rate of job growth and employment densities change cyclically, with more jobs and higher densities in good economic times, and fewer jobs in economic downturns. See the Zoning section below for a discussion of regulating employment densities.] 2. Population & Housing A majority of the City Council expressed their desire to pursue removal of housing sites along San Antonio Road and South El Camino Real, and replace those with higher residential densities on sites in Downtown and the California Avenue area. This would result in housing and population projections consistent with Scenario 3, which is consistent with Option A in Table 2, above. The Council did not weigh-in on whether they would be interested in exploring higher residential densities and new housing sites in “pedestrian nodes” along the El Camino Real corridor. This is an idea advanced in Scenario 4 and reflected to varying degrees in Option B and C above, which also assume rezoning to convert non-residential density (floor area ratio or FAR) to residential density in some areas of the City. (See below for more on potential zoning changes for evaluation as part of Scenario 5.) City of Palo Alto Page 10 At the Council’s discussions about Scenario 5 (February 22) and housing policies generally (March 21), the City Council expressed its interest in stimulating workforce housing (i.e. housing for teachers, fire fighters, and others who work in Palo Alto) and testing the idea of micro-units with reduced parking and other sustainability measures (bike share/car share, net zero energy, all electric buildings, etc.). These and other housing types (accessory dwelling units, multifamily affordable units, cohousing, etc.) can be facilitated via changes to the City’s zoning regulations and/or use of the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program and Council has requested that staff consider actions that might be taken before the Comprehensive Plan Update. 3. Zoning Changes Goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update will be implemented through programs, some of which will support specific changes in the City’s zoning ordinance. The four EIR scenarios recognize this fact by suggesting and evaluating zoning code amendments that could accompany the Comp Plan Update. These suggested amendments are not meant to be prescriptive, but generally outline actions that could be taken to implement the policy parameters of each scenario. Similarly, the evaluation of Scenario 5 can test a variety of zoning amendments to achieve the population/housing and employment/square footage numbers discussed above. Suggestions are included in Table 4, below. City Council input on potential additions and subtractions for Scenario 5 would be helpful. Table 4. Possible Zoning Code Amendments for Scenarios 5 Proposed Zoning Code Amendmentsa Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5a Planned Community (PC) zoning district provisions would be reformed. √ √ √ √ √ Strategies to preserve retail would be enhanced for the city’s neighborhoods. √ √ √ √ √ Incentives would be considered for small lot consolidation along El Camino Real. √ √ √ √ √ A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for new office and R&D uses in order to regulate employment densities. √ √ √ An alternate mechanism would be explored for moderating employment densities, either through regulation or revenue collection (See Discussion below.) √ Allowable commercial densities in the Downtown (CD zoning District) would be reduced and replaced with residential densities. √ √ √ √ In the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service Commercial (CS) districts, non-retail portions of allowable commercial floor area ratios (FARs) would be reduced and replaced with residential use. √ √ √ In the Community Commercial 2 (CC-2) district, the allowable 2.0 FAR would be reduced to an FAR of 1.5 near California Avenue. √ √ City of Palo Alto Page 11 Proposed Zoning Code Amendmentsa Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5a In the Community Commercial 2 (CC-2) district, commercial FAR would be somewhat reduced and replaced with residential FAR. √ Modest exceptions to the City’s 50-foot height limit would be permitted for residential uses only (including projects with ground floor retail and residences above). √ √ √ Allowable residential densities would be increased downtown, possibly by adding the PTODb zoning designation to downtown and streamlining the permitting process to allow for residential development in the PTOD zone by right. √ √ √ Allowable residential densities would be increased on the El Camino Corridor, possibly by adding the PTODb zoning designation to pedestrian “nodes” along the corridor with modified regulations to encourage use of the designation. √ √ Performance-based zoning strategies would be adopted to minimize impacts of new market rate housing and new non- residential development by requiring mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement. Code changes could also address housing types and preferences. √ (a)The suggested zoning changes listed here do not include all of the sustainability measures or mitigation measures which are listed separately below. (b) The Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Development (PTOD) combining zoning district is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial, and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of Caltrain stations, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources. Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016 and Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, April 2016 The City Council requested staff evaluate mechanisms for regulating employment densities and this concept was originally evaluated as part of EIR scenarios 2-4 by assuming a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for new office/R&D development, allowing the City to impose a condition to impose a limit of 250 sq. ft. per worker or something similar. This approach would address the issue prospectively (i.e. on a going forward basis as new uses are approved), and would not address some Councilmembers’ interests in regulating employment densities in existing uses. It would also create enforcement challenges for this City, likely necessitating additional enforcement staff as the number of new uses subject to employment density conditions increases over time. To regulate employment densities in existing uses would be more difficult. In general, there are a range of possible methods to regulate employment density1, including: 1 Establishing occupancy limits for housing units, restricting housing based on school impacts, and limiting development of housing units in general is legally challenging. The State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), the Building Industry Association (BIA) and affordable housing advocates aggressively monitor such restrictions, and litigation would be very likely in the current housing environment. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Building Code regulations. The Building Code contains maximum occupancy densities. These densities are based primarily on ensuring safe egress in case of fire or other disaster. Occupancy densities vary by use and the occupancy density for business and industrial uses are 100 gross square feet per occupant. The Building Code contains uniform standards and to alter these standards the City must make local “climactic, geographical or topographical” findings. Palo Alto has an existing permitting scheme called “use and occupancy which could provide a practical enforcement mechanism for either building permit occupancy limits or related regulatory “use” requirements discussed below. Zoning – permitted uses. Like most cities Palo alto’s zooning categories currently do not contain occupancy limits. While posing some practical enforcement challenges, it is legally possible to incorporate occupancy limits into either permitted or conditionally permitted use classifications (see below). Zoning – conditional use permits. It is possible to allow a base level of zoning density as a matter of right and require some form of discretionary permits (such as a conditional use permit) for increased density. Zoning – performance based zoning. This is a relatively new concept which specifies the goals (i.e. number of jobs, houses, car trips, etc.) and allows the applicant to propose a qualifying building. See http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/08/braving-the-new- world-of-performance-based-zoning/375926/. Zoning – transportation demand management strategies. Since concerns about employee density is generally tied to traffic impacts, many cities attempt to regulate the direct traffic impacts. Transportation demand management (TDM) programs can be structured in a variety of ways, including payment of impact fees (supported by a nexus study linking high employment densities to traffic impacts) and mandatory participation in the newly established TMA. While the primary focus of TDM strategies is to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips of new development, many programs also have some incidental benefit of reducing SOV trips of existing development (i.e. establishment of shuttles that can be used by other neighboring businesses). Development Agreements. These allow more customized parcel specific regulations. Head count tax/Impact Fee. Most of the zoning methods regulate new development. It is more difficult to regulate existing businesses. One way to regulate existing businesses is to set a head count tax at a level designed to disincentive density. 4. Infrastructure Investments The Comprehensive Plan Update will identify infrastructure investments expected to occur over the next 15 years to the extent feasible and will rely on the City’s adopted infrastructure plan as a base document. The planning scenarios evaluated in the program-level EIR provide an opportunity to evaluate other potential transportation infrastructure projects, and these are included in Table 5, below. City Council input on potential additions and subtractions for Scenario 5 would be appreciated. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Table 5. Possible Infrastructure Investments for Scenario 5 Summary of Infrastructure Investmentsa Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5a New Public Safety Building √ √ √ √ √ Bicycle Bridge over US 101 √ √ √ √ √ Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Implementation Projects √ √ √ √ √ Byxbee Park √ √ √ √ √ California Avenue Parking Garage √ √ √ √ √ Downtown Parking Garage √ √ √ √ √ Fire Stations √ √ √ √ √ County Expressway Plan Implementation √ Grade separation of Caltrain in a trench below Charleston and Meadow; other improvements along the corridor. √ √ √ Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino Real in mixed-flow lanes with the addition of queue jumping and curbside stations. √ √ (a)This list is not a complete listing of the City’s infrastructure plan, but includes those investments highlighted in Draft EIR Scenarios 1-4 as well as others that may be appropriate for highlighting in Scenario 5. There may be some overlap between the suggested investments listed here and the sustainability measures and performance/mitigation measures referenced later. Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016 and Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, April 2016 5. Sustainability Measures On April 18, 2016, the City Council indicated their support for the draft SCAP goal of reducing GHG Emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 (twenty years ahead of the State’s goal) and requested clarity on how the Comp Plan Update and the SCAP will be integrated. As noted earlier, a Sustainability subcommittee of the Comp Plan CAC is assisting with this effort to ensure that each element of the Comp Plan Update includes policies and programs that are supportive of the SCAP goal and consistent with its principles and strategies. At the end of the day, the two plans are intended to be coordinated and complimentary. Also, by incorporating the SCAP by reference, the Comp Plan will indicate the City’s commitment to the plan, yet still allow it to be updated as needed over time without the need for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. While SCAP principles and strategies have not been fully defined as of yet, Table 6 acknowledges the relationship between the two plans. Table 6. Possible Sustainability Measures for Scenarios 5 Summary of Sustainability Measuresa Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5a Mobility Paid transit passes for employees in workplaces with over 50 employees (portion of SCAP Strategy F-INC-1) √ √ √ √ √ Employer incentives for carpooling and bicycling (SCAP Strategy F-FAC-3.4) √ √ √ √ Unbundled parking costs for multi-family units (portion of SCAP Strategy T-INC-2) √ √ √ City of Palo Alto Page 14 Summary of Sustainability Measuresa Scenarios 1 2 3 4 5a Parking charge program for existing workplaces with over 50 employees (portion of SCAP Strategy T-INC-2) √ √ Paid parking in Downtown and California Avenue areas (portion of SCAP Strategy T-INC-2) √ √ Free transit passes for all Palo Alto residents in transit- accessible areas (portion of SCAP Strategy F-INC-1) √ √ Adoption of the SCAP goal of a 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and alignment of the Comprehensive Plan Update with SCAP principles. Inclusion of Comprehensive Plan policies and programs that are supportive of the refinement and furtherance of SCAP strategies. √ (a)The suggested sustainability measures listed here do not include every strategy from the draft SCAP, which is still a work in progress. This list also does not include mitigation measures which are listed separately below, even though many address topics related to sustainability (for example, transportation mitigation to limit and off-set new trips). Source: Comp Plan Update Draft EIR, February 2016; Draft SCAP, April 2016, and Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, April 2016 6. Performance/Mitigation Measures All of the EIR scenarios will require mitigation measures to address significant environmental impacts and these can be the source of performance measures analyzed as part of Scenario 5. For example, Mitigation Measure TRANS1a, establishes a framework for imposing a “no net new trips” requirement on market rate housing, office/R&D development, and other uses. The measure reads: TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to reducing traffic with the goal of achieving no net increase in peak period motor vehicle trips from new development, with an exception for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto (such as ground floor retail and below market rate housing). The program should, at a minimum: Require new development projects to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following reduction in peak period motor vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category. These reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated. o 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district o 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area o 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park o 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor o 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city City of Palo Alto Page 15 TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner on an annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that accrue if targets are not met. Require new development projects to offset remaining peak period motor vehicle trips through one of the following methods: o By directly contracting with another property owner or organization to reduce trips generated from another site; or o By paying an annual fee to the City for use in reducing motor vehicle trips to the extent feasible through the provision of transit services, carpool/rideshare incentives, bicycle lanes, and other similar programs and improvements. A full list of EIR mitigation measures needed for Scenarios 2-4 is included in Attachment B. The analysis of Scenario 5 will determine whether these or other measures are required for Scenario 5, however the City Council’s initial input on potential additions and subtractions for inclusion as part of Scenario 5 would be appreciated. Timeline/Next Steps The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Draft EIR on June 6, 2016 and the public comment period on the Draft EIR will close on June 8, 2016. At that time, all of the public comments received will be posted on the City’s website and be provided to the City Council and the City’s consultant will begin an analysis of the Fifth Scenario, as defined based on the Council’s direction this evening. Analysis of the 5th scenario is expected to be completed later this year, after which time the analysis will be circulated for public review and comment as a supplement to the Draft EIR. The City will prepare formal written responses to all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR and on the analysis of the 5th scenario in the form of a Final EIR. The City Council is required to review and certify the FEIR prior to taking action on the Comprehensive Plan Update. A current schedule for the Comp Plan Update, including meetings of the CAC and the City Council, is provided as Attachment C. As noted earlier, this schedule reflects the CAC’s need for additional time to finalize drafts of the Transportation and Land Use/Community Design elements for City Council review. Resource Impacts The Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Operating Budget did not anticipate a 5th scenario. Staff requests approval of a contract amendment and a budget appropriation of $423,814 to provide the necessary funds to cover the costs of this additional work. Additional detail is provided in Table 7, below. Table 7. Summary of Comp Plan Consultant Costs, Including the Requested Contract Amendment City of Palo Alto Page 16 Summary Breakdown Cost Original Contract total w/Contingency (June 1, 2008) $849,981 Amendment #1 w/Contingency which included additional work (June 28, 2013): Completion of the Cal Ave Concept Area Plan Preparation of the Citywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model Creation of the Comp Plan Amendment Implementation Matrix Additional website administration $290,019 Amendment #2 (March 3, 2014) Preparation of “Our Plan so Far” and “Notice of Preparation” Scoping and Alternatives Development Alternatives Evaluation and Selection Comp Plan Amendment and Finalization $597,206 Amendment #3 (March 2, 2015) Fiscal Analysis study $157,525 Amendment #4 (September 15, 2015) Citizen Advisory Committee support Comp Plan Preparation and Adoption Open Sourcing the Comp Plan Earth Day Report Consultation Council meeting support Contract management support, labor and reimbursable expenses $482,612 Amendment #5 w/contingency Creation and Analysis of the Fifth Scenario Quality of Life/Fully Mitigated Fifth Scenario Modeling of No-Growth Scenario Additional Fiscal Analysis Increased Staff Support Amendment #5 with Optional Task Optional Task (Infrastructure Financing Expenses) $394,350 $423,814 Revised Contract Grand Total Revised Contract Grand Total with Optional Task $2,771,693 $2,801,157 Source: Planning & Community Environment, April 2016 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Costs associated with maintaining the Comp Plan are partially off-set via a surcharge on permits and planning entitlements issued in Palo Alto. In FY15, these revenues totaled $256,690. Environmental Review This evening’s requested actions involve direction to staff and contract/budget decisions necessary to complete the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Comp Plan Update. A Final EIR must be preapred and certified before adoption of the final Comp Plan Update. Attachments: Attachment A: PlaceWorks, Inc. Contract #C08125506 Amendment 5 (PDF) Attachment B: Mitigation Measures (DOCX) Attachment C: Comp. Plan Update Revised Schedule (DOCX) 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO CONTRACT NO. CO8125506 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PLACEWORKS, INC., This Amendment No. 5 (“Fifth Amendment”) to Contract No. C08125506 (“Contract”) is entered into May 16, 2015 (“Amendment Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and PLACEWORKS, INC., located at 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100, Santa Ana, California, 92707 (“CONSULTANT”) R E C I T A L S: A. The Contract dated effective June 1, 2008 was entered into between the Parties for Consultant to provide planning services for the development of a work plan to amend the existing comprehensive plan to a planning horizon no later than year 2020. B. On September 15, 2015 the parties entered into Amendment No. 4 to increase the compensation by $482,612.00 from $1,894,731.00 to, 2,377,343.00 for additional services as specified in Exhibit “A4” Additional Scope of Services. C. On March 2, 2015 the parties entered into Amendment No. 3 to change the CONSULTANT’s name from DESIGN COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT, INC., a California corporation, located 1625 Shattuck Avenue. Suite 300, Berkeley, CA. 94709 to PLACEWORKS, INC., a California corporation, located at 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100, Santa Ana, California, 92707. Amendment No. 3 also increased the “Not to Exceed Compensation” by $157,525.00 from $1,737,206.00 to $1,894,731.00, for additional services as specified in Exhibit “A3” Additional Scope of Services. D. On March 3, 2014 the parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to extend the term to June 30, 2016 and increase the compensation to $1,737,206.00 for additional services as specified in Exhibit “A1”. E. On June 28, 2013 the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to extend the term to June 30, 2014 and increase the compensation to $1,124,073.00 for additional services as specified in Exhibit “A1”. F. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the compensation by $423,814.00 from $2,377,343.00 to $2,801,157.00 for additional services as specified in Exhibit “A5” Additional Scope of Services. G. To accomplish this purpose, the Parties wish to amend the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Fourth Amendment, the Parties agree: DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F ATTACHMENT A 2 Revision April 28, 2014 SECTION 1. Section 2. TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4. COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibits “A”, “A1”, “A2”, “A3”, “A4” & “A5”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Million Eight Hundred One Thousand One Hundred Fifty Seven Dollars ($2,801,157.00) The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C5”, entitled “RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibits “A”, “A1”, “A2”, “A3”, “A4” & “A5” SECTION 3. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Third Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A5” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES” b. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION” c. Exhibit “C6” entitled “RATE SCHEDULE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 5” 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: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 3 Revision April 28, 2014 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this First Amendment on the Amendment Effective Date. CITY OF PALO ALTO PLACEWORKS, INC APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit “A5” “SCOPE OF SERVICES” Exhibit “C” “COMPENSATION” Exhibit “C6” “RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F David Early 4 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT A5 ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTANT shall prepare an environmental analysis of a fifth planning scenario for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The analysis will supplement the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) published on February 5, 2015. Specifically, CONSULTANT shall: I. Creation and Analysis of the Fifth Scenario CONSULTANT shall work with CITY staff to define the fifth scenario. This work will include: a. Definition of the Fifth Scenario CONSULTANT shall work with CITY staff to development 2030 population, housing, and employment projections. This scope of work includes eight (8) hours for buildout projections. CONSULTANT shall prepare a project description of the fifth scenario for inclusion in the new environmental analysis document, reflecting input from the City Council received at Council meetings in January through the date of this contract amendment, including a decrease in jobs below Scenario 2. This scope of work includes two rounds of revision to incorporate comments from CITY staff. During each round of review on the project description, CITY staff shall provide one consolidated set of internally-reconciled. In addition to the overall numbers, CONSULTANT staff will work closely with CITY staff to allocate development projections to traffic analysis zones within the Sphere of Influence (SOI). This step will also account for development projections in the SOI, outside the City limits, based on potential future projects that were not known prior to issuance of the NOP for the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR. CONSULTANT will hold up to four (4) conference calls with CITY staff while conducting the tasks described above. b. Incorporation of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan CONSULTANT will also incorporate the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) into the project description. c. Environmental Setting This scope of work assumes that the environmental setting (existing conditions and regulatory framework) information from the Draft EIR will be incorporated by reference in the new analysis document. CONSULTANT will review the Draft EIR to ensure that the environmental setting is sufficient to prepare the analysis of the new analysis. This scope of work assumes that the environmental setting of the Draft EIR is sufficient and CONSULTANT will not conduct new existing conditions or regulatory framework research. d. Impact Analyses The new analysis document shall cover the same thresholds of significance used in the Draft EIR. CONSULTANT shall conduct the following tasks for the impact analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 5 Revision April 28, 2014 of the fifth scenario and S/CAP in the new analysis document: i. Traffic and Transportation. i. Modeling. Using the Palo Alto 2030 travel demand forecasting model, CONSULTANT will develop traffic projections for the year 2030 under the fifth scenario using the same methodology that was used for the four scenarios already included in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The following parameters will be projected for the new scenario: a. Mode Share. Trips to be made by Drive Alone, Shared Ride, Transit, Bicycle, and Walking will be projected. Transit Boardings and Transit Trips. b. Average Daily Traffic (ADT). CONSULTANT will provide ADT for the same 13 roadway segments that were included in the previous draft of the TIA. c. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by Directional Orientation. This information will be provided for both Palo Alto only and for Palo Alto and its Sphere of Influence. d. Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita. This information will be provided for both Palo Alto only and for Palo Alto and its Sphere of Influence. e. Turning Movement Counts for each of the Study Intersections. This data will serve as input to the motor vehicle level of service analysis to be conducted for the same 14 study intersections that were analyzed in the previous draft of the TIA. f. Additional Trips on the Study Freeway Segments and Ramps. The additional trips generated by the new scenario on the same freeway segments and interchange ramps that were included in the previous draft of the TIA will be projected. ii. Transportation Impact Analysis. The fifth scenario will be presented in comparison to existing conditions and to the other four scenarios on all tables and in the discussion of each potential impact. Discussion of mitigation measures proposed for significant impacts will also be revised to incorporate the fifth scenario. The fifth scenario will be evaluated against the same thresholds of significance used in the Draft EIR TIA. ii. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. CONSULTANT will use the traffic modeling and buildout projections for the fifth scenario to conduct an additional model run to assess air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 6 Revision April 28, 2014 iii. Noise. CONSULTANT will use the traffic modeling and buildout projections for the fifth scenario to model traffic noise impacts. CONSULTANT will update contour mapping in GIS as needed to reflect the fifth scenario. iv. Other CEQA Topics. The new analysis document will also cover the following environmental topics: i. Aesthetics ii. Biological Resources iii. Cultural Resources iv. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity v. Hazards and Hazardous Materials vi. Land Use and Planning vii. Population and Housing viii. Public Services ix. Utilities and Service Systems e. Administrative Draft Analysis Document CONSULTANT shall submit an Administrative Draft document for CITY staff review and comment. The Administrative Draft document will be submitted electronically. CITY staff shall provide one consolidated set of internally-reconciled comments on the Administrative Draft. f. Screencheck Draft Analysis Document CONSULTANT shall incorporate comments from CITY staff to prepare a Screencheck Draft document for CITY staff review and comment. The Screencheck Draft document will be submitted electronically. CITY staff shall provide one consolidated set of internally-reconciled comments on the Screencheck Draft. CITY staff comments on the Screencheck Draft shall be limited to minor edits, and shall not affect the conclusions of the analysis. g. Public Review Draft Analysis Document CONSULTANT shall incorporate comments from CITY staff to prepare a Public Review document for publication. CONSULTANT shall produce and ship the Notice of Completion, 15 copies of the report summaries, and 15 CDs containing the entire document to the State Clearinghouse. CONSULTANT shall also produce up to 60 hard copies for CITY. This scope of work includes an expense allowance for these copies. If the actual cost of production costs more than this allowance, the cost of production will be billed at actual expense. h. Public Comment Period CONSULTANT shall attend two hearings to hear public comments on the new analysis document. DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 7 Revision April 28, 2014 i. Response to Comments and Final EIR CONSULTANT will respond to comments received on the new analysis document as well as on the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR in a single combined Final EIR document. CONSULTANT will also prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for CITY review. For both the Final EIR and the MMRP, CONSULTANT will prepare one administrative draft, one screencheck draft, and one public review draft. This scope of work includes up to 120 hours to respond to comments. If substantial additional time is needed because of an unforeseen volume or complexity of comments, a contract amendment could be necessary. j. Final Hearings The Consultant shall attend two hearings on the analysis document and combined Final EIR. II. Creation and Analysis of Quality of Life/Fully Mitigated Fifth Scenario The CONSULTANT team will conduct an analysis of the fifth scenario using the same jobs and housing numbers and locations as described above, but adding relevant mitigation measures from the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR, as well as any other measures to reduce or eliminate physical impacts and preserve or improve quality of life. III. Transportation and Greenhouse Gas Modeling of No-Growth Scenario The CONSULTANT team will model a regional scenario, using consistent methodology and assumptions as used in the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR and analysis of the fifth scenario, that includes zero job and housing growth within the Palo Alto City limits. This no-growth scenario will be prepared as an informational item to illustrate the degree to which growth in Palo Alto, as opposed to growth elsewhere in the region, contributes identified potential impacts. The results of the modeling will be presented in a stand-alone memorandum or staff report; this will not be part of a CEQA document and no mitigation measures will be prepared. IV. Additional Fiscal Analysis a. Updates to the Comprehensive Plan Fiscal Study On January 15, 2016, EPS published the Draft Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan. On March 15, 2016, EPS presented the analysis, participated in discussion, and took comments concerning the analysis from the CITY’s Finance Committee. Based on comments received on the draft analysis, as well as in response to an evolving Comprehensive Plan, EPS proposes a number of steps to revise and augment the fiscal analysis. i. Additional Research Concerning Worker Spending EPS proposes to conduct up to three interviews with local business entities to better characterize local worker spending in the community. Potential DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 8 Revision April 28, 2014 interviewees include Palo Alto Downtown (business and professional association), Stanford Business Park, and the Chamber of Commerce. EPS will coordinate with CITY staff to select interviewees. Findings from the interview process will be used to refine fiscal impact analysis assumptions and/or inform sensitivity analysis related to worker spending patterns, as appropriate. ii. Additional Research Concerning Fire Department Service Burden EPS proposes to re-engage with the CITY’s Fire Department to review service burden data previously provided. It may be that additional analysis conducted by the department over the past six months (related to contract negotiations with Stanford University) could be used to better inform Comprehensive Plan analyses. EPS will conduct a follow-up interview with Fire Department staff, solicit a data update if warranted, and revise the fiscal impact analysis with new data inputs, as appropriate. iii. Sensitivity Analysis EPS proposes to evaluate the sensitivity of estimated fiscal impacts to potential variation in specific model assumptions. For example, EPS will test and report the fiscal impacts accruing to the General Fund in the event that real estate property turnover is higher or lower than assumed in the current analysis. EPS will perform sensitivity analysis and report results for testing of up to three key model variables, which will be identified and agreed upon with CITY staff in advance. iv. Fiscal Analysis of Fifth Scenario On January 18, 2015, the CITY Council and the Citizens Advisory Committee held a joint meeting to review the upcoming release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan Update. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Council adopted a motion requesting a fifth scenario aimed at improving the CITY’s ratio of jobs to housing. EPS proposes to analyze the fiscal impacts of this additional Comprehensive Plan Scenario and document findings in the Fiscal Analysis Report. b. Community Infrastructure Funding Analysis [OPTIONAL] Planning for sustainable communities requires careful consideration of potential funding sources and financing strategies to pay for community facilities and infrastructure that improve quality of life and accommodate growth. As an optional task, EPS would review the proposed capital investments envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Scenario Alternatives and assess funding options, including the CITY’s existing financial resources, other potential sources of funds, and financing mechanisms that may cover all or a portion of the proposed community improvements and infrastructure (including growth mitigation projects). It is anticipated that this analysis would focus on the provision of major transportation DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 9 Revision April 28, 2014 infrastructure, likely including parking facilities, expressway upgrades, CalTrain modernization, bus-rapid transit, and roadway/streetscape improvements. EPS would coordinate with CONSULTANT and CITY staff to review and clarify the list of capital investments and improvements generated by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. EPS then would identify existing funding (e.g., impact fee programs) and other potential future funding sources. The analysis would evaluate the potential use of these sources of funds to achieve Comprehensive Plan infrastructure goals. The objective of the funding analysis would be to compare improvement cost estimates with funding sources and mechanisms to quantify at a high level the potential CITY revenue contributions (or shortfalls). As part of the consideration of potential new sources of funds, EPS would evaluate the feasibility of implementing these sources. The analysis would endeavor to realistically assess the potential for and magnitude of funding options, but would not constitute a financing strategy or plan of finance for Comprehensive Plan infrastructure. As with other tasks, EPS would conduct the funding analysis in close cooperation with CITY staff and the consulting team. It is expected that the CITY or their consultants would be primarily responsible for identifying the desired capital improvements and estimating improvement costs. Note that this task may require involvement from specialized professional advisors, (e.g., transportation or civil engineer consultants currently working with the CITY) to provide reliable infrastructure cost estimates, which is not included in the EPS budget. c. Fiscal Analysis Deliverables Consistent with the Draft Fiscal Analysis, EPS will continue to document data, methods, and findings from the fiscal and funding analysis in a clear, well-written report. As part of this scope of work, EPS will prepare a Second Draft of the Fiscal Analysis Report, which includes the Comprehensive Plan Fiscal Study updates as well as a new chapter on Community Infrastructure Funding if the optional task is selected. EPS will provide CONSULTANT with a Preliminary Second Draft for review. After receiving and incorporating any comments from CONSULTANT, EPS will deliver to the CITY the Second Draft Report. Finalization of this Report will include one-round of consolidated comments from CITY staff, EPS revisions as needed and appropriate, and EPS production of a final document. d. Meetings and Presentations This scope of work includes three in-person meetings in Palo Alto: i. A Comprehensive Plan hearing in which EPS responds to question concerning the Draft Fiscal Analysis; ii. A meeting with CITY staff to receive comments on the Second Draft Report; and iii. A presentation to Council or the Finance Committee on the Report. Additional meetings may be held as needed by telephone or in person. Supplementary in-person meetings are not included in the fixed-fee budget proposal but may be authorized on a time- and-materials cost basis with prior approval by the Client. DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 10 Revision April 28, 2014 V. Increased Staff Support CONSULTANT will increase the level of support to CITY staff in preparing for, facilitating, and summarizing Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings, CAC subcommittee meetings (assuming up to four separate subcommittees), and CITY Council meetings. This will include research and writing of staff reports; preparation of and revisions to policies, programs, and narratives in response to CAC and subcommittee comments; conference calls weekly or more often, if needed; and assistance with preparation of agendas, meeting notes and CAC comment matrices, among other tasks as needed. DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 11 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit “C5”. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibits “A”, “A1”, “A2”, “A3” “A4”& “A5” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $2,801,157.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel (including within the San Francisco Bay Area – at actual cost B. Report printing and reproduction – at actual cost C. Deliveries – at actual cost D. Data purchase – at actual cost All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable 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: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 12 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT C6 RATE SCHEDULE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 5 STAFF LEVEL HOURLY BILL RATE Principal $190–$250 Associate Principal $175–$200 Senior Associate/Senior Scientist $145–$180 Associate/Scientist $110–$150 Project Planner/Project Scientist $90–$115 Planner/Assistant Scientist $75–$95 Graphics Specialist $60–$100 Clerical/Word Processing $40–$110 Intern $50–$70 Subconsultants are billed at cost plus 10%. Mileage reimbursement rate is the standard IRS-approved rate. DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F 13 Revision April 28, 2014 PLACEWORKS SUBCONSULTANTS Jansen Hill Mena Vermilion Assoc. Principal (AQ/GHG) $195 Fitzgerald/ Mantey Engineer/ Noise Manager $180 Rodenbaugh Hass Michener/ Mazur Senior Geologist/ GIS $160 Sotelo Garcia GRAPHICS WP/ CLERICAL HEXAGON EPS Hourly Rate: TASK I. Creation and Analysis of the Fifth Scenario Principal-in- Charge $175 Senior Associate Associate $160 $150 Senior Principal Scientist (Hazards) $165 $190 Senior Project Planner Planner Noise $145 $105 $85 $80 $100 PlaceWorks Transportation Hours Labor Total & Traffic Fiscal Subconsult ant Labor Total Task Total Budget a Definition of the Fifth Scenario b.Incorporate S/CAP c.Environmental Setting d.Impact Analysis e.Administrative Draft Analysis Document f.Screencheck Draft Analysis Document g.Public Review Draft Analysis Document h.Public Comment Period i.Response to Comments and Final EIR j.Final Hearings 16 12 10 46 36 16 6 16 40 16 198 6 32 20 22 70 64 24 16 4 96 4 348 16 2 0 0 14 4 4 2 30 2 2 2 10 2 1 1 8 2 1 1 24 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 8 24 4 94 40 24 12 10 2 2 0 4 2 4 0 4 4 4 8 4 2 6 2 2 0 40 4 Task I. Subtotal TASK II. Quality of Life/Fully Mitigated Fifth Scenario 16 44 38 20 14 30 10 246 14 10 16 62 72 38 310 164 83 51 20 204 20 1024 $9,400 $10,740 $5,790 $44,990 $23,450 $11,595 $6,985 $3,400 $30,110 $3,400 0 0 0 25,260 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $9,400 $0 $10,740 $0 $5,790 $25,260 $70,250 $0 $23,450 $0 $11,595 $0 $6,985 $0 $3,400 $0 $30,110 $0 $3,400 $149,860 $0 $25,260 $175,120 EXHIBIT “C6” RATE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT NO. 5 Quality of Life/Fully Mitigated Fifth Scenario 26 0 30 14 18 10 8 12 4 44 10 4 4 $23,120 $50,000 $23,120 $50,000 Labor Hours Total 304 139 419 72 56 30 22 42 18 414 24 14 24 1,598 Labor Dollars Total $53,200 $22,240 $62,850 $14,040 $10,080 $4,950 $4,180 $6,720 $2,610 $43,470 $2,040 $1,120 $2,400 $233,300 $68,920 $33,130 $102,050 $335,350 EXPENSES PlaceWorks Reimbursable Expenses $10,967 Subconsultants' Reimbursable Expenses $721 2% of Labor for Office Expenses (Copies, Faxes, Phone, Misc. Printing) $4,666 10% Subconsultant Markup $10,277.10 EXPENSES TOTAL $26,631 Recommended 10% Contingency $32,376 OPTONAL TASK Infrastructure Financing 6 1 3 10 $1,660 0 25,240 $25,240 $26,900 Expenses $2,557 OPTIONAL TASK TOTAL $29,457 Grand Total with Optional Task Subconsultants Cost are billed at cost plus 10% Reimbursable expense are billed at CONSULTANT’S current rates plus 2% of CONSULTANTS labor $423,814 GRAND TOTAL $394,357 184 $26,880 $23,120 Task II. Subtotal 26 0 30 14 18 10 8 12 4 44 10 4 4 184 $26,880 $23,120 $0 TASK III. Modeling of No-Growth Scenario Modeling of No-Growth Scenario 10 12 14 4 12 4 56 $8,520 20,540 $20,540 $29,060 Task III. Subtotal 10 0 12 14 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 4 56 $8,520 $20,540 $0 $20,540 $29,060 TASK IV. Additional Fiscal Analysis Updates to Fiscal Analysis 10 3 5 18 $2,980 0 33,130 $33,130 $33,130 $36,110 $33,130 $36,110 Task IV. Subtotal 10 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 $2,980 $0 TASK V. Increased Staff Support Increased Staff Support 60 120 24 112 316 $45,060 0 $0 $45,060 Task V. Subtotal 60 120 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 0 316 $45,060 $0 $0 $0 $45,060 DocuSign Envelope ID: 09C07626-ADAE-40E0-B219-2072FD4C681F P L A C E W O R K S 1 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B Aesthetics and Visual Resources AES-1: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under Scenarios 3 and 4 would not degrade the visual character or quality of the area: Policy: Promote high quality, creative design, and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy: Maintain and enhance the University/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational, and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historic importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Program: Review and revise as needed the Downtown, El Camino Real, and South of El Camino Real Design Guidelines to support and enhance the existing visual character of these neighborhoods with building forms and massing that relate to the street and the pedestrian, whether through traditional architectural forms or innovative new designs. Program: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new development to maintain and support the existing character. AES-4: The City shall develop an ordinance that will require development projects of a certain size or location to prepare an analysis of potential shade/shadow impacts. The ordinance shall focus on potential impacts to public open spaces (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. Projects that are shown to shadow open spaces during these times shall mitigate these impacts through building and site design features. Air Quality AIR-1: The policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that it is consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Policy: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Policy: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity, automobiles, and other sources. Program: Locate higher density development near transit corridors and near multimodal transit stations. Support regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area. Program: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and re-use of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking. Program: Promote mixed-use development to provide housing and commercial services near employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving. AIR-2a: As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future development projects to comply with the current BAAQMD basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-1, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). AIR-2b: Prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8- 2 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B 2, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department. AIR-2c: Prior to issuance of construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operational-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. AIR-2d: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a. In addition, the following policy and program, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to reduce long-term air quality impacts by emphasizing walkable neighborhoods and supporting alternative modes of transportation. Policy: Encourage new residential, commercial and mixed-use development around transit stations, locations with bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, neighborhood-serving retail, and city services to allow residents and employees to meet daily needs without the use of the private automobile. Program: Promote mixed-use development to provide housing and commercial services near employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving. AIR-3a: Applicants for future non-residential land uses within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary Project approval or shall comply with best practices recommended for implementation by the BAAQMD. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to: Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible. Electrifying warehousing docks. Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes. Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project. AIR-3b: Applicants for residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, and day care centers) that are subject to CEQA within 1,000 feet of a major sources of TACs (e.g., warehouses, industrial areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicle per day), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future discretionary Project approval or shall comply with best practices recommended by the BAAQMD. P L A C E W O R K S 3 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age zero to 16 years. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below 10 in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures and/or best practices to reduce risk may include but are not limited to: Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) filters. Mitigation measures identified in the HRA and best practices shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a condition of approval. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department. AIR-4: The following policy, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to reduce odor impacts: Policy: All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants should be adequately buffered, mechanically or otherwise mitigated, to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate human health standards. Biological Resources None Cultural Resources CULT-1a: The City shall prepare and adopt an ordinance that would regulate the demolition or alteration of a historic resource listed on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory, if alterations would significantly alter the historic value and/or character defining features of the historic resource. CULT-1b: Include a program in the Comprehensive Plan Update requiring the City to update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory to determine all historic resources that are eligible for the California Register as well as important examples of California history or prehistory. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district. Include a policy in the Comprehensive Plan requiring an evaluation prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit, where proposed development would affect a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. CULT-1c: The following policy and program, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under all four scenarios would not adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory: Policy: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats, and remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the nineteenth century. Program: Require that a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System be conducted and reviewed by a cultural resources professional for proposed new development to determine whether the site contains known prehistoric or historic cultural resources and the potential for as-yet-undiscovered cultural resources. 4 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B CULT-2: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1a, CULT-1b, and CULT-1c. CULT-3: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under all four scenarios would not damage archaeological resources: Policy: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats, and remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the nineteenth century. Policy: Require that a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System be conducted and reviewed by a cultural resources professional for proposed new development to determine whether the site contains known prehistoric or historic cultural resources and to determine the potential presence of as-yet-undiscovered cultural resources. Policy: Require that areas found to contain significant prehistoric artifacts be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation. Policy: Require that if cultural resources, including archaeological or paleontological resources, are uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction shall stop until appropriate mitigation is determined and implemented. Policy: Require that any archaeological or paleontological resources on a development project site, as a condition of project approval, be either preserved at their location or adequately documented as a condition of removal. When a development project has sufficient flexibility, avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the primary mitigation measure, unless the City identifies a superior mitigation. If resources are documented, their preservation should be coordinated with descendants and/or stakeholder groups, as warranted. Policy: Continue to consult with tribes as required by California Government Code Section 65352.3. In doing so, use appropriate procedures to accommodate tribal concerns when a tribe has a religious prohibition against revealing precise information about the location or previous practice at a particular sacred site. No mitigation necessary. CULT-5: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under all four scenarios would not damage paleontological resources: Policy: Require that areas found to contain significant prehistoric artifacts be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation. Policy: Require that if cultural resources, including archaeological or paleontological resources and unique geologic features, are uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction shall stop until appropriate mitigation is determined and implemented. Policy: Require that any archaeological or paleontological resources on a development project site, as a condition of project approval, be either preserved at their location or adequately documented as a condition of removal. When a development project has sufficient flexibility, avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the primary mitigation measure, unless the City identifies a superior mitigation. If resources are documented, their preservation should be coordinated with descendants and/or stakeholder groups, as warranted. CULT-6: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1a, CULT-1b, and CULT-1c. CULT-7: Implement Mitigation Measures CULT-1a, CULT-1b, CULT-1c, CULT-3, and CULT-5. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity None P L A C E W O R K S 5 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change GHG-2: To ensure that Palo Alto’s GHG emissions are reduced consistent with the State’s long-term goals, the proposed Plan should contain the following policy and program, or equally effective language, articulating these goals and ensuring steady progress towards their achievement: Policy: Strive to achieve and exceed target reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels set forth by Executive Order S-03-05. Program: Adopt an updated GHG emission reduction plan as part of the S/CAP aimed at achieving or exceeding the State’s goals, and monitor the City’s progress on an annual basis. GHG reduction policies included in the S/CAP, which is being prepared in conjunction with proposed Plan, would ensure substantial progress toward the long-term GHG reduction goals of Executive Order S-03-05. However, at this time, additional State and federal actions, as well as advances in technology, are necessary to achieve the deep cuts required to meet the 2050 emissions target. These actions are beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto and therefore it is unclear whether the City alone can mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. GHG-3: To address the potential impacts associated with exposing additional people to the effects of climate change, the proposed Plan should include the following policies and programs, or equally effective language, to ensure that future development would address potential risks and that the City would work with other agencies to coordinate strategies for minimizing risk, ensuring appropriate response/recovery, and planning for resiliency: Policy: Monitor and respond to the risk of flooding caused by climate change that may result in changes to precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and storm surges. Policy: Promote and participate in cooperative planning with other public agencies and regional and adjacent jurisdictions, especially regarding issues related to climate change, such as water supply, sea level rise, fire protection services, emergency medical services, and emergency response planning. Program: Develop and implement “green infrastructure” practices to mitigate flooding through improved permeability or paved areas, and storm water capture and storage. Program: Regularly coordinate with regional, State, and federal agencies on rising sea levels in the San Francisco Bay and major tributaries to determine if additional adaptation strategies should be adopted to address flooding hazards from increased sea levels for existing or new development and infrastructure. This includes monitoring Federal Emergency Management Agency flood map updates to identify areas in the city susceptible to sea level rise, addressing changes to State and regional sea and bay level rise estimates, and coordinating with adjacent municipalities on flood control improvements as appropriate. Program: Prepare response strategies that address sea level rise and increased flooding, and other events related to climate change, such as increased flooding, landslides, soil erosion, wildfires, and storm events. Include response strategies to address sea level rise on Palo Alto’s levee system. Program: Develop new development requirements for shoreline development to ensure that new development is designed and located to provide protection from potential impacts of flooding resulting from sea level rise and significant flood events. Requirements may include: new setbacks to ensure to structures are set back far enough inland that they will not be endangered by erosion; limits on subdivisions and lot line adjustments in areas vulnerable to sea level rise to avoid the creation of new shoreline lots; incentive or transfer of development rights (TDR) programs to relocate existing development away from high risk areas; and/or triggers for relocation or removal of existing structures based on changing site conditions and other factors. Hazards and Hazardous Materials None Hydrology and Water Quality 6 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B HYD-2: The City shall continue to investigate the potential impacts of basement construction dewatering and update standard conditions of approval to contain the following or equally effective measures: Prohibit dewatering during the rainy season. Encouraging greater fill station use by distributing more door-hangers and enlisting other public outreach regarding dewatering, fill stations, and trees. Strengthening outreach on the water cycle and value of fresh water flows to storm drains, creeks, and the Bay. Refining requirements for contractor Use Plans, including maximizing on-site water use, one day/week water truck hauling service for neighbors, and City landscaping and piping to nearby parks or major users where feasible. Expanding fill station specifications to address water pressure issues resulting from multiple concurrent users, including separate pumps for neighbors where needed and sidewalk bridges for hoses to prevent tripping hazards. Broadening the City’s Basement Pumping Guidelines to require a determination of the impacts of groundwater pumping on adjacent buildings, infrastructure, and trees or landscaping. Applicants would determine the size of the temporary cone of depression caused by pumping and avoidance measures would be required if impacts are anticipated. The Urban Forestry staff may develop guidelines for soil enhancement and supplemental watering (by project applicant) for neighboring landscaping. Additional measures could include adjusting the location, depth, or duration of pumping or altering construction methods. Land Use and Planning LAND-1: Include policies and programs in the proposed Plan to ensure that the intensity of future development under Scenarios 3 and 4 would not adversely change the land use patterns or affect the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods. This could be accomplished by maintaining existing Comp Plan policies related to compatibility and quality of life in the area: Policy: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. Policy: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall city welfare and objectives, and the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Program: Encourage greater use of allowed density within zoning regulations through smaller housing units near multimodal transit stations to take advantage of transit availability. LAND-2: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, should be included in the proposed Plan to further reduce potential impacts to visual character and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses: Policy: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Policy: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Program: Maintain and periodically review height and density limits to discourage single uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding uses. P L A C E W O R K S 7 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B Program: Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses. Program: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines, and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high-quality residential and commercial design. LAND-5: To avoid potential impacts from physically dividing an established community, the proposed Plan shall include the following policies, or equally effective policies: Policy: Design future transportation projects (including roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects) to improve connections between and within neighborhoods, rather than divide neighborhoods. Policy: Pursue a below-grade alignment and not an elevated alignment for regional fixed rail in Palo Alto, including both high speed rail and Caltrain. Policy: Ensure that future grade separation projects include a community participation and review process, and undergo environmental review. Future grade separation improvement projects would have the potential to cause environmental impacts, such as impacts associated with construction-related emissions, noise, and traffic, and aesthetics and land use impacts. These impacts, and alternatives to these grade separation projects, would be evaluated in detail when the projects are more clearly defined. Noise NOISE-1a: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that long-term operational noise under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 would not result in significant increases in average 24-hour noise levels. Policy: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility. - For exterior noise, the guideline for “normally acceptable” noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dBA. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 dBA Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single-family housing developments and recreational areas in multiple-family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dBA or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. - For interior noise, the requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25) are extended to all new dwelling units in Palo Alto. Specifically, interior levels for all habitable rooms must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA in all new dwelling units in Palo Alto. - Noise exposure(s) should be determined from a) more detailed noise exposure studies, or b) area-specific or project-specific noise measurements, as appropriate. Noise contour maps in this plan can be used as a preliminary screening tool in determining approximate noise exposure. - Prior to the initial development application for future developments near noise-sensitive land uses, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Noise Ordinance, and the State building code. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications, architectural designs (even if preliminary), and any proposed sound reduction/insulation measures, such that the pertinent land use compatibility, interior environments, and project-related noise emissions can be demonstrated to comply with prescribed city, county, and state noise standards. Policy: The City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not 8 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B limited to, the following: - Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns. - Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment. - Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. - Whenever possible, retain fences, walls, or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety, and other impacts must be addressed. - Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows. - Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. Program: Update the Noise Ordinance to provide for clear interpretation of the regulations, and to review the appropriateness of existing standards. Strictly enforce the Noise Ordinance. NOISE-1b: The following policy, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that aircraft noise under all four scenarios would not result in significant increases in average 24-hour noise levels. The following new policy shall be adopted as part of the proposed Plan. The wording of this policy may change as long as the revised policy is equally effective in mitigating potential aircraft noise impacts: Policy: Ensure compliance with the airport related land use compatibility standards for community noise environments by prohibiting incompatible land use development within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of the Palo Alto airport. NOISE-1c: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that railway noise under all four scenarios would not result in significant increases in average 24-hour noise levels. Policy: Minimize noise spillover from rail related activities into adjacent residential or noise-sensitive areas. Policy: Reduce impacts from noise and ground borne vibrations associated with rail operations by requiring that future development of habitable buildings address the following: - Be sited at least 100 feet from the centerline of the tracks whenever feasible. - Interior noise level of up to 45 dBA Ldn, with windows closed must be ensured through structural design. For habitable buildings located within 100 feet from the centerline of railroad tracks, developments shall provide a detailed noise impact analysis, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant technician, demonstrating that noise and ground borne vibration issues associated with rail operations have been adequately addressed (i.e., by building siting or construction techniques). This study must demonstrate that an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn will not be exceeded with windows closed. - Provide a detailed vibration impact analysis, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, demonstrating that ground-borne vibration levels will not exceed 72 VdB (relative to one microinch/sec) at residential buildings or 65 VdB at buildings with vibration-sensitive uses. NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, and NOISE-1c. NOISE-4a: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under all four scenarios would not result in indoor noise levels that exceed acceptable levels in residential development. Policy: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility. P L A C E W O R K S 9 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B - For exterior noise, the guideline for “normally acceptable” noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dBA. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 dBA Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dBA or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. - For interior noise, the requirements of the State of California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the Noise Insulation Standards (Title 25) are extended to all new dwelling units in Palo Alto. Specifically, interior levels for all habitable rooms must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA in all new dwelling units in Palo Alto. - Noise exposure(s) should be determined from (a more detailed noise exposure studies, or (b) on area-specific or project-specific noise measurements, as appropriate. Noise contour maps in this plan can be used as a preliminary screening tool in determining approximate noise exposure. Prior to the initial development application for future developments near noise-sensitive land uses, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Noise Ordinance, and the State building code. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications, architectural designs (even if preliminary), and any proposed sound reduction/insulation measures, such that the pertinent land use compatibility, interior environments, and project-related noise emissions can be demonstrated to comply with prescribed city, county, and state noise standards. Policy: For all future residential projects greater than four dwelling units that are proposed to be within the 65 dBA Ldn noise contours, as depicted on current Comprehensive Plan mapping, an acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant shall be submitted to the City as part of the entitlement review application. As part of the above acoustical analysis, require that projects include appropriate layout, structural, and/or architectural design features to ensure meeting the interior noise standards of the City and State codes. NOISE-4b: The Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines established in the current Comprehensive Plan shall be maintained under all four scenarios. NOISE-5a: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under all four scenarios would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts. Policy: Require a detailed construction noise impact analysis, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, for all projects that require discretionary approval and that are located within 100 feet of any noise sensitive land uses. If impacts are identified, require a noise monitoring plan to be prepared and submitted prior to the issuance of construction permits. This plan shall identify the monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and the appropriate noise control measures that will be incorporated to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Policy: Continue to prioritize construction noise limits around sensitive receptors. NOISE-5b: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. NOISE-6: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-4a and NOISE-4b. NOISE-7: Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a, NOISE-1b, NOISE-1c, NOISE-4a, and NOISE-4b. NOISE-8: The following policies, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under all four scenarios would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors from construction noise and vibration. Policy: Require a detailed construction noise and vibration impact analysis, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, for all projects that require discretionary approval and that are located within 100 feet of any noise- and/or vibration-sensitive land uses. 10 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B - If noise impacts are identified, require a noise monitoring plan to be prepared and submitted prior to the issuance of construction permits. This plan shall identify the noise monitoring locations, durations and regularity, the instrumentation to be used, and the appropriate noise control/mitigation measures that will be incorporated to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. - If projected daytime vibration levels exceed 90 VdB (relative to one microinch/sec) at workshop uses, 84 VdB at offices uses, 78 VdB at residential uses, or the limits for VC-A through VC-E uses shown in the FTA manual, a vibration mitigation plan is to be prepared and submitted prior to the issuance of construction permits. Policy: Continue to prioritize construction noise and vibration limits around sensitive receptors. NOISE-11a: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c. NOISE-11b: The following programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to preclude overall community noise impacts that are in excess of established State and/or City standards. Program: Encourage the Joint Powers Board to pursue technologies to reduce train whistle noise in communities served by Caltrain. Program: Evaluate changing at-grade rail crossings so that they qualify as Quiet Zones based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules and guidelines in order to mitigate the effects of train horn noise without adversely affecting safety at railroad crossings. NOISE-11c: City of Palo Alto staff and officials shall participate in and contribute to the environmental impact assessment of future Caltrain and HSR development programs for railway operations within the city’s SOI. Population and Housing POP-4a: Conduct a nexus study and update the City’s affordable housing linkage fee for commercial development to ensure that new job-generating development adequately mitigates the costs of its impacts on housing affordability in Palo Alto. POP-4b: Continue to increase the supply of housing in the city through implementation of the adopted Housing Element policies and programs, and/or slow the rate of job growth in the city. Possible zoning adjustments to accomplish more housing and/or fewer jobs could include changes to allow more residential density by right in areas that are well-served by services and transit, somewhat reducing commercial FAR and replacing it with residential FAR, and/or implementing an annual limit on new office and R&D development. Public Services and Recreation PS-7: To address the potential impacts of necessary property acquisition and park construction/ improvement, the Comprehensive Plan Update and/or the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan shall incorporate policies and programs addressing funding, community input, and environmental review, as follows: Continue to collect park impact and park dedication (in lieu) fees from new development to ensure there is funding to add and improve parklands during the life of the Comprehensive Plan. Reevaluate the fees on a regular basis. Consider integrating new pocket parks within existing neighborhoods where this is possible by acquiring small parcels or conditioning new development. Where there is publicly owned land that could be improved for public use, consider designating this land as parkland when improvements occur. Pursue reliable and sustainable mechanisms to address a growing gap in maintenance funding as park and community services facilities uses increase. Monitor the health of the parks and the effectiveness of recreation facilities in the face of growing demand and use; evaluate services to respond to growing and changing demographic patterns. Monitor impacts on habitat and ecosystems and develop conservation plans to preserve and protect them. P L A C E W O R K S 11 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B Ensure that new parks and park improvements are developed with ample community input and assessed to ensure that significant environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated to be less than significant. Consider utilizing park impact and park dedication (in lieu) fees to rehabilitate, expand, or otherwise increase utilization of existing parks and recreation facilities. In addition to these measures, the City would require permitting and review of new parks in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure that any environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated to the extent possible. This EIR is a programmatic document and does not evaluate the environmental impacts of any project-specific development. With mitigation, the impact is less than significant. PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7, above. Transportation and Traffic TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to reducing traffic with the goal of achieving no net increase in peak period motor vehicle trips from new development, with an exception for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo Alto (such as ground floor retail and below market rate housing). The program should, at a minimum: Require new development projects to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following reduction in peak period motor vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category. These reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated. - 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district - 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area - 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park - 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor - 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner on an annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that accrue if targets are not met. Require new development projects to offset remaining peak period motor vehicle trips through one of the following methods: - By directly contracting with another property owner or organization to reduce trips generated from another site; or - By paying an annual fee to the City for use in reducing motor vehicle trips to the extent feasible through the provision of transit services, carpool/rideshare incentives, bicycle lanes, and other similar programs and improvements. TRANS-1b: Establish and implement a policy that eliminates (“unbundles”) free or subsidized parking in new commercial and residential development (i.e. requiring employees and residents to pay separately for parking). TRANS-1c: Work to advance plans for grade separation at intersections along the Caltrain tracks to reduce traffic congestion/delay and improve safety; seek funding for design and implementation from local, regional, State, and federal sources. Ensure that future grade separation projects include a community participation and review process, and undergo environmental review. Future grade separation improvement projects would have the potential to cause environmental impacts, such as impacts associated with construction-related emissions, noise, and traffic, and aesthetics and land use impacts. These impacts, and alternatives to these grade separation projects, would be evaluated in detail when the projects are more clearly defined. TRANS-1d: Take a leadership role in regional transportation planning and advocating for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue jumping and curbside platforms, and additional 12 M A R C H 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B VTA bus service. TRANS-1e: Work with the PAUSD to ensure that decisions regarding school assignments are analyzed to reduce peak period motor vehicle trips to and from school sites. TRANS-3a: The City shall require new development projects to prepare and implement TDM programs, as described in TRANS-1a. TDM programs for worksites may include measures such as private bus services and free shuttle services to transit stations geared towards commuters. TRANS-3b: Take a leadership role in regional transportation planning and advocating for specific multi-modal freeway improvements, such as dynamic pricing, express bus service, transit and HOV priority, and other enhanced mobility options. TRANS-6: Provide traffic signal prioritization for buses at Palo Alto intersections, focusing first on regional transit routes. Also, provide queue jump lanes and curbside platforms for buses on El Camino Real. In concert with Mitigation Measure TRANS-6, Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a, TRANS-1b, and TRANS-3 would eliminate the impact on transit at the following intersections, which are projected to operate at a substandard level of service and are used by at least one bus route: Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road (#2) under Scenarios 1 and 4 El Camino Real (SR 82) and San Antonio Road (#8) under Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road (#9) under Scenarios 1, 3, and 4 Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Road (#10) under Scenarios 1, 3, and 4 Alma Street and East/West Charleston Road (#4) under Scenarios 1 and 2 VTA Route 88 runs on East/West Charleston Road and crosses the Caltrain tracks and Alma Street. The intersection of Alma Street and East/West Charleston Road (#4), is one of the impacted intersections under Scenarios 1 and 2, but signal pre-emption for VTA’s bus service would not be possible at this location, due to the railroad crossing and the need for Caltrain to have signal pre-emption capabilities. However, signal priority for VTA buses should be possible at this intersection, and would provide sufficient mitigation to eliminate the impact on transit at this intersection. However, impacts on transit at all intersections and segments where buses operate would not be eliminated. No further feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Thus, all four scenarios would have a significant impact on transit operations by increasing congestion. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. TRANS-8: Develop a proactive neighborhood traffic calming program with a tool box of specific improvements that can be used to discourage non-local drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. TRANS-9: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. Utilities and Service Systems P L A C E W O R K S 13 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT B UTIL-15: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 would comply with applicable solid waste regulations: Policy: Reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in the City’s landfill by reducing the amount of waste generated and promoting the cost-effective reuse of materials that would otherwise be placed in a landfill. Policy: Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials. Policy: Encourage the use of reusable, returnable, recyclable, and repairable goods through incentives, educational displays and activities, and through City purchasing policies and practices. Policy: Increase program participation to maximize recycling and composting from all residents, businesses, and institutions, and consider ways to expand recycling and composting programs. UTIL-17: The following policies and programs, or equally effective language, shall be included in the proposed Plan to ensure that future development under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 maximize energy efficiency and conservation: Policy: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto. Policy: Maintain Palo Alto’s long-term supply of electricity and natural gas while transitioning to renewable energy and energy conservation. Program: Encourage establishment of public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. Program: Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation measures into construction, maintenance, and City operation and procurement practices. Program: Incorporate State and federal energy efficiency and renewable energy standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations, and procedures for both privately-owned and City-owned projects and properties. Program: Evaluate the merits of electrification strategies and implement suitable programs to switch from gasoline/natural gas to electricity to achieve deep carbon emission reduction. Comprehensive Plan Update Revised Schedule – May 2, 2016 DRAFT* * All dates and topics subject to change; additional meetings may be scheduled as needed. Date* Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Schedule of Meetings & Topics Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan Update City Council Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions May 2 CAC Land Use Subcommittee May 4 CAC Sustainability Subcommittee May 10 CAC Land Use Subcommittee May 11 PTC Draft EIR Hearing (Continued from April 13) May 16 City Council Scenario 5 discussion & direction to staff Placeworks contract modification May 17 Land Use & Community Design Draft Element Review Recommendation on the Draft Community Services Element Considered on Consent May TBD CAC Land Use Subcommittee June TBD CAC Transportation Subcommittee June 6 City Council Public Hearing on the Draft EIR June 8 DEIR comment period ends; transmit public comments to the PTC & the City Council June 21 Recommendation on the Draft Transportation Element Recommendation on the Draft Land Use Element June TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee July 19 Natural Environment Element Policies & Programs (Discussion) July TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee July TBD CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee Aug 15 City Council Review of CAC work on the Transportation Element Aug 16 Safety Element Policies & Program Discussion Natural Environment Draft Element Recommendations (if feasible) Aug TBD CAC Safety Subcommittee Aug TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee City Council Review of CAC work on Land Use Element & Direction regarding Policy L-8 Sep 20 Business & Economics Element Policies & Programs (Discussion) Attachment C Comprehensive Plan Update Revised Schedule – May 2, 2016 DRAFT* * All dates and topics subject to change; additional meetings may be scheduled as needed. Date* Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Schedule of Meetings & Topics Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan Update City Council Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions Sep TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee TBD City Council Review of CAC work on Natural Environment & Safety Oct TBD CAC Business & Economics Subcommittee Oct 18 Safety Draft Element Recommendations (if feasible) Nov 1 Publish 5th Scenario Results for 45-day public review period (supplement to the Draft EIR) Nov 7 City Council Discussion & Direction on Governance & Implementation TBD SPECIAL MEETING – Governance Element Policies and Programs (Discussion) Nov TBD PTC Hearing on the Fifth Scenario Nov TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee TBD CAC Governance Subcommittee City Council Hearing on 5th Scenario supplement to the Draft EIR Nov 15 Business & Economics Element Recommendation (if feasible) Dec 13 Governance Element & Implementation Plan Putting it all together/Final Recommendations Dec 31 Revised Draft Comp Plan Update Disseminated for Public Review Feb (2017) PTC Review & Recommendation to the City Council (Multiple meetings) Final Review of Transportation Element March Final Review of Land Use Element March Final Review of Natural Environment and Safety Elements April Final Review of Business & Economics, Community Services & Facilities Elements April Review of Implementation Plan May Final Review of City Council’s Changes & Errata May Publication of the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Plan & Draft CEQA Findings May UPDATED COMP PLAN & FINAL EIR ADOPTED Attachment C City of Palo Alto (ID # 6853) City Council Informational Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 May 16, 2016 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 6853) Title: Public Works Week May 15-21, 2016 Proclamation Subject: Proclamation Recognizing National Public Works Week May 15-21, 2016 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works See attached Proclamation. Attachments: ·Public Works Week (DOC) CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK MAY 15-21, 2016 WHEREAS,public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and WHEREAS,the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient implementation and operation of public works systems and programs such as streets, public buildings, storm drains, wastewater and solid waste collection, environmental programs, and airport management and operations; and WHEREAS,the health, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities and services; and WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design, construction and maintenance are vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of Public Works Staff; and WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff Public Works Departments is influenced by the community’s attitude and understanding of the importance of the work they perform. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Pat Burt, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim the week of May 15, 2016, as "National Public Works Week" within the City of Palo Alto, and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which Public Works Staff make every day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life. Presented: May 16, 2016 ______________________________ Pat Burt Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 6873) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: City Finances Summary Title: Storm Drain Oversight Committee Expenditure Review Title: Storm Drain Oversight Committee Review of FY2015 Storm Drainage Fund Expenditures From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This is an informational report only and no Council action is required. Discussion The Council appointed Storm Drain Oversight Committee (Committee) meets annually to review Storm Drainage Fund expenditures and ensure their consistency with the ballot measure approved by property owners in 2005. Attachment A is the memo submitted by the Committee presenting the findings from their review of Fiscal Year 2015 Storm Drainage Fund expenditures. This memo documents the Committee’s finding that the Fiscal Year 2015 expenditures are compatible with the provisions of the 2005 ballot measure. Courtesy Copies Storm Drain Oversight Committee Attachments: A - Storm Drain Oversight Committee Memo to City Council (PDF) Attachment A Storm Drain Oversight Committee MEMORANDUM Date: April 6, 2016 To: Honorable City Council From: Members of the Storm Drain Oversight Committee Subject: Review of FY 2015 Storm Drainage Fund Expenditures As directed by the City Council, we have reviewed the Storm Drainage Fund’s expenditures for fiscal year 2015. Specifically, we have reviewed the expenditure of the revenue generated by the increased Storm Drainage Fee and compared it with the provisions of the Storm Drainage Fee increase approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2005. Based on this review, we find that the Storm Drainage Fund’s use of the increased revenue is compatible with the approved ballot measure (including $1,206,879 which was used for storm drain operational expenses previously covered by the General Fund subsidy). The Committee met on April 6th, 2016 to review the FY 2015 Storm Drainage Fund expenditures. During its meeting, the Committee reviewed financial information provided by staff, including the attached matrix detailing revenue generated by the Storm Drainage Fee increase and corresponding expenditures for FY 2015. The financial information was prepared and verified by Public Works and Administrative Services Department staff, using existing documentation whenever possible. Based upon our review of the financial materials provided to us, we find that the attached document labeled “Summary of Use of Storm Drainage Fee Increase for FY 2015” accurately summarizes the use of the revenue generated by the increased Storm Drainage Fee for FY 2015 and that the expenditures are compatible with the provisions of the Storm Drainage Fee increase ballot measure approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2005. Attachment cc: Jim Keene Mike Sartor Brad Eggleston Lalo Perez Summary of Use of Storm Drainage Fee Increase for FY 2015 Line Item Storm Drainage Fees Carryover Expended Committed by Contract Remaining Appropriation Total Use of Funds Fee Increase Revenue SD Fee Increase $3,877,330 Capital Improvements and Program Enhancements A. One-time SD CIP Projects San Francisquito Creek Pump Station $35,158 $631 $0 $0 $631 Channing/Lincoln Storm Drain $3,316,971 $48,068 $75,964 $3,192,939 $3,316,971 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drains $1,743,145 $1,433,933 $263,475 $45,737 $1,743,145 Gailen/Bibbits SD Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clara Drive SD Improvements $70,507 $35,030 $0 $0 $35,030 Matadero Creek Pump Station & Trunks $340,387 $19,164 $600,000 $1,633,169 $2,252,333 Alma Street SD Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Storm Drain Master Plan Update $0 $300,401 $0 $18,919 $319,320 B. Enhanced Maintenance SD Replacement/Rehabilitation CIP $702,225 $1,572 $36,170 $1,093,427 $1,131,169 Augmented SD Maintenance $20,915 $0 $0 $20,915 C. Innovative SD Projects $0 $4,290 $0 $145,712 $150,002 D. Augmented Storm Water Quality $116,463 $0 $0 $116,463 E. New CIP Engineer $154,177 $0 $0 $154,177 F. General Fund Loan Repayment $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTALS $3,877,330 $6,208,393 $2,134,644 $975,609 $6,129,903 $9,240,156 From Storm Drainage Fund Reserves $361,313 Other storm drain expenses previously covered by General Fund subsidy $1,206,879 TOTALS $10,447,035 $10,447,035 Revenue Expenditures Prepared for the Storm Drain Oversight Committee by Rajeev Hada and Gina Magliocco April 6, 2016 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6906) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/16/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Energy Risk Management Report, FY 2016 1st & 2nd Qtr Title: City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Report for the First and Second Quarters of Fiscal Year 2016 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation This is an informational report and no City Council action is required. Executive Summary Staff continues to purchase electricity and gas in compliance with the City’s Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures. This report is based on market prices and load and supply data as of December 31, 2015, the end of the first and second quarters of Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. The projected cost of the City’s fixed-price electricity purchases is $0.94 million higher than the market value of that electricity as of December 31, 2015 for the 36-month period beginning January 1, 2016. In the first and second quarters of FY 2016 (July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015) the City’s credit exposure to fixed price contracts is minimal. The projected Electric Supply Operations Reserve is above the FY 2016 minimum guideline reserve level and the projected Gas Operations Reserve is within the FY 2016 guideline reserve level range. There were no exceptions to the Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, or Procedures to report during the first and second quarters of FY 2016. Background The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about the status of the City’s energy portfolio and transactions executed with energy suppliers as of the end of the first and second quarters of FY 2016. The City’s Energy Risk Management Policy requires that staff report on a quarterly basis to Council on: 1) the City’s energy portfolio; 2) the City’s credit and market risk profile; 3) portfolio performance; and 4) other key market and risk information. Due to staffing City of Palo Alto Page 2 transitions, this report covers activity for two quarters, in the future; the quarterly reports will be for a single quarter. The City’s Energy Risk Management Policy describes the management organization, authority, and processes to monitor, measure, and control market risks. “Market risks” include price and counterparty credit risk. These are risks that the City is exposed to on a regular basis in procuring electric supplies and to a lesser extent for gas supplies which are purchased now at market rates via a monthly index price. The energy risk management section is located in the Treasury Division of the Administrative Services Department. Its role is to monitor and mitigate these risks. This energy risk management report for the first and second quarters of FY 2016 contains information on the following: Electric Supplies Hydroelectricity Fixed-Price Forward Electricity Purchases Gas Supplies Credit Risk Electric Forward Mark-to-Market Values Electric and Gas Supply Operations Reserves Adequacy Exceptions to Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, or Procedures Discussion Electric Supplies In order to serve the City’s electric supply demands, the City obtains electricity from: hydroelectric resources (from Western and Calaveras Hydroelectric Projects); long-term renewable energy contracts (from landfill gas converted to electricity, wind, and solar projects); wholesale purchases which are carried out via fixed-priced forward market purchase contracts; and the electric spot market. Figure 1 below illustrates the projected load and electricity supply resources by month for the 36 months from January 2016 to December 2018, in megawatt-hours (MWh). City of Palo Alto Page 3 Hydroelectricity The projected cost of hydroelectricity received from Western over the 12-month period ending December 2016 is higher than the market value of the electricity generated by $5.4 million. Hydroelectric power from Calaveras is expected to cost $9.6 million more than the market value of electricity for the same period. Note that Calaveras provides benefits not reflected in the mark-to-market (MTM) calculation, including, for example, ancillary services (e.g., improved reliability due to the ability to regulate energy output to the electric grid). Fixed-Price Forward Electricity Purchases As of December 31, 2015, the City has purchased fixed-priced supplies of electricity totaling 135,400 MWh for delivery between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. The average price for all of the fixed-price purchases is $33.42 per MWh. The City contracted for these purchases with three of its approved counterparties: Powerex, NextEra, and Shell Energy North America (SENA). The 12-month MTM value of the City’s forward transactions for wholesale power was negative $0.94 million at the end of the quarter. In other words, the purchase cost (contract price) for these transactions was higher than the market value as of December 31, 2015. The figures below represent the electric forward volumes (Figure 2) and MTM positions (Figure 3) for each electric supplier by month of delivery for all forward fixed-price electricity contracts over the 12-month period ending December 31, 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Gas Supplies In order to serve the City’s natural gas needs, the City purchases gas on the monthly and daily spot markets. The City purchases all its forecasted gas needs for the month ahead at a price City of Palo Alto Page 5 based on the published monthly spot market index price for that month. Within the month, the City’s gas operator buys and sells gas to match the City’s daily needs if the actual daily usage is different from the forecasted daily usage. Those daily transactions are made at an average price based on the published daily spot market index. Credit Risk Staff monitors and reports on counterparty credit risk based on the major credit rating agencies (S&P and Moody’s) scores. Ameresco has a 0.87 current Expected Default Frequency (EDF) which is above the recommended EDF level. Staff is continuing to monitor Ameresco’s EDF and will continue to report back to City Council in future quarterly reports on the status of Ameresco’s EDF. Table 1 below shows the EDF values for the City’s renewable energy counterparties. Table 2 below shows the EDF values and credit exposure for the City’s electric suppliers. There is virtually no credit exposure to the City’s gas suppliers since the supplies are purchased on a short-term basis. Table 1 - Renewable Counterparties Credit Ratings and EDFs as of 12/31/15 Renewable Counterparty S&P Credit Rating Current Expected Default Frequency S&P Implied Rating Ameresco -0.87%B3 Iberdrola BBB 0.02%Aa1 Table 2 - Credit Exposure and Expected Default Frequency of Electric Suppliers as of 12/31/15 Electric Counterparty Cost of Transaction Market Value of Transaction Powerex $1,197,248 $681,037 NextEra $795,767 $681,037 A-0.02% SENA $774,576 $613,300 Totals $2,767,591 $1,975,374 ($792,217)$0 ($161,276)AA-0.09%$0 ($516,211)AAA 0.01%$0 $0($114,730) Cost vs. Market to Market (MTM) Value S&P Credit Rating Current Expected Default Frequency Expected Loss (MTM x Expected Default Frequency) Electric Forward Mark-to-Market Values It is important to note that, for renewable energy companies, Council waived the investment- grade credit rating requirement of Section 2.30.340(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy companies that do business with the City. In addition, the City does not pay for renewable energy until it is received thereby reducing risk. An EDF of 0.08% or below indicates supplier’s current expected default frequency falls within the investment grade range. An EDF above 0.08% indicates the supplier may have financial issues that require monitoring. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Electric and Gas Supply Operations Reserves Adequacy As shown in Table 3 below, the Electric Supply Operations Reserve’s unaudited balance as of December 31, 2015 is $10.4 million, which is above the minimum reserve guideline level. This balance, however, is above the immediate 12-month credit, hydro, and other risks that have been identified which are estimated at $4.0 million. The unaudited Gas Operations Reserve balance as of December 31, 2015 is $6.2 million, which is $0.3 million above the minimum reserve guideline level. Table 3 - Electric Supply Operations and Gas Operations Reserve Levels for FY 2016 (Preliminary unaudited figures from City’s Financial System) Fund Reserve Balance as of 07/01/2015 ($ Millions) Changes to the Reserves ($ Millions) Unaudited Projected Reserve Balance as of 12/31/15 for FY 2016* ($ Millions) Minimum Guideline Reserve Level ($ Millions) Maximum Guideline Reserve Level ($ Millions) Electric $16.0 ($5.6)$10.4 $6.4 $12.8 Gas $10.8 ($4.6)$6.2 $5.9 $11.8 FY 2016 * The accounting activity to date reflects what has been booked into the City’s financial system. These figures are preliminary until outside auditors have completed their review and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is produced. There could be significant changes to the supply operation reserve balances based on year-end adjustments that have not been booked yet. Exceptions to Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, or Procedures There were no exceptions to the Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, or Procedures to report during the first and second quarters of FY 2016.