The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-09-21 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL September 21, 2015 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 September 21, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 6:00-7:00 PM 1. Potential Topics of Discussion With Supervisor Joe Simitian 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. Consent Calendar 7:25-7:30 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 2. Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Assignment, Assumption, and Consent Agreement With J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation and Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC 2 September 21, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 3. Adoption of Resolutions and Agreement With State of California Allowing City of Palo Alto to Participate in California State Board of Equalization Program to Collect the Utility Users Tax on Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services 4. Approval of Contract No. C16159137 with QLM, Inc. in the Amount of $243,356 for Monroe Park Improvements (Capital Improvement Project PG-11002) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:30-9:00 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARING - Adoption of a California Avenue Retail Preservation Ordinance to Amend the City’s Zoning Code and Zoning Map to Extend the Retail (R) Combining District Beyond California Avenue; Establish Regulations and Review Procedures for Formula Retail Uses and Certain Personal Service Uses (i.e. Hair and Nail Salons) in the R- Combining District and Changes to the Provision for Grandfathered Uses in the R-Combining District. The Planning and Transportation Commission has Reviewed the Proposed Changes and Recommends Approval. This Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines 9:00-11:00 PM 6. PUBLIC HEARING - Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Establishing a 50,000 Square Foot Annual Limit on Office/R&D Development in a Portion of the City Including Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor. Environmental Assessment: This Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Adoption Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 3 September 21, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings September 16, 2015 Special City School Meeting September 22, 2015 Finance Committee Meeting September 23, 2015 Special Council Meeting-Closed Session Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council Set 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 21, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Potential Topics of Discussion With Supervisor Joe Simitian Below are the potential topics for discussion with Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian. 1. VTA Sales Tax /County and regional transportation/mobility strategies, including congestion management, Caltrain grade separation, and public-private partnerships, infrastructure, (e.g. Transportation Management Associations) 2. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park 3. Vehicle habitation with managed overnight sites program/affordable housing supply 4. Air Traffic 5. Sea level rise mitigation. 6. Stanford Trails Funds ($4.5m) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6049) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/21/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Mercuria Gas Contract Assignment Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Assignment, Assumption, and Consent Agreement with J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation and Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) to: 1. Approve an Assignment, Assumption and Consent Agreement (Assignment Agreement) with J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation (J.P. Morgan) and Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (Mercuria); 2. Waive the application of investment-grade credit rating requirement of section 2.30.340(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy companies that do business with the City; and 3. Delegate the City Manager or his designee, the authority to execute on behalf of the City the Assignment Agreement with J.P. Morgan and Mercuria effectively assigning the Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas (Master Agreement) with J.P. Morgan to Mercuria. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto (City) has been doing business with J.P. Morgan since Council approved a Master Agreement with that counterparty in 2007 (Ordinance 4936). In October 2014, JPMorgan Chase & Company sold to Mercuria a portion of its physical commodities trading business including the entity with which the City engages in natural gas transactions. Council approval of the attached resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Assignment Agreement causing the Master Agreement to be assigned to Mercuria as of the date of its execution so that transactions entered into after that date will be entered into with Mercuria. Background In 2007, the City executed a number of Master Agreements including one with J.P. Morgan to enable gas commodity and related services transactions. The Master Agreements utilize the City of Palo Alto Page 2 North American Energy Standards Board template with some additional special provisions. In subsequent years, the City has transacted frequently with J.P. Morgan for gas commodity and for gas-related services including scheduling and daily balancing activities. In 2012 Council approved amendments to the Gas Utility Long-term Plan Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (Resolution #9244) establishing the practice of purchasing all gas volumes at monthly and daily index-based market prices and implementing monthly market price-based gas commodity rates for all Palo Alto gas customers. Discussion The City engages regularly with J.P. Morgan in natural gas transactions. Council approval of the attached resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Assignment Agreement causing the Master Agreement to be assigned to Mercuria as of the date of its execution so that transactions entered into after that date will be entered into with Mercuria. According Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.340(c), gas counterparties “shall obtain and maintain during the term of the contract the minimum credit rating established as of the date of the award of the contract of not less than a BBB- credit rating established by Standard & Poor’s and a Baa3 credit rating established by Moody’s Investors Services”. Because Mercuria is a privately-held company, there is no published credit rating. However, the City retains consulting services from ACES, a nationwide energy management company, and ACES’ analysis of Mercuria’s financial health resulted in an implied credit rating of BBB, a credit standing consistent with the City’s requirement. In addition, Mercuria will provide the City with a $415,000 letter of credit at such time as a transaction is entered into with the City. This amount was calculated by the City’s Energy Risk Manager to be sufficient to cover the very limited risk involved with this contract because the City purchases nearly all gas volumes at monthly and daily market index prices, and therefore, does not incur the kind of market price risk associated with long-term, fixed-price purchases. The letter of credit amount was based conservatively on cold January usage purchased at high winter prices. Council approval of the attached resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Assignment Agreement causing the Master Agreement to be assigned to Mercuria as of the date of its execution, thus enabling the City to enter into new business transactions with the new entity. Resource Impact There is no resource impact resulting from adoption of the proposed resolution. All gas is purchased at monthly and daily index-based market prices through a competitive bidding process involving all Council-approved gas counterparties, and the gas commodity rate varies monthly with the market price. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Policy Implications Approval of the attached resolution is in conformance with the Utilities Strategic Plan to negotiate supply contracts to minimize financial risk. Environmental Review Adoption of the resolution approving the Novation Agreement does not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution Approving an Assignment, Assumption, and Consent Agreement with J.P. Morgan and Mercuria (PDF)  Attachment B: Assignment Assumption and Consent Agreement (PDF)  Attachment C: Standard Letter of Credit Form (PDF) ATTACHMENT A * NOT YET APPROVED * 082715 jjs 999010 1 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving an Assignment, Assumption, and Consent Agreement with J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation and Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC R E C I T A L S A. In March 2007 the Palo Alto City Council adopted Ordinance 4936 approving J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation (“J.P. Morgan”) as a counterparty eligible to do business with the City of Palo Alto (“City”). B. J.P. Morgan has been an active counterparty transacting gas commodity and gas commodity-related services with the City. C. The City purchases gas for the portfolio at month and daily index-based prices and changes retail rates monthly to reflect those market prices. D. In October of 2014, JP Morgan Chase & Company sold J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation to Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (“Mercuria”). E. Mercuria is a privately-held company that does not have a published credit rating. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council approves the Assignment, Assumption and Consent Agreement (“Assignment Agreement”) with J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation (“J.P. Morgan”) and Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (“Mercuria”). SECTION 2. The Council waives the application of the investment-grade credit rating requirement of section 2.30.340(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy companies that do business with the City. SECTION 3. The Council delegates to the City Manager, and/or his designee, the authority to execute on behalf of the City the Assignment Agreement with J.P. Morgan and Mercuria which assigns the Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas with J.P. Morgan to Mercuria as of the date of execution. // // ATTACHMENT A * NOT YET APPROVED * 082715 jjs 999010 2 SECTION 4. The Council’s approval of this Assignment, Assumption and consent Agreement does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. 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 999006 -1- ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT THIS ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION AND CONSENT AGREEMENT (the “Assignment Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of September, 2015 (the “Execution Date”) by and among J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation (“Assignor”), Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (“Assignee”), and City of Palo Alto (“Consenting Party”) (Assignor, Assignee and Consenting Party are sometimes referred in this Assignment Agreement as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”). WHEREAS, Assignor and Consenting Party are parties to that certain NAESB Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas dated March 12, 2007 entered into between Assignor and Consenting Party (together with all amendments and modifications, the “Subject Agreement”) (a copy of which is attached hereto at Exhibit 1); WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign and delegate to Assignee, from and after the Effective Time (as defined in Section 1 below), all of its rights, duties and obligations in the Subject Agreement (except with respect to the Residual Subject Agreements, as defined in Section 5(j) below), and Assignee desires to accept such assignment and delegation and to assume all such rights, duties and obligations with the effect that (a) Assignee and Consenting Party are parties to the Subject Agreement and transactions entered by Assignee and Consenting Party after the Effective Time, in accordance with the terms hereof; WHEREAS, Assignor and Assignee desire to obtain Consenting Party’s written consent to assign or transfer the Subject Agreement, and Consenting Party desires to grant such consent in accordance with the terms hereof; WHEREAS, with effect from and including the Effective Time, the Consenting Party wishes to accept the Assignee as its sole counterparty with respect to the Subject Agreement (except with respect to the Residual Subject Agreements) and the Assumed Liabilities; and WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into this Assignment Agreement subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent, as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: 1.Assignment. Effective as of the Novation Date Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee all of its right, title, benefit, privileges and interest in and to the Subject Agreement that are to be performed or accrue on and after the Effective Time and that do not relate to a calculation period or delivery period (however defined) ending before the Effective Time. For purposes of this Assignment Agreement, “Effective Time” shall mean the beginning of the hour ending 0100 eastern prevailing time on the Novation Date. “Novation Date” shall have the same meaning as the Execution Date. 2.Assumption. Effective as of the Effective Time, Assignee hereby accepts such assignment and assumes and agrees to observe and perform the Liabilities of Assignor under or ATTACHMENT B -2- relating to the Subject Agreement which are to be performed or accrue on and after the Effective Time, to the extent such Liabilities arise from or relate to acts, omissions or events occurring or conditions arising on or after the Effective Time (collectively, the “Assumed Liabilities”). All Liabilities other than the Assumed Liabilities, including but not limited to Liabilities: (i) arising from or relating to acts, omissions or events occurring or conditions arising prior to the Effective Time under the Residual Subject Agreements but which have not been settled, paid or performed as of the Effective Time; or (ii) due and payable or due to be performed after the Effective Time under the Residual Subject Agreements, but which accrued with respect to or otherwise related to a calculation period or delivery period (however defined) ending prior to the Effective Time (collectively, the “Excluded Liabilities”) shall remain and be the obligation and responsibility of Assignor, and Assignee shall not assume, discharge, perform or be responsible in any way for any Excluded Liabilities. For purposes of this Section 2, “Liabilities” means indebtedness, obligations, duties and other liabilities (including in respect of or arising out of any breach of contract or actual or alleged failure of Assignor to perform any obligation), whether absolute, accrued, contingent, fixed or otherwise, or whether due or to become due with respect to the Subject Agreement and the Assumed Liabilities. 3. Acceptance by Consenting Party. Effective as of and from the Effective Time, Consenting Party hereby consents to the assignment of the Subject Agreement and accepts Assignee as the party to perform only the Assumed Liabilities of Assignor under the Subject Agreement. 4. Releases. (a) Effective as of and from the Effective Time, Consenting Party hereby releases and forever discharges Assignor and Assignor’s Guarantor(s), if any, from any and all further obligations to Consenting Party with respect to the Assumed Liabilities, including any liability of any type as a consequence of, or relating to, the Subject Agreement, including, without limitation, all manner of action and inaction, cause or causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, claims and demands whatsoever at law or in equity arising out of, or which are in any way related to, the Subject Agreement, provided that, for certainty, the foregoing shall not release or discharge Assignor or Assignor’s Guarantor(s), if any, in respect of the settlement, payment or performance of any Excluded Liabilities, and all such Excluded Liabilities shall remain and be the obligation and responsibility of Assignor and Assignor’s Guarantor(s), if any, and shall be paid or performed by Assignor to the Consenting Party in accordance with the terms of the Residual Subject Agreements. (b) Effective as of and from the Effective Time, Assignor hereby releases and forever discharges Consenting Party from any and all further obligations to Assignor with respect to the Subject Agreement and from any and all liability of any type as a consequence of, or relating to, the Subject Agreement, including, without limitation, all manner of action and inaction, cause or causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, claims and demands whatsoever at law or in equity, arising out of or which are in any way related to, the Subject Agreement; provided that, for certainty, the foregoing shall not release or discharge Consenting Party in respect of the settlement, payment or performance of any Liabilities: (i) arising from or relating to acts, omissions or events occurring or conditions existing prior to the Effective Time under the Residual Subject Agreements but which have not been settled, paid or performed as of -3- the Effective Time; or (ii) due and payable or due to be performed after the Effective Time under the Residual Subject Agreements, but which accrued with respect to or otherwise related to a calculation period or delivery period (however defined) ending prior to the Effective Time, (i), and (ii) collectively constitute the “Consenting Party Excluded Liabilities”), and all such Consenting Party Excluded Liabilities shall remain and be the obligation and responsibility of Consenting Party and shall be paid or performed by Consenting Party to the Assignor in accordance with the terms of the Residual Subject Agreements. For purposes of this Section 4(b), “Liabilities” means indebtedness, obligations, duties and other liabilities (including in respect of or arising out of any breach of contract or actual or alleged failure of Consenting Party to perform any obligation), whether absolute, accrued, contingent, fixed or otherwise, or whether due or to become due with respect to the Residual Subject Agreements and the Consenting Party Excluded Liabilities. 5. Master Agreement. Effective at the Effective Time, Assignee and Consenting Party agree that the following amendments will be applicable to the Subject Agreement as between Assignee and Consenting Party, it being agreed that no such amendments shall be applicable to the Residual Subject Agreements as between Assignor and Consenting Party: a) Assignor References. References to Assignor are replaced in the Subject Agreement with “Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC”. b) Addresses for Notices. The notices section on the cover sheet to the Subject Agreement and in Exhibit C, Part (H) is hereby amended by replacing the notice information for Assignor with the information of Assignee set forth in Exhibit 2 attached hereto. c) Net Settlement Amount. Section 10.4 of Exhibit B is hereby deleted in its entirety. d) Construction. Section 14.13 of Exhibit B is hereby deleted in its entirety. e) Financial Information. Section K of Exhibit C is hereby amended to delete the following: “and (ii) within 60 Days following the end of each of the first three fiscal quarters of its fiscal year, a copy of the quarterly unaudited consolidated financial statements for such fiscal quarter” and further amended by inserting the following after the first sentence of Section K: “Within sixty (60) Days following the end of each of the first three fiscal quarters of Supplier’s fiscal year, City shall have the right, after providing reasonable advance notice, at its sole cost and expense to review in-person at Supplier’s offices during normal working hours a copy of Supplier’s quarterly unaudited consolidated financial statements for each fiscal quarter. City shall have the right to take notes but not copy such financial statements, with the same being subject to Section 14.10 of the Contract.” -4- f) Credit Support Provider. The second sentence of the definition of “Credit Support Provider in Exhibit C, Section L is deleted in its entirety. g) Supplier Downgrade Event. (i) The phrase “and a Supplier Downgrade Event has not occurred” is deleted in its entirety from Exhibit C, Section G.(1) of the Subject Agreement. (ii) The definition of “Supplier Downgrade Event” in Exhibit C, Section L is deleted in its entirety. h) Posted Performance Assurance. The first sentence in Exhibit C, Section G.(2) of the Subject Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “If the City becomes ineligible to hold and use Posted Performance Assurance, then it shall be considered a "Downgraded Party", or with respect to a Custodian which is no longer a Qualified Institution, a "Downgraded Custodian", as the case may be, the event that caused City or its Custodian to become ineligible to hold Posted Performance Assurance shall be a "City Downgrade Event" or “Credit Rating Event" and the following provisions shall apply.” i) Potential Event of Default. All references to “or Potential Event of Default” in the Subject Agreement are hereby deleted. j) Irrevocable Transferable Standby Letter of Credit. (i) Section A.(2) of Exhibit C of the Subject Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “Supplier Letter of Credit. In order to secure the payment obligations of Supplier hereunder, Supplier shall deliver to City a Letter of Credit at such time as a transaction is entered into between the parties, which shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract.” (ii) The form of Letter of Credit attached to the Subject Agreement as Exhibit II is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the form of Letter of Credit attached hereto as Exhibit [xxx]. (iii) The definition of “Letter of Credit” in Exhibit C, Section L of the Subject Agreement is hereby modified by (a) by deleting and replacing in line four the -5- word, “and” (after the words, “may require”), with the words “, which such changes”, and (b) adding the word “reasonably” before the word, “acceptable” in line five thereof. k) Credit Events of Default. Section F.(2) of Exhibit C of the Subject Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with “RESERVED”. Assignor and Consenting Party agree that, notwithstanding the assignment to and assumption by the Assignee of the Subject Agreement, the Subject Agreement (without any of the amendments set forth herein or otherwise agreed to by Consenting Party and Assignee) (such agreement between Assignor and Consenting Party, together with any transactions entered into thereunder, if any, are collectively referred to as the “Residual Subject Agreements”) shall continue to govern the relationship between Assignor and Consenting Party with respect to the Excluded Liabilities and the Consenting Party Excluded Liabilities, and such Residual Subject Agreements shall be an independent obligation as between Assignor and Consenting Party. In no event shall any acts or omissions occurring under any subsequent transactions entered into under the Subject Agreement as between Assignee and Consenting Party impact or otherwise have any effect on the Residual Subject Agreements, it being expressly agreed by Assignee that Consenting Party and Assignor can exercise any and all rights under the Residual Subject Agreements without the consent or approval of Assignee. In the same manner, in no event shall any acts or omissions occurring under the Residual Subject Agreements as between Assignor and Consenting Party impact or otherwise have any effect on any subsequent transactions entered into under the Subject Agreement, it being expressly agreed by Assignor that Consenting Party and Assignee can exercise any and all rights under any subsequent transactions entered into under the Subject Agreement without the consent or approval of Assignor. 6. Further Actions. Each of the Parties hereto covenants and agrees, at its own expense, to execute and deliver, at the request of another Party hereto, such further instruments of transfer and assignment, and to take such other action, as such other Party may reasonably request to more effectively consummate the assignments and assumptions contemplated by this Assignment Agreement. 7. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, Jury Trial Waiver. (a) The validity, interpretation and performance of this Assignment Agreement and each of its provisions shall be governed by the applicable laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflict of law provisions. (b) With respect to any suit, action or proceeding relating to this Assignment Agreement (each a “Proceeding”), each Party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts sitting in the Northern District of the State of California; provided, however, that if the federal courts sitting in the Northern District of the State of California refuse jurisdiction, the Parties agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts sitting in the County of Santa Clara, State of California wherever venue may properly be laid. -6- (c) Each Party waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any right it may have to a trial by jury in any Proceeding. Each Party (i) certifies that no representative, agent or attorney of any other Party has represented, expressly or otherwise, that such other Party or Parties would not, in the event of such a Proceeding, seek to enforce the foregoing waiver and (ii) acknowledges that it and each of the other Parties hereto have been induced to enter into this Assignment Agreement by, among other things, the mutual waivers and certifications in this Section. 8. Representations. (a) Each Party hereby represents and warrants to the others as of the Execution Date and as of the Effective Time that: (i) it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its formation, is duly qualified to do business in those jurisdictions in which it is necessary for the conduct of its business, except for failures which in the aggregate are not material to the other Parties, and has all requisite corporate or other similar power and authority and the legal right to own and operate its properties and to conduct its business as currently conducted; (ii) the execution, delivery, and performance by it of this Assignment Agreement does not require any consent, license, approval or authorization of, or other action by, or any notice or filing with, any governmental entity or any other person other than such as have already been obtained; (iii) the execution, delivery and performance by it of this Assignment Agreement are within its organizational powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary action and do not violate any of the terms and conditions in its governing documents or any government rule applicable to it or result in the breach, default or termination of any agreement to which it is a party including the Subject Agreement (as between Assignee and Consenting Party) and the Residual Subject Agreement (as between Assignor and Consenting Party); (iv) this Assignment Agreement has been duly executed and delivered on its behalf; constitutes its legally valid and binding obligation enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, except where enforceability may be limited or otherwise impacted by bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally and except where enforceability is subject to the application of equitable principles or remedies; (v) no petition or notice has been presented, no order has been presented, no order has been made and no resolution has been passed for its bankruptcy, liquidation, winding-up or dissolution, and no receiver, trustee, custodian or similar fiduciary has been appointed over the whole or any part of any of its assets or income, and it has not received any notice that any other person has any plan or intention of, filing, making or obtaining any such petition, notice, order or resolution or of seeking the appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian or similar fiduciary; -7- (vi) it is acting for its own account, and it has made its own independent decisions to enter into this Assignment Agreement and as to whether this Assignment Agreement is appropriate or proper for it based upon its own judgment and upon advice from such advisers as it has deemed necessary; and (vii) it is not relying on any communication (written or oral) of any other Party as investment advice or as a recommendation to enter into this Assignment Agreement; it being understood that information and explanations related to the terms and conditions of this Assignment Agreement shall not be considered to be investment advice or a recommendation to enter into this Assignment Agreement. No communication (written or oral) received from any other Party shall be deemed to be an assurance or guarantee as to the expected results of this Assignment Agreement. (b) Each of the Assignor and Consenting Party hereby represents and warrants to each other and to the Assignee based on its actual knowledge as of the Execution Date that: (i) as of the Execution Date and as of the Effective Time, it has made no prior transfer (whether by way of security or otherwise) of the Subject Agreement or any interest or obligation in or under the Subject Agreement; (ii) as of the Effective Time, all obligations of the Assignor and the Consenting Party under each of the Assigned Transactions required to be performed on or before the Novation Date have been fulfilled; and (iii) as of the Execution Date and as of the Effective Time, no Event of Default (as defined in the Subject Agreement) with respect to the Party providing the representation and warranty has occurred and is continuing under, as applicable, the Subject Agreement (as between Assignee and Consenting Party) or the Residual Subject Agreements (as between Assignor and Consenting Party). 9. Entire Agreement. This Assignment Agreement, and all exhibits and schedules hereto, represents the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral and written and all contemporaneous oral negotiations, commitments and understandings between the Parties. 10. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Assignment Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of the Parties, and except as specifically provided herein, no other person shall be a direct or indirect beneficiary of, or shall have any direct or indirect cause of action or claim in connection with, this Assignment Agreement. 11. Counterparts. The Parties agree that this Assignment Agreement may be executed in counterparts and that, when taken together, such counterparts constitute but one agreement. [Signature page to follow] Signature Page to Assignment Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Assignment Agreement as of the date first above written. Assignor: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation By: ___________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: __________________________________ Assignee: Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC By: ___________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: __________________________________ Consenting Party: City of Palo Alto By: ___________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: __________________________________ City of Palo Alto Approval as to form: By: ___________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: __________________________________ Exhibit 1 EXHIBIT 1 Subject Agreement(s) See Attached Documents Exhibit 2 - 1 EXHIBIT 2 Assignee Contact Information NOTICES AND CORRESPONDENCE: Mailing Address: Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC 20 E. Greenway Plaza, Suite 650 Houston, Texas 77046 Attention: Contract Administration Telephone No.: (832) 209-2400 Facsimile No.: (832) 209-2401 With a copy to: Mailing Address: Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC 20 E. Greenway Plaza, Suite 650 Houston, Texas 77046 Attention: Legal Department Telephone No.: (832) 209-2400 Facsimile No.: (832) 209-2401 PHYSICAL CONFIRMATIONS: Mailing Address: Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC 20 E. Greenway Plaza, Suite 650 Houston, Texas 77046 Attention: Physical Confirmations Telephone No.: (832) 209-2495 Facsimile No.: (832) 209-2421 Email: physconfirmsna@mercuria.com FINANCIAL CONFIRMATIONS: Mailing Address: Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC 20 E. Greenway Plaza, Suite 650 Houston, Texas 77046 Attention: Backoffice Telephone No.: +31 30 254 8793 Facsimile No.: +31 30 254 1126 Email: backoffice@mercuria.com Exhibit 2 - 2 INVOICE & SETTLEMENTS: Mailing Address: Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC 20 E. Greenway Plaza, Suite 650 Houston, Texas 77046 Attention: Physical Settlements Telephone No.: (832) 209-2494 Facsimile No.: (832) 209-2401 Email: physsettlementsna@mercuria.com Federal Tax ID No. 47-1372646 DUNS No. 079486733 Wire Transfer: Societe Generale New York Branch 245 Park Avenue New York, NY 10167 ABA: 0260-0422-6 Account: 203378 Swift# SOGEUS33 CHIPS: 422 Other Details: Credit to Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC SCHEDULING: Mailing Address: Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC 20 E. Greenway Plaza, Suite 650 Houston, Texas 77046 East Desk: Attention: Joe Casas Telephone No.: (832) 531-7565 Email: jcasas@mercuria.com West Desk: Attention: Karen Glenny Telephone No.: (832) 531-7587 Email: kglenny@mercuria.com IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT Issuing Bank: TBD Applicant: Enter Applicant Applicant’s Address Beneficiary: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Letter of Credit No. _______________ Date of Issuance: xxxxxxxxxxx, 201x Date of Expiration: xxxxxxxxxxx, 20xx QUOTE. We, _______________________ (the "Bank"), hereby issue our irrevocable stand-by letter of credit number ___________ in favor of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Corporation (the "Beneficiary"), by order and for the account of XXXXXXXXXXX (the "Applicant"), in the amount of USD __________ (the "Maximum Amount") (this "Letter of Credit"), which is available at our counters located at ____________________, against presentation to us of one or more of the following statements, dated and signed by your representative (collectively, the "Presentation Documents"): 1. “An Event of Default (as defined in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxBeneficiary and Applicant dated as of _________ between Applicant and Beneficiary, as the same may have been amended (the “Master Agreement/NAESB”)) has occurred with respect to Applicant under the Master Agreement, and Applicant’s payment to Beneficiary of $[amount] is due and owing and Applicant has failed to make such payment in accordance with the terms of the Master Agreement/NAESB. Wherefore, Beneficiary hereby demands payment of the above referenced amount under Letter of Credit No. [____]”; or 2. “An Early Termination Date (as defined in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx between Beneficiary and Applicant dated as of ________ between Applicant and Beneficiary, as the same may have been amended (the “Master Agreement/NAESB”) has occurred or been designated with respect to the Applicant and the Applicant has failed to make all payments due and owing to Beneficiary in accordance with the terms of the Master Agreement/NAESB, and Applicants payment to Beneficiary of $[amount] is due and owing. Wherefore, Beneficiary hereby demands payment of the above referenced amount under Letter of Credit No. [____].” 3.“This Letter of Credit No. [______] will expire in twenty (20) or fewer Local Business Days, and beneficiary has not received an extension of said Letter of Credit or other acceptable ATTACHMENT C replacement collateral in accordance with the terms of the [name of Contract(s)] dated as of ___________ between Applicant and beneficiary. Wherefore, beneficiary hereby demands payment of the entire undrawn amount available under Letter of Credit No. [_______]”. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: A) Partial and multiple drawings are permitted. B) Presentations exceeding the total amount of this Letter of Credit are acceptable for purposes of presentation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Bank's payment obligation is limited to the available amount under this Letter of Credit, which, in turn, shall never exceed the Maximum Amount. C) Presentation of documents via facsimile are acceptable. D) Typographical errors are not to be construed as a discrepancy. E) Any fees for advising (if required), amendment or cancellation are for the Applicant’s account. We hereby engage with the beneficiary that documents drawn under and in strict compliance with the terms of this credit will be duly honored upon presentation as specified on or before the relevant expiration date then in effect. The Bank shall not be required to verify the authenticity of any documents presented or to form a conclusion on any declarations made. Any document purporting to be the document described will be accepted. The expiration date of this Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended for successive one year periods, unless we elect not to extend the then-current expiration date of this Letter of Credit, and a notice of non-extension is sent to the Beneficiary’s address set forth above by registered mail or by nationally recognized courier, not less than sixty (60) days prior to the then-current expiration date This Letter of Credit is subject to the International Standby Practices 1998, known as International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. ISP98 (“ISP98”), and, to the extent not addressed by ISP98, shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York (without regard to its conflict of law principles), including Article 5 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, except to the extent that the terms hereof are inconsistent with the provisions of ISP98. WE AGREE THAT IF THIS CREDIT WOULD OTHERWISE EXPIRE DURING, OR WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER, AN INTERRUPTION OF OUR BUSINESS FOR ANY REASON THEN THIS CREDIT SHALL EXPIRE ON THE 30TH DAY FOLLOWING THE DAY ON WHICH WE RESUME OUR BUSINESS AND ANY DRAWING ON THIS CREDIT WHICH COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN MADE EXCEPT FOR SUCH INTERRUPTION SHALL BE PERMITTED DURING SUCH EXTENDED PERIOD. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6112) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/21/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: New California Prepaid Wireless Program to Collect UUT Title: Adoption of Resolutions and Agreement with State of California Allowing City of Palo Alto to Participate in California State Board of Equalization Program to Collect the Utility Users Tax on Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation and Motion Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the California State Board of Equalization to collect Utility Users Tax on prepaid mobile telephony services and sign all related documents 2. Adopt the attached resolution of the City of Palo Alto establishing the list of City staff authorized to examine prepaid telephone records of the California State Board of Equalization 3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute additional documents to collect such tax. Executive Summary With passage of a new law, AB 1717, jurisdicitons with ordinances specifying collection of the Utility Users Tax (UUT) on prepaid mobile telephony services (MTS) are able to collect the tax via a program established by the State Board of Equalization (SBOE). To date, jurisdictions have not been able to collect UUT on prepaid services. To participate in the program, Palo Alto’s City Council is required to pass a resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager to enter an agreement with SBOE (Attachment C) for collection of the tax as well as a resolution creating a list of City staff that can examine SBOE prepaid telephone records (Attachment B). In addition, the City must certify that its UUT ordinance covers prepaid services (Attachment D). Based on the “tiered” system developed by City of Palo Alto Page 2 the SBOE for ease in administering the program, the City will collect 4.5 percent on prepaid services instead of the 4.75 percent cited in the City’s UUT Ordinance. The new law is effective January 1, 2016 and collections will begin at that time as long as the City files the SBOE forms by the end of September 2015. Background AB 1717 requires California retailers to impose a surcharge on purchases of prepaid mobile telephony services (MTS). The surcharge will be a percentage of the sale price of each transaction and it will include a local UUT component. Prior to AB 1717, there was no process for collecting and remitting local jursidictions’ UUT for transactions involving the sale of prepaid telephony services at retail stores. These services include: wireless airtime cards, sim cards, and other prepaid options. Representatives from cities and organizations representing local jurisdictions have worked with State representatives to pass legislation to levy and collect a tax on prepaid services. To overcome the administrative complexity and burdens of MTS providers in collecting the tax, a centralized collection program (similar to the sales tax process) has been implemented by the SBOE. Discussion To receive the City’s portion of UUT on prepaid wireless services, the City must participate in a new program implemented and run by the SBOE. This program is only available to cities which have adopted by voter approval updated UUT ordinances. Having passed an updated UUT ordinance (approved by the voters in November 2014), Palo Alto qualifies for this program. Joining the program requires Council to pass a resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign a Certification (Attachment C) and Agreement (Attachment D). The former testifies that the City’s UUT ordinance covers prepaid wireless services. The latter is to agree to terms set forth by the SBOE for collection of the tax under the Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act. In addition, Council is requested to pass a resolution allowing specified City staff to review SBOE prepaid telephone records. California retailers will be required to collect the local UUT, as well as State administrative charges, at the same time they collect sales tax on the retail product. The SBOE will then collect the UUT and remit it to jurisdictions (similar to the sales tax process). Allocations to local jurisdictions will be based on the point of sale. UUT receipts will be sent quarterly to local governments. For ease of administration and to reduce the cost of collecting for a considerable number of local jurisdiction UUT rates, the SBOE has created a “tier” of rates to levy (Attachment E). The City of Palo Alto’s 4.75 percent UUT rate falls within the “4.5% - 5.5%” tier and will therefore be levied at the rate of 4.5 percent. The City must accept this rate as part of the Agreement. Staff recommends accepting the tier assigned to the City. City of Palo Alto Page 3 AB 1717 has a sunset provision in 2020 that will require State legislative action to continue it. Timeline Approved and signed resolutions, certificate, and agreement must be sent to the State by the end of September. Collection of the UUT on pre-paid wireless activity will begin on January 1, 2016. The first remittance from the SBOE is likely to occur several months after the end of the 1st calendar year quarter or in May 2016. Resource Impacts Staff does not have sufficient data to estimate annual revenue from prepaid telephone activity. It is not expected, however, to represent as significant a source of funds for the City compared to currently taxed plans which generate approximately $3 million annually. Based on post January 2016 receipts, an estimate of annual revenues will be included in the FY 2017 Proposed Budget. Policy Implications Participating in the State program is consistent with the City’s UUT Ordinance which specifically cites pre-paid services as taxable. Environmental Review This is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Attachments:  Attachment A: MTS Authority Execution Resolution (PDF)  Attachment B: Local Jurisdiction MTS Resolution (PDF)  Attachment C: Prepaid Local Charge Agreement with State (PDF)  Attachment D: Prepaid Mobile Certification (PDF) RESOLUTION NO. ______________ A RESOLUTION OF THE ______________________________ Local Jurisdiction AUTHORIZING ______________________________TO EXECUTE Title of Authorized Position AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOCAL PREPAID MOBILE TELEPHONY SERVICES COLLECTION ACT WHEREAS, on _______, the ___________________ certified that Ordinance No. _______ applies its Date Local Jurisdiction local charge(s) (access to 911 or communication services and/or utility user tax) to prepaid mobile telephony services; and WHEREAS, the Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act, mandates the Board of Equalization (Board) to administer and collect the local charges for all applicable local jurisdictions (Rev. & Tax Code section 42103); and WHEREAS, the Board will perform all functions incident to administration and collection of the local charges for the ___________________ ; and Local Jurisdiction WHEREAS, the Board requires that the ___________________ enter into an “Agreement for State Local Jurisdiction Collection and Administration of Local Charges” prior to implementation of the Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act, and Whereas, the Board requires that the ___________________ authorize the agreement; Local Jurisdiction NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the ___________________ that the attached “Agreement Local Jurisdiction for State Collection and Administration of Local Charges” is hereby approved and the _______________________ is hereby authorized to execute the agreement. Title of Authorized Position * * * * * * * The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the _________________ Local Jurisdiction held on _______, by the following vote: Date AYES: ___________________________________________ NOES: ___________________________________________ ABSENT: ________________________________________ DATED: ___________________________________ ATTEST: (s) ___________________________ (s) ___________________________ (Printed Name & Title) (Printed Name & Title) -1- RESOLUTION NO.__________ A Resolution Authorizing the Examination of Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Surcharge and Local Charge Records WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No., ___________ of the City of _______________ and the Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act, the City of _________________, hereinafter called Local Jurisdiction, entered into a contract with the State Board of Equalization, hereafter referred to as the Board, to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of the prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charges (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 42101.5); and WHEREAS, the Local Jurisdiction deems it desirable and necessary for authorized representatives of the Local Jurisdiction to examine confidential prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charge records pertaining to the prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charges collected by the Board for the Local Jurisdiction pursuant to that contract; WHEREAS, the Board will make available to the Local Jurisdiction any information that is reasonably available to the Board regarding the proper collection and remittance of a local charge of the Local Jurisdiction by a seller, including a direct seller, subject to the confidentiality requirements of Sections 7284.6, 7284.7 and 19542 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; and WHEREAS, Sections 42110 and 42103 of the Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Board of Equalization records and establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in or derived from the prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charge records of the Board; NOW, THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the _______________________ or other officer or employee of the Local Jurisdiction (Title(s) of authorized position(s)) designated in writing by the _______________________ to the Board is hereby appointed to represent (Title(s) of position(s) authorized to Designate) the Local Jurisdiction with authority to examine prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charge records of the Board pertaining to prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charges collected for the Local Jurisdiction by the Board pursuant to the contract between the Local Jurisdiction and the Board. The information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of the Local Jurisdiction’s prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charges by the Board pursuant to the contract. Section 2. That the _______________________ or other officer or employee of the Local Jurisdiction (Title(s) of authorized position(s)) designated in writing by the _______________________ to the Board is hereby appointed to represent (Title(s) of position(s) authorized to Designate) the Local Jurisdiction with authority to examine those prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charge records of the Board for purposes related to the following governmental functions of the Local Jurisdiction: a)_______________________________________________ b)_______________________________________________ c)_______________________________________________ -2- The information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used only for those governmental functions of the Local Jurisdiction listed above. Section 3. That ________________________________ is hereby designated to examine the prepaid (Firm or consultant) mobile telephony services surcharge and local charges records of the Board of Equalization pertaining to prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charges collected for the Local Jurisdiction by the Board. The person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 42110, subd. (b)(2)): a)has an existing contract with the Local Jurisdiction that authorizes the person to examine the prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charge records; b)is required by that contract with the Local Jurisdiction to disclose information contained in or derived from, those records only to an officer or employee of the Local Jurisdiction authorized by the resolution to examine the information; c)is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a seller during the term of that contract; d)is prohibited by that contract from retaining information contained in, or derived from, those prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charge records, after that contract has expired. The contract between the Local Jurisdiction and ________________________ designated by the Local (Firm or consultant) Jurisdiction to request information from the Board shall be subject to the following limitations (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 42103, subd. (g)): a)____________________________ shall, to the same extent as the Board, be subject to Section(Firm or consultant) 55381, relating to unlawful disclosures. b)the contract between the Local Jurisdiction and ______________________ shall not provide, in(Firm or consultant) whole or in part, in any manner a contingent fee arrangement as payment for services rendered. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the information obtained by examination of the Board records shall only be used for purposes related to the collection of the Local Jurisdiction’s prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charges by the Board pursuant to the contract between the Local Jurisdiction and Board, or for purposes related to other governmental functions of the Local Jurisdiction, as identified above in section 2. Introduced, approved and adopted this _______________ day of ________________________, 20___. _________________________________________ _________________________________________ (Printed name & title) (Attest) _________________________________________ _________________________________________ (Signature) (Date) resolutionmts Rev. 07/15 1 Local Jurisdiction ______________ AGREEMENT FOR STATE COLLECTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF LOCAL CHARGES This Agreement is for the purpose of implementing the Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act (Part 21.1, commencing with Section 42100) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code), hereinafter referred to as the Local Charge Act. The ____________________________ and the State Board of Equalization, hereinafter called Insert name of local jurisdiction the Board, do agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Unless the context requires otherwise, wherever the following terms appear in this Agreement they shall be interpreted to mean the following: A. “Administrative Expenses” means all expenses incurred by the Board in the administration and collection of the local charges, including preparation and wind down costs which are reimbursable to the Board from the revenues collected by the Board on behalf of the local jurisdiction. B. “Contingent Fee” includes, but is not limited to, a fee that is based on a percentage of the tax liability reported on a return, a fee that is based on a percentage of the taxes owed, or a fee that depends on the specific tax result attained. C. “Direct Seller” means a prepaid Mobile Telephony Service (MTS) provider or service supplier, as defined in section 41007, that makes a sale of prepaid mobile telephony services directly to a prepaid consumer for any purpose other than resale in the regular course of business. A direct seller includes, but is not limited to, a telephone corporation, a person that provides an interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, and a retailer as described in section 42004(b)(1). D. “Local Charges” means a utility user tax imposed on the consumption of prepaid mobile telephony services, as described in section 42102, and charges for access to communication services or to local “911” emergency telephone systems imposed by a local jurisdiction, as described in section 42102.5. E. “Local Jurisdiction” or “local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, which includes a charter city, county, or city and county of this State, which has adopted an ordinance imposing a local charge of the kind described in Part 21.1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and has entered into a contract with the Board to perform all functions incident to the collection of the local charges. F. “Ordinance” means an ordinance of a local jurisdiction imposing a local charge, including any local enactment relating to the filing of a refund or a claim arising under the ordinance, attached hereto, as amended from time to time. 2 G. “Quarterly local charges” means the total amount of local charges transmitted by the Board to a local jurisdiction for a calendar quarter, as set forth in section 42106(a)(1). H. “Refund” means the amount of local charges deducted by the Board from a local jurisdiction’s quarterly local charges in order to pay that jurisdiction’s share of a local charge refund due to one taxpayer. I. “Section” – all section references are to the Revenue and Taxation Code. J. “Seller” means a person that sells prepaid mobile telephony service to a person in a retail transaction. ARTICLE II BOARD ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF LOCAL CHARGES A. Administration. The Board and the local jurisdiction agree that the Board shall perform functions incident to the collection of the local charges from sellers that are not direct sellers. B. Collection. The Board shall collect the local charges in the same manner as it collects the prepaid MTS Surcharge in the Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Surcharge Collection Act, subject to specified limitations in the Local Charge Act for which the local jurisdiction is responsible, as set forth in Article III of this Agreement. C. Audits. The Board’s audit duties shall be limited to verification that the seller that is not a direct seller complied with the Local Charge Act. D. Other applicable laws. The Board and the local jurisdiction agree that all provisions of law applicable to the administration and operation of the Local Charge Act, Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Surcharge Collection Act, and the Fee Collection Procedures Law (FCPL) shall be applicable to the collection of local charges. References in the FCPL to feepayer include a person required to pay the local charge, including the seller. All future amendments to applicable laws are automatically incorporated into this Agreement. E. Deposit of Local Charges. All local charges collected by the Board shall be deposited in the Local Charges for Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Fund in the State Treasury to be held in trust for the local taxing jurisdiction. Local charges shall consist of all taxes, charges, interest, penalties, and other amounts collected and paid to the Board, less payments for refunds and reimbursement to the Board for expenses incurred in the administration and collection of the local charges, including preparation and wind- down costs. F. Allocation of Expenses. The Board shall allocate the total combined annual expenses incurred for administration and collection pursuant to the Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Surcharge Collection Act and the Local Charge Act on a pro rata basis according to revenues collected for: (1) the emergency telephone users surcharge portion of the prepaid MTS surcharge, (2) the Public Utilities Commission surcharges 3 portion of the prepaid MTS surcharge, and (3) local charges. The Board shall charge a local jurisdiction its pro rata share of the Board’s cost of collection and administration. G. Transmittal of money. All local charges collected by the Board shall be transmitted to the local jurisdiction once in each calendar quarter. Transmittals may be made by mail or by deposit to the account of the local jurisdiction in a bank designated by that jurisdiction. The Board shall furnish a statement quarterly indicating the amounts paid and withheld for expenses of the Board. H. Rules. The Board shall prescribe and adopt such rules and regulations as in its judgment are necessary or desirable for the administration and collection of local charges and the distribution of the local charges collected. I. Security. The Board agrees that any security which it hereafter requires to be furnished under the FCPL section 55022 will be upon such terms that it also will be available for the payment of the claims of the local jurisdiction for local taxes owing to it as its interest appears. The Board shall not be required to change the terms of any security now held by it, and the local jurisdiction shall not participate in any security now held by the Board. J. Records of the Board. 1. Information obtained by the local jurisdiction from the examination of the Board’s records shall be used by the local jurisdiction only for purposes related to the collection of the prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge and local charges by the Board pursuant to this Agreement. 2. When requested by resolution of the legislative body of a local jurisdiction, the Board shall permit any duly authorized officer or employee or other person designated by that resolution to examine any information for its own jurisdiction that is reasonably available to the Board regarding the proper collection and remittance of a local charge of the local jurisdiction by a seller, including a direct seller, subject to the confidentiality requirements of sections 7284.6, 7284.7 and 19542. (sections 42110(b), 42103(e).). 3. The resolution of the local jurisdiction shall certify that any person designated by the resolution, other than an officer and an employee, meets all of the following conditions: a. Has an existing contract with the local jurisdiction that authorizes the person to examine the prepaid MTS surcharge and local charge records. b. Is required by that contract with the local jurisdiction to disclose information contained in or derived from, those records only to an officer or employee of the local jurisdiction authorized by the resolution to examine the information. c. Is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a seller during the term of that contract. d. Is prohibited by that contract from retaining information contained in, or derived from, those prepaid MTS surcharge and local charge records, after that contract has expired. 4 4. Any third party contract between the local jurisdiction and an entity or person authorized by the local jurisdiction to request information from the Board shall be subject to the following limitations: a. Any third party shall, to the same extent as the Board, be subject to Section 55381, relating to unlawful disclosures. b. A third party contract shall not provide, in whole or in part, in any manner a contingent fee arrangement as payment for services rendered. 5. Information obtained by examination of Board records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of the prepaid MTS surcharge and local charges by the board pursuant to the contract, or for purposes related to other governmental functions of the local jurisdiction set forth in the resolution. 6. If the Board believes that any information obtained from the Board’s records related to the collection of the prepaid MTS surcharge and local charges has been disclosed to any person not authorized or designated by the resolution of the local jurisdiction, or has been used for purposes not permitted by section 42110(b), the board may impose conditions on access to its local charge records that the board considers reasonable, in order to protect the confidentiality of those records. (section 42110 (c).) 7. The costs incurred by the Board in complying with a request for information shall be deducted by the Board from those revenues collected by the Board on behalf of the local jurisdiction making the request, as authorized by section 42110(b)(1). ARTICLE III LOCAL JURISDICTION ADMINISTRATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. The local jurisdictions shall be solely responsible for all of the following: 1. Defending any claim regarding the validity of the ordinance in its application to prepaid mobile telephony service. The claim shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of the local ordinance that allows the claim to be filed. 2. Interpreting any provision of the ordinance, except to the extent specifically superseded by section 42105 of the Local Charge Act. The claim shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of the local enactment that allows the claim to be filed. 3. Responding to specified consumer claims for refund involving: (1) rebutting the presumed location of the retail transaction; (2) a consumer claim of exemption from the local charge under the ordinance; or (3) any action or claim challenging the validity of a local tax ordinance, in whole or part. The claim shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of the local enactment that allows the claim to be filed. 4. Refunding the taxes in the event a local jurisdiction or local government is ordered to refund the tax under the local ordinance. 5 5. Reallocating local charges as a result of correcting errors relating to the location of the point of sale of a seller or the known address of a consumer, for up to two past quarters from the date of knowledge. 6. Collecting local charges on prepaid mobile telephony service and access to communication services or access to local 911 emergency telephone systems imposed on direct sellers. 7. Enforcement, including audits, of the collection and remittance of local charges by direct sellers pursuant to the ordinance. 8. The local jurisdiction shall be the sole necessary party defendant on whose behalf the local charge is collected in any action seeking to enjoin collection of a local charge by a seller, in any action seeking declaratory relief concerning a local charge, in any action seeking a refund of a local charge, or in any action seeking to otherwise invalidate a local charge. There shall be no recovery from the State for the imposition of any unconstitutional or otherwise invalid local charge that is collected under the Local Act. 9. Entering into an agreement with the Board to perform the functions incident to the collection of the local charges imposed on sellers that are not direct sellers. 10. Submitting an executed Certification to the Board, certifying that: (a) the local jurisdiction’s ordinance applies the local charge to prepaid mobile telephony services; (b) the amount of the rate charged for access to local 911 emergency telephone systems or access to communications services complies with the requirements of section 42102.5; and/or applies the tiered rate for the utility user tax, as identified in section 42102. (c) The local jurisdiction shall further certify that it agrees to indemnify and to hold harmless the Board, its officers, agents, and employees for any and all liability for damages that may result from the Board’s collection pursuant to this Agreement. 11. Submitting signed documents to the Board to include agreement(s), certification, copy of ordinance(s), and resolution(s). 12. Providing payment to the Board of the local jurisdiction’s pro rata share of the Board’s cost of collection and administration as established pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 42020. 6 ARTICLE IV LOCAL CHARGES A. Local Charges – Timeliness – This part shall remain in effect until proposed California Code of Regulations, title 18, section 2460 is adopted by the Board and approved by the Office of Administrative Law. 1. Ordinances in effect as of September 1, 2015. On or after January 1, 2016, a local charge imposed by a local jurisdiction on prepaid mobile telephony services shall be collected from the prepaid consumer by a seller at the same time and in the same manner as the prepaid MTS surcharge is collected under Part 21 (commencing with section 42001) provided that, on or before September 1, 2015, the local jurisdiction enters into a contract with the Board pursuant to section 42101.5. Thereafter, all subsequently enacted local charges, increases to local charges, or other changes thereto, shall become operative pursuant to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4). 2. New charges. When a local jurisdiction adopts a new local charge after September 1, 2015, the local jurisdiction shall enter into a contract with the Board, pursuant to section 42101.5, on or before December 1st, with collection of the local charge to commence April 1st of the next calendar year. 3. Increases in local charges. When a local jurisdiction increases an existing local charge after September 1, 2015, the local jurisdiction shall provide the Board written notice of the increase, on or before December 1st, with collection of the local charge to commence April 1st of the next calendar year. 4. Inaccurate rate posted on the Board’s website. When a local jurisdiction notifies the Board in writing that the rate posted on the Board’s Internet Web site (posted rate) for a local charge imposed by that local jurisdiction is inaccurate, including scenarios where the local charge was reduced or eliminated, the recalculated rate applicable to the local jurisdiction shall become operative on the first day of the calendar quarter commencing more than 60 days from the date the Board receives the local jurisdiction’s written notification that the posted rate is inaccurate. A. Local Charges – Timeliness – This part shall take effect and supersede the above “Local Charges – Timeliness section when California Code of Regulations, title 18, section 2460 is adopted by the Board and approved by the Office of Administrative Law. 1. Ordinances in effect as of September 1, 2015. On or after January 1, 2016, a local charge imposed by a local jurisdiction on prepaid mobile telephony services shall be collected from the prepaid consumer by a seller at the same time and in the same manner as the prepaid MTS surcharge is collected under Part 21 (commencing with section 42001) provided that, on or before September 1, 2015, the local jurisdiction enters into a contract with the Board pursuant to section 42101.5. In the event a local jurisdiction does not enter into a contract with the Board by September 1, 2015, the local jurisdiction may enter into a contract with the Board, pursuant to section 42101.5, on or before December 1st, with collection of the local charge to commence April 1st of the next calendar year. Thereafter, all subsequently 7 enacted local charges, increases to local charges, or other changes thereto, shall become operative pursuant to paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this subdivision. 2. New charges. When a local jurisdiction adopts a new local charge after September 1, 2015, the local jurisdiction shall enter into a contract with the Board, pursuant to section 42101.5, on or before December 1st, with collection of the local charge to commence April 1st of the next calendar year. 3. Increases in local charges. When a local jurisdiction increases an existing local charge after September 1, 2015, the local jurisdiction shall provide the Board written notice of the increase, on or before December 1st, with collection of the local charge to commence April 1st of the next calendar year. 4. Advance written notification. When a local charge is about to expire or decrease in rate, the local jurisdiction imposing the local charge shall notify the Board in writing of the upcoming change, not less than 110 days prior to the date the local charge is scheduled to expire or decrease. The change shall become operative on the first day of the calendar quarter commencing after the specified date of expiration or decrease in rate. If advance written notice is provided less than 110 days prior to the specified date of expiration or decrease in rate, the change shall become operative on the first day of the calendar quarter commencing more than 60 days after the specified date of expiration or decrease. 5. Inaccurate Rate Posted on the Board’s Web site. When a local jurisdiction notifies the Board in writing that the rate posted on the Board’s Internet Web site (posted rate) for a local charge imposed by that local jurisdiction is inaccurate, including scenarios where the local charge was reduced or eliminated and the local jurisdiction failed to provide advance written notice pursuant to paragraph 4 of this subdivision, the recalculated rate applicable to the local jurisdiction shall become operative on the first day of the calendar quarter commencing more than 60 days from the date the Board receives the local jurisdiction’s written notification that the posted rate is inaccurate. The local jurisdiction shall promptly notify the Board in writing of any such discrepancies with the posted rate that are known or discovered by the local jurisdiction. ARTICLE V COMPENSATION The local jurisdiction agrees to pay the Board its pro rata share of the Board’s cost of collection and administration of the local charges, as established pursuant to section 42020, subdivision (e). Such amounts shall be deducted from the local charges collected by the Board for the local jurisdiction. ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Communications. Communications and notices may be sent by first-class United States Mail. A notification is complete when deposited in the mail. Communications and notices to be sent to the Board shall be addressed to: 8 State Board of Equalization P.O. Box 942879 MIC: 27 Sacramento, California 94279-0001 Attention: Supervisor, Local Revenue Allocation Unit Communications and notices to be sent to the local jurisdiction shall be addressed to: B. Term. The date of this Agreement is the date on which it is approved by the Department of General Services. The Agreement shall take effect on the first day of the calendar quarter next succeeding the date of such approval, but in no case before the operative date of the local jurisdiction’s ordinance, nor on a day other than the first day of a calendar quarter. This Agreement shall be renewed automatically from year to year until January 1, 2020, when the Local Charge Act is repealed, unless a statute enacted prior to that date extends that date. In such event, this Agreement will continue to renew automatically from year to year to the date authorized by statute. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION By_____________________________ Administrator, Return Analysis and Allocation Section LOCAL JURISDICTION_________________ By_____________________________ (Signature on this line) _______________________________ (Type name here) _______________________________ (Type title here) CERTIFICATION I, ________________ am authorized to sign this certification on behalf of _________________. (Insert name of local jurisdiction) I certify to the following: Please check all the following that apply to your jurisdiction: 1.___ 911 Charges/Access to Communication Services - Ordinance No. ____ of the ________________ imposes the local charge set forth in the ordinance to prepaid mobile (Insert name of local jurisdiction)telephony services for access to communication services or to local 911 emergency telephone systems. As required by section 42102.5, the percentage reflecting the rate for access to the local 911 emergency telephone systems or access to communications services is ________. 2.___ Utility User Tax - Ordinance No. ____ of the ________________ imposes the local (Insert name of local jurisdiction)charge set forth in the ordinance to the consumption of prepaid mobile telephony services. The tiered rate for the utility user tax, as identified in section 42102 is ___________. 3.The _________________ agrees to indemnify and to hold harmless the Board of Equalization (Board), its officers, agents, and employees for any and all liability for damages that may result from the Board’s collection pursuant to this agreement. Executed in the _________________________________ on ___________________. (Insert name of local jurisdiction) (Add date) Printed name ___________________________________ Title of person _____________________________ (Insert name of local jurisdiction) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6025) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/21/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Monroe Park Improvements Project Title: Approval of Contract No. C16159137 with QLM, Inc. in the Amount of $243,356 for Monroe Park Improvements (Capital Improvement Project PG- 11002) From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract C16159137 with QLM, Inc. (Attachment A) for Monroe Park Improvements in the amount of $243,356 subject to approval of Fiscal Year 2015 reappropriation. 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with QLM, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, not to exceed the amount of $24,336 subject to approval of Fiscal Year 2015 reappropriation. Discussion Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PG-11002 (Monroe Park Landscape Improvements) provides funding for renovation of Monroe Park. The work to be performed under the contract includes removal and disposal of existing asphalt pathways, existing irrigation system, existing lighting, existing playground structure and existing site amenities. The contractor will install new asphalt pathways, irrigation system, lighting, playground structure and site amenities. On June 30, 2015, an Invitation for Bids (IFB) was posted to the City of Palo Alto website with 28 days to respond to the invitation for Bids (IFB). A non-mandatory pre- bid meeting was held on Wednesday, July 15, 2015. Proposals were received from three qualified firms (QLM Inc., Guerra Construction Group & Alpha Bay Builders, Inc.) on July 28, 2015 (Attachment B). The award is being made to the lowest bidder (QLM Inc.) for a not-to-exceed total of $243,356. There are insufficient funds in the Monroe Park CIP to cover the full costs of City of Palo Alto Page 2 the contract, a shortage of $8,357 and a 10% contingency for the project, $24,336. Therefore staff requests Council approve an additional $32,693 to cover the full estimated project costs and a 10% contingency for (CIP) PG-11002. Timeline This project is scheduled for 90 day construction to be immediately followed by a 60 day maintenance period. Estimated construction timeline September 2015- December 2015. Resource Impact This project is funded through (CIP) PG-11002 (Monroe Park Improvements). It is anticipated that a reappropriation for this project of approximately $240,000 will be brought forward for City Council consideration in October 2015, as a part of the Fiscal Year 2015 Reappropriations report. The Fiscal Year 2015 Reappropriations report is scheduled for Finance Committee review for the September 22, 2015 Finance Committee meeting. The anticipated contract costs, however, exceed the amount of available funding in the CIP even after approval of the Fiscal Year 2015 reappropriation. As a result, $32,693 of additional funds will be recommended to be drawn from the Infrastructure Reserve in the Capital Improvement Fund ($8,357 for shortage in contract funding for the project and $24,336 for the 10% contingency). This additional funding recommendation will be included in the aforementioned reappropriations report. Policy Implications Policy C-214: Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Attachments:  Attachment A- Contract C16159137 QLM Inc (PDF)  Attachment B-IFB159137 Bid Summary (PDF) Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159137 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C16159137 City of Palo Alto Monroe Park Landscape Improvements Project Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159137 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 C16159137 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST RANSFERS………………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159137 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on ____________________ (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and KLM, Inc., a California Corporation, located at 94 Umbarger Road, San Jose CA 95111, Phone: 408‐265‐0904 ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 560651 and registered with California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) under registration number 1000000353. 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 June 30, 2015, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Monroe Park Landscape Improvements Project (“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 Monroe Park Landscape Improvements Project, located at Monroe Park ‐ Monroe Drive and Miller Ave, Palo Alto, 94306 ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159137 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 C16159137 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 Ninety (90) calendar days 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 ($500.00) 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 C16159137 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 Two Hundred Forty‐three Thousand Three Hundred Fifty‐six Dollars ($243,356.00). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Alternates (Additive or Deductive) .] 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 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 Community Services Department 1305 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Daren Anderson AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159137 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: QLM, Inc. 94 Umbarger Road San Jose, CA 95111 Attn: Lyhak Eam 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 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 C16159137 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854‐compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records at the end of each week during the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159137 (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: ____________________________ Director of Community Services CONTRACTOR By:___________________________ Name: Lyhak Eam Title: Project Manager/Estimator Date: _________________________ Monroe Park Landscape Improvements Project IFB NO. 159137 BID SUMMARY BID DESCRIPTION BID BID BID BIDITEMQTYUNITAMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNT 1 Demolition 1 LS $47,369.00 $32,000.00 $55,131.00 2 Concrete Curbing 1 LS $9,498.00 $27,000.00 $37,861.00 3 Asphalt Paving 1 LS $23,268.00 $20,000.00 $64,431.00 4 Playground Equipment & Installation 1 LS $64,050.00 $35,000.00 $58,452.00 5 Planting 1 LS $28,314.00 $30,000.00 $39,854.00 6 Irrigation 1 LS $43,106.00 $60,000.00 $73,066.00 7 Site Furnishing 1 LS $27,751.00 $114,755.00 $39,190.00 $243,356.00 $318,755.00 $367,985.00 Alpha Bay Builders, Inc. BASE BID TOTAL: QLM, inc.Guerra Construction Group City of Palo Alto (ID # 6119) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/21/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: California Avenue Retail Preservation Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING - Adoption of a California Avenue Retail Preservation Ordinance to Amend the City’s Zoning Code and Zoning Map to Extend the Retail (R) Combining District Beyond California Avenue; Establish Regulations and Review Procedures for Formula Retail Uses and Certain Personal Service Uses (i.e. Hair and Nail Salons) in the R-Combining District and Changes to the Provision for Grandfathered Uses in the R-Combining District. The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the Proposed Changes and Recommends Approval. This Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the subject ordinance. Executive Summary The City Council has undertaken a number of actions to preserve ground floor retail uses in the City’s commercial districts, and has prioritized an examination of associated zoning regulations in the California Avenue area. On May 18th, the Council directed staff to return with an ordinance to limit formula retail uses, extend the boundary of the Retail (R) combining district, and modify the grandfathering provision in the R-Combining district. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the draft ordinance over two public hearings and recommended approval by the Council. The ordinance reflects Council direction, but does not include other directives that were deemed by staff to require additional time and resources. Consistent with Council direction, the subject ordinance advances those directives that were able to be addressed more expeditiously. See below for more information. Background Since 2014, the City Council has directed the preparation of ordinances to advance current City of Palo Alto Page 2 policies that preserve existing retail uses and limit office development in certain parts of the City. On May 18, 2015, the Council discussed California Avenue and increasing community concerns related to the introduction of formula retail (chain stores), the loss of small business and ‘mom and pop’ establishments, and the perceived changing neighborhood character of the street. Video recording of the meeting is available online: https://youtu.be/azIclPBvyAA?t=6577. An excerpt of the meeting’s action minutes is provided in Attachment B. The minutes specifically detail the Council’s amended motion and direction to staff. In preparation for the May 18 Council meeting, staff conducted two community meetings, engaged community members at the neighborhood famers market and solicited feedback regarding California Avenue through a questionnaire on Survey Monkey. The staff report for that meeting is included with this report as Attachment C. In addition to summarizing the results of that outreach effort, the attached report details existing code provisions, summarizes community concerns and information on how other cities regulate formula retail uses. Based on the foregoing, the Council directed the following:  Expand ground floor protections to include both sides of Cambridge Ave, the lanes between California Avenue and Cambridge Avenue, extending Park Boulevard south to Grant Avenue;  Limit formula retail on California Avenue;  Evaluate the appropriateness of limiting restaurants on California Avenue;  Limit the number of hair & nail salons on California Avenue;  Consider limiting number of financial institutions on California Avenue;  Limit other retail uses on California Avenue to no more than a defined percentage;  Add the words “predominantly” and “generally open to the public” to the definition of Retail Services, Municipal Code Section 18.04.03 (125), consistent with the Retail Urgency Ordinance; and  Prioritize the requirement that any construction resulting from demolition or major rehabilitation be required to conform to ground floor retail requirements and review. The above bulleted items are addressed in the attached ordinance (Attachment A). The Council’s direction also included the following items, which are not included principally because more research was required, which would have delayed this effort:  Address the permanency of Conditional Use Permits;  Prohibit opaque windows at the ground floor in ground floor protected areas for any use, including existing uses (excluding medical uses);  Clarify that we do not want parking transferring from restaurant use to office use; City of Palo Alto Page 3  Analyze and return to Council with mechanisms to make non-conforming uses conforming on California Avenue and to do so on a less urgent basis than the above direction;  Analyze and if necessary propose changes to parking requirements commensurate with parking demands of restaurant use; and  As a separate consideration, update Municipal Code Section 18.16.050. (Note: this is intended to be addressed during the first annual zoning code cleanup effort currently underway). The Council gave broad deference to the PTC to suggest any other matter that the PTC finds beneficial to retail quality and retention, including evaluation of changes to the proposed R- combining district boundaries. Moreover, the Council did not want items that required additional research to slow the subject ordinance. Direction not incorporated into this ordinance has been added to the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) work plan and can be prioritized to other work efforts at any time, but typically during the annual budget review process. Discussion The proposed ordinance accomplishes the following:  Defines formula retail to include retail, personal services or eating and drinking establishments with ten (10) or more other business locations in the United States, which is contractually required to have standardized merchandise, services, etc. (terms defined in ordinance). Draft Ordinance SECTION 2.  The general definition of ‘retail’ is been amended as directed to reflect changes in the previously adopted citywide retail urgency ordinance. Draft Ordinance SECTION 2.  The Retail (R) Combining district is expanded as directed by Council as shown on the exhibit to the draft ordinance. Draft Ordinance SECTION 3.  A discretionary, conditional use permit (CUP) requirement is established for all formula retail uses and new or expanded beauty shops, nail salons, and barbershops located within the R-Combining District and on California Avenue. Conditional use permits are approved by the PCE Director and subject to a request for hearing before the PTC and City Council if someone is aggrieved by the determination. Specific findings have been incorporated into the ordinance that ensures review of regulated formula retail establishments and other personal services is not perfunctory, but subject to neighborhood-focused conditions. Moreover, the findings enable the director to consider vacancy rates if it is found that a downturn in the economy or the provisions of this ordinance make it difficult for non-formula uses to establish on California Avenue. Draft Ordinance SECTIONS 4, 5, AND 8. [NOTE: The attached ordinance is corrected from City of Palo Alto Page 4 the PTC reviewed ordinance, which required all new formula retail uses in the R- Combining district to be subject to a CUP. The direction from Council and the intent of the ordinance is to regulate formula retail on California Avenue in the R-Combining District – not all formula retail throughout the district. A similar correction was made for beauty shops and nail salons.]  The R-combining district grandfathering provisions are amended to require legal non- complying facilities that are demolished and rebuilt to meet the ground floor use requirements in the R-Combining district, notably retail, personal service or eating and drinking establishments. Draft Ordinance SECTION 6.  The ordinance also includes provisions for a waiver and adjustment to the proposed regulations related to economic hardship that would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property. Policy Implications The subject ordinance is a permanent ordinance that affects the commercial area of California Avenue near the Caltrain rail station and some nearby streets. The major policies changes relate to defining and regulating formula retail, expanding the R-combining district, and changes to the grandfathering provisions. Formula Retail The proposed ordinance introduces a new concept for Palo Alto, but it is a regulatory scheme that has existed for decades in other communities throughout the nation. Regulating formula retail gives the local jurisdiction better control to evaluate impacts of a chain retailer to community needs and neighborhood character. Staff used the City of San Francisco ordinance a starting place and updated it based on prior Council direction. Typical concerns with these types of ordinances are the potential increase in vacancy rates, potential higher prices for goods and services, and reduced rents. The community and Council have acknowledged that there is not a significant problem on California Avenue as it relates to formula retailers. One of the principal reasons for advancing this ordinance is to be proactive and address a potential problem before it is realized. Community members have expressed concern over observed trends and see this ordinance as means to mitigate those concerns. While property values and rental rates remain robust throughout the city, it is possible that this ordinance when implemented could moderate those rates on California Avenue if formula retailers are limited. Property owners may not be able to achieve the same price per square foot it would get from a formula retailer as one would expect from an independent business owner. Property owners could be faced with decisions to lease the land for less or have the property sit vacant is some circumstances. The proposed CUP findings for formula retailers anticipates fluctuations on vacancy rates should this become a noticeable consequence of the market generally, or this ordinance specifically. City of Palo Alto Page 5 R-Combining District Boundaries & Limits on Certain Land Uses Some in the community have argued that expanding the R-Combining district to adjacent streets, such as Cambridge Avenue, may dilute the retail core of California Avenue resulting in more ground floor retail area than can be supported. Some, including the PTC, have requested more market and retail-trend analysis to better understand the implications of mandating this requirement. A retailer’s decision to locate in a particular commercial district is driven by many factors and it is uncertain in the absence of that data how this may impact California Avenue or other streets with the ground floor retail requirement. The retail market is dynamic and appears to be contracting not only in Palo Alto, but in surrounding jurisdictions and nationally. Increasingly, it appears retail spaces are giving way to service-related uses where the consumer interaction with the business is in person as opposed to remotely-served over the internet, which is the trend with online retailers. To some degree, California Avenue reflects this transition, which is illustrated by the increase in personal services (hair, nail salons) and eating and drinking establishments. The City’s own effort with the street improvement project encourages the use of the sidewalk for outdoor dining and provides other amenities to encourage more pedestrian activity. The shift to more personal services has been identified as a concern to some in the area. This concern is also reflected in the Survey Monkey questionnaire. The Council directed staff to consider limits to financial institutions, eating and drinking establishments and other retailers to ensure an appropriate mix and diversity of uses. The current code requires a CUP for financial institutions on the ground floor of the R-Combining district. The proposed ordinance adds nail and hair salons to the CUP requirement. However, staff does not believe it necessary to further regulate restaurants (other than formula restaurants). As noted in May, no new restaurants are likely to be established on California Avenue unless the property owner provides the code required parking on-site to support the more parking intensive use, or through a covenanted off-site arrangement, both of which are unlikely to occur. The Council previously indicated an interest in exploring this matter further, including an evaluation of appropriate parking requirements on California Avenue; however, such analysis will require additional time and resources. The attached ordinance modifies the Council’s direction regarding the expansion of the R- Combining district to exclude Planned Community (PC), Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD), and Public Facilities (PF) zoned properties. There are two PC zoned properties, one near Park Boulevard, which entitled, in part, a condominium development, and a second property on Cambridge Avenue, which entitled the City parking garage. Based on those existing land uses and specific zoning considerations, staff recommends excluding those properties. City of Palo Alto Page 6 There is one PTOD property at 420 Cambridge Avenue. This property includes specialized zoning regulations that are largely consistent with the intent of the R-Combining district and therefore, is recommended to be excluded from the combining district. There are also a number of PF zoned properties on Cambridge Avenue. Written in the purpose section of the R-Combining district section is a statement that the combining district is intended to modify a commercial district. The PF zone is intended to accommodate governmental, public utility, education and community service or recreational facilities. The Council may want to consider compelling the City to follow the R-Combining district regulations on the PF zoned properties at a later date after further planning initiatives are explored for this area. Below are two diagrams illustrating the expansion of the R-Combining District beyond the existing boundaries; the diagram on the right excludes PC, PTOD, and PF zoned properties and reflects the drafting on the proposed ordinance. City of Palo Alto Page 7 R-Combining District Includes PF & PC Zoned Properties R-Combining District Excluding PF & PC Zoned Properties Grandfathering Provision The amendment to the grandfathering provision is a departure from past application of that code section and is more restrictive to land owners seeking to redevelop property that contains nonconforming uses. The amendment is intended to require new development or substantially remodeled buildings (as elaborated in the ordinance) to comply the R-Combining district. Most of the property on Cambridge would be rendered non-complying with the ground floor use requirements in the R-Combining district. These uses could continue and the buildings remodeled, but if the remodel exceeds the provisions established in the ordinance, the property must comply with the ground floor use requirements. Attachment D, which shows the current mix of ground floor uses within the proposed R-Combining district expansion area, has been updated. City of Palo Alto Page 8 One property owner has filed an application with the City, which could be subject to this ordinance. The proposed project results in the redevelopment of three adjacent properties and would replace the approximately 1,600 square feet of existing retail use on the ground floor. Substantially more ground floor retail or personal service uses could be required for that project based on the current drafting of the ordinance and depending on the final design of the proposed project. At present, there is no carve out for pipeline projects in the ordinance. This property owner submitted a letter to the PTC, which is included with this report as Attachment E. Public Comment and PTC Deliberation Five community members spoke on the proposed ordinance. One person, representing the Palo Alto Members of the California Restaurant Association, expressed concern about limits to restaurants; however, the remaining four speakers supported the ordinance and requested the City do more to provide additional off-street parking in the area. At least one member suggested the R-Combining district be extended further along El Camino Real and that some limitations on restaurants be incorporated into the ordinance. The PTC generally supported the ordinance though there was a robust discussion on the topic that covered the changing nature of retail uses, possible impacts addressed above regarding lower rental rates, higher vacancy rates and increased costs for goods and services. The commission discussed the proposed regulatory process and whether the CUP application was the appropriate tool to regulate formula retail and observed that retailers struggle more on California Avenue. Parking was highlighted as a concern by some members. The commission also noted that, while there may be some impacts, the benefits of the ordinance outweighed those concerns and it respected the unique character of California Avenue and the challenges independent retailers are experiencing. Commissioners noted that formula retail is adequately served in other parts of the city. While ultimately supporting the ordinance without changes, some commissioners expressed concern about creating new non-conforming land uses on Cambridge Avenue and other streets where the R-Combining district was extended. The commission also discussed franchises and how to address changes in tenancy so they become subject to the new regulations. These last two points are expanded upon below: Change in Tenancy for Nonconforming Uses Staff has reviewed the change in tenancy issue and considers it a broader policy discussion requiring more time to vet out all the legal issues and to corroborate that concept to the various non-complying use regulations that apply citywide and specifically to the R-Combining district. Staff understands there is interest in requiring non-conforming land uses to change to a conforming use when there is a change in tenancy. However, this is in conflict with existing regulations and represents a departure from how the City has approached this issue in the past. The interest, as staff understands it, would be to require ground floor office spaces in the R- City of Palo Alto Page 9 Combining district to convert to conforming retail or personal service uses upon a change in tenancy. Similarly, a formula retail use on California Avenue will be rendered non-conforming with the adoption of this ordinance because it does not have a CUP. Some may be interested in requiring the next use, if a formula retailer, to be subject to the CUP requirement. And, while this may be possible to regulate, this ordinance does not codify this approach. To be clear, staff’s perspective is that uses, including ground floor office and formula retail uses, rendered non-conforming by the proposed ordinance could continue and could be replaced with in kind uses (office to office and formula retail to formula retail) provided there are no increase to the degree of noncompliance, there is no substantial remodel of the structure, and the change otherwise complies with applicable regulations (i.e. parking). Formula retailers would be subject to a CUP if occupying a space that does not currently have a formula retail use, or if an expansion to an existing formula retail use is proposed. As noted above, staff has added those items not addressed in this ordinance to the department work plan. Franchises Similar to the City Council’s discussion in May, a distinction was made between formula retailers owned by a larger conglomerate and independently owned formula retail establishments. Clearly one key aspect of the proposed ordinance is to provide greater protections for independent retailers from the increased pressure of higher rents. Any regulation that may result in the displacement of such ‘mom and pop’ establishments understandably seems as at odds with the intent of the ordinance. However, as the PTC reasoned and staff agrees, ownership is not a valid measure to evaluate whether formula retail should or should not be located within the district. Regardless of ownership, the same issues and concern about neighborhood character remain. Moreover, there is nothing about the proposed ordinance that would require any change or impose any greater burden to any existing formula retailer in the district. Existing formula retail, regardless of ownership, may continue to operate as it exists today and without the need to obtain any discretionary permits. Any future expansions of a non-complying formula retail use would require a CUP. The CUP is an application type to allow, conditionally allow or deny a proposed use. While the proposed CUP findings are enhanced to ensure a thoughtful consideration of a proposed use, any existing formula retailer that seeks to expand and meets the findings would be granted approval. Accordingly, staff believes there are sufficient protections in the ordinance to allow the continued use of franchised owned formula retailers, including expansion opportunities, in the district. Public Notice Notice of the hearing for the subject ordinance was published seventeen days in advance in the Palo Alto Weekly (September 4). Mailed noticed cards were sent September 3rd to all properties within the existing R-Combining district boundary and properties in the proposed expansion area. In addition, mailed notice was sent to properties within 600 feet of those district City of Palo Alto Page 10 boundaries. The agenda notice was published 72 hours in advance, available online and at City Hall. Moreover, email notification will be distributed to an email mailing list on file with the City to those interested in receiving updates about this project. Environmental Review Adoption of the proposed ordinance is a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A review of the project to the CEQA Guidelines indicates the project is exempt from further environmental analysis pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305. Specifically, the proposed ordinance results in a minor alteration in land use limitations, including an extension of the ground floor retail protections, requiring substantial new development to comply with the ground floor retail requirements and establishing of a discretionary review process for a discrete list of land uses that have the potential to erode neighborhood character. The ordinance contemplates impacts to vacancy rates and includes provisions that grant waivers from the ordinance due to financial hardships. Accordingly, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Resource Impacts Other than staff time, no other significant resources were used to prepare this report. Implementation of the proposed ordinance may result in an increase in discretionary applications, which would be cost recovered through permit fees. No analysis has been prepared to evaluate possible fiscal impacts to the City by extended the R-Combining district beyond its current boundaries. Attachments:  Attachment A: Ordinance and Exhibit (PDF)  Attachment B: Excerpt Action Minutes of the City Council Hearing of May 18, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment C: Council Report ID# 5642 of May 18, 2015 on Cal. Ave. Formula Retail Discussion (PDF)  Attachment D: Existing Ground Floor Land Uses in Proposed R-Combining District - Updated September (PDF)  Attachment E: Property Owner Correspondence to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated August 25, 2015 (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 20150820 jjs 00160085 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 18.04, 18.08 and 18.30 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Retail Zoning Regulations for the (CC2) California Avenue District. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings A. The City of Palo Alto has long been considered the birth place of Silicon Valley. With its proximity to Stanford University, its international reputation, its deep ties to technology firms, its highly rated public school system and its ample public parks, open space and community centers, Palo Alto continues to serve as a hub for technology based business. B. Palo Alto is considered one of Silicon Valley's most desirable office markets. According to one study, Class A office rates have climbed 49 percent since the start of 2010. The same study reported Class B office space increasing by 114.4% since 2010. C. In particular, average commercial rental rates have gone up significantly from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 the average monthly rental rate citywide for office was $4.57 per square foot. That rate increased to $5.12 in 2015. While retail rents have also increased during this period, retail rents are considerably lower than office rents. The average monthly rental rate for retail in 2013 was $4.21 and in 2015 was $4.88. D. These record high monthly rental rates for office and low vacancy rates have created financial incentives to replace current retail use with office use where such conversions are permitted by the City’s zoning ordinance. These economic pressures are more severe in the downtown and California Avenue districts but exist throughout the City. In addition, these trends place particular pressure on small and medium-sized businesses. E. While Palo Alto has several commercial areas which currently house large scale formula retail businesses, the City of Palo Alto desires to retain and foster an eclectic, vibrant and diverse collection of retail and personal services establishments in the California Avenue area in particular. F. Small- and medium-sized businesses tend to be non-traditional or unique and better scaled to be consistent with the City’s neighborhood- and pedestrian-centered character. G. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-5 directs the City to: “Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.” ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED 20150820 jjs 00160085 2 H. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-31 directs the City to: “Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two- to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets providing links to California Avenue.” I. Palo Alto is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, and it is expected that the updated Comprehensive Plan will contain additional policies and programs designed to preserve existing retail uses in the City. J. Notwithstanding the economic viability of a formula retail business, the standardized architecture, color schemes, decor and signage of many formula retail businesses can detract from the distinctive character and aesthetics of many Palo Alto neighborhoods. K. The unregulated establishment of formula retail businesses in Palo Alto may hamper the City’s General Plan policies seeking to maintain the character of the City and promote diverse, pedestrian-oriented land uses. L. Money earned by independent businesses is more likely to circulate within the local neighborhood and City economy than the money earned by formula retail businesses which often have corporate offices and vendors located outside of Palo Alto. M. The public’s health, safety and welfare can be detrimentally affected as non- traditional or unique, neighborhood-serving retail service and related uses are priced-out by rising rents and replaced by uses that do not provide similar services or that fail to activate the street frontage by creating pedestrian activity and visual interest (i.e. non-traditional or unique shop windows and doors). These changes affect neighborhood quality of life, and mean that local residents have to drive to similar retail destinations in other locations, diminishing the public health benefit when residents can walk to needed services and increasing traffic congestion, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions. These impacts are evident in neighboring communities that have permitted large scale retail businesses to displace smaller locally owned businesses. N. On May 18, 2015, the City Council discussed these issues in detail and directed staff to prepare an urgency ordinance that would preserve existing ground floor retail and retail-like uses, and regulate the proliferation of formula retail businesses in the California Avenue district. These measures are taken at this juncture in order to prevent the over- proliferation of formula retail in the California Avenue area. O. On July 8, 2015 and August 26, 2015, the Planning and Transportation Commission conducted public hearings on this ordinance and recommended approval to the Council. On ____, the City Council conducted a public hearing on this ordinance. // // NOT YET APPROVED 20150820 jjs 00160085 3 SECTION 2. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to add definition 57.6 and amend definition 125 as follows: (57.6) “Formula retail business” means a retail, personal, or eating and drinking service which, along with ten (10) or more other business locations in the United States, is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain any of the following standardized characteristics: merchandise, menu, services, decor, uniforms, architecture, façade, color scheme, signs, trademark, or servicemark. For purposes of this definition: (A) Standardized merchandise, menu and/or services means 50% or more of in-stock merchandise from a single distributor bearing the same or similar markings; 50% or more of menu items identical in name and presentation with other locations; or 50% or more of services offered identical in name or presentation with other locations. (B) Decor means the style of interior furnishings, which may include but is not limited to, style of furniture, wall coverings or permanent fixtures. (C) Color Scheme means the selection of colors used throughout, such as on the furnishings, permanent fixtures, and wall coverings, or as used on the façade. (D) Uniforms mean standardized items of clothing including but not limited to standardized aprons, pants, shirts, smocks or dresses, hats, and pins (other than name tags) as well as standardized colors of clothing. (E) Façade means the face or front of a building, including awnings, looking onto a street or an open space. (F) Trademark means a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods from one party from those of others. (G) Servicemark means a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs that identifies and distinguishes the source of a service from one party from those of others. (125) “Retail service” means a use generally open to the public and predominantly engaged in providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use, including but not limited to the following: groceries, meat, vegetables, dairy products, baked goods, candy, and other food products; liquor and bottled goods, household cleaning and maintenance products; drugs, cards, and stationery, notions, books, tobacco products, cosmetics, and specialty items; flowers, plants, hobby materials, toys, household pets and supplies, and handcrafted items; apparel, jewelry, fabrics, and like items; cameras, photography services, household electronic equipment, records, sporting equipment, NOT YET APPROVED 20150820 jjs 00160085 4 kitchen utensils, home furnishing and appliances, art supplies and framing, arts and antiques, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, interior decorating services, office supplies, musical instruments, hardware and homeware, and garden supplies; bicycles; mopeds and automotive parts and accessories (excluding service and installation); cookie shops, ice cream stores and delicatessens. (A) "Extensive retail service," as used with respect to parking requirements, means a retail sales use having more than seventy-five percent of the gross floor area used for display, sales, and related storage of bulky commodities, including household furniture and appliances, lumber and building materials, carpeting and floor covering, air conditioning and heating equipment, and similar goods, which uses have demonstrably low parking demand generation per square foot of gross floor area. (B) "Intensive retail service" as used with respect to parking requirements, means any retail service use not defined as extensive retail service. SECTION 3. Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) of Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: The Retail Shopping (R) combining district currently applicable to property on California Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Boulevard shall be extended to additionally include: (1) property on both sides of Cambridge Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Boulevard; (2) property on Mimosa Lane, Nogal Lane, and New Mayfield Lane; (3) property on Birch Street between California Avenue and Cambridge Avenue; and (4) property on the east side of Park Boulevard between Jacaranda Lane and Grant Avenue. The Retail Shopping (R) combining district shall not be applied to property within these boundaries subject to the following zoning: Public Facilities District (“PF”); Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (“PTOD”); “CC(2)(P) Community Commercial Subdistrict (2) with Pedestrian Combining District” as described in Ordinance No. 4848; and “PC Planned Community” as described in Ordinance No. 4127. The subject properties, as rezoned by this ordinance, are shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Section 18.30(A).040 (Permitted Uses) of Chapter 18.30(A) (Retail Shopping (R) Combining District Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Except to the extent a conditional use permit is required pursuant to Section 18.30(A).050, the following uses shall be permitted in an R district: (a) Eating and drinking services, except drive-in and take-out services; (b) Personal services, not including beauty shops, nail salons, and barbershops on California Avenue; (c) Retail services; NOT YET APPROVED 20150820 jjs 00160085 5 (d) All other uses permitted in the underlying commercial district, provided they are not located on a ground floor. SECTION 5. Section 18.30(A).050 (Conditional Uses) of Chapter 18.30(A) (Retail Shopping (R) Combining District Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: The following uses may be conditionally permitted in an R district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals): (a) Financial services, except drive-in services, on a ground floor; (b) All other conditional uses allowed in the underlying commercial district provided they are not located on a ground floor. (c) Formula retail businesses on California Avenue. (d) Beauty shops, nail salons, and barbershops on California Avenue. SECTION 6. Section 18.30(A).060 (Special Requirements) of Chapter 18.30(A) (Retail Shopping (R) Combining District Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: The following special requirements shall apply in the R retail shopping combining district: Lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating pursuant to a conditional use permit which were existing on April 26, 1984 may remain as grandfathered uses and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in shifting of building footprint or building envelope, or increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except through the granting of a design enhancement exception, pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). The intentional destruction or demolition of more than fifty percent (50%) of the exterior walls or primary structural elements of an improvement shall terminate any right to a grandfathered use or conditional use pursuant to this section, even if the reconstructed improvement does not alter the building footprint, height, length, envelope, size, or degree of noncompliance. If a use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this section ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to this section which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use NOT YET APPROVED 20150820 jjs 00160085 6 SECTION 7. Section 18.30(A).070 (Waivers and Adjustments) of Chapter 18.30(A) (Retail Shopping (R) Combining District Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added as follows: 18.30(A).070 Waivers and Adjustments. The following shall be grounds for a request for waiver or adjustment of this Ordinance: (a) Economic Hardship. An applicant may request that the requirements of this Ordinance be adjusted or waived only upon a showing that applying the requirements of this Ordinance would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. (b) Documentation. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting substantial evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Any request under this section shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Environment Director together with the fee specified in the municipal fee schedule and an economic analysis or other supporting documentation. A request under this section shall be acted upon by the City Council. SECTION 8. Section 18.76.015 (Additional findings for specified retail uses) of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added as follows: 18.76.015 Additional findings for specified retail uses. A conditional use permit shall not be granted in a R-Combining district for a formula retail business, or a beauty shop, nail salon, barbershop, or financial services use, unless it is found, in addition to the findings required by section 18.76.010, that: (1) The retail or personal service business will offer merchandise and/or services that meet the underserved needs of the City’s residents and visitors. (2) The type of retail or personal service business will enhance the balance and diversity of businesses in the district and in the City as a whole. (3) The retail or personal service business will enhance the economic vitality of the district where the business is proposed to be located and of the City as a whole. In considering this finding, the director or city council may consider existing retail vacancy rates within the district and in the City as a whole. (4) The retail or personal service business is consistent with the character of the district where the business is proposed to be located. (5) The design of the retail or personal service business will be compatible with the architectural and aesthetic character of the district where the business is proposed to be located. SECTION 9. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or NOT YET APPROVED 20150820 jjs 00160085 7 sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid. SECTION 10. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3), because it is designed to preserve the status quo and therefore does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment, and Section 15305, because it is designed to assure the maintenance, enhancement, or protection of the environment and involves procedures for the protection of the environment. SECTION 11. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment El Camino Real Alma Street P FPF P F P F P F P F P F P F C C (2 ) (R )(P ) P F P F PF P F P F C C (2)(P) P T O D PTOD A l m a S t r Ramos Way (Private) Oxford Avenue Wellesley Street Cambridge Avenue College Avenue Williams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford Avenue El Camino Real Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Alma Street Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Pepper Avenue Page Mill Road Ash SCollege Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park BoulevardNogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue High Street Emerson Street Colorado Avenue Street Alma Street High Street EmersonEmerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Avenue Ramona Street High Street Oregon Expr essway Ramona Street Sedro Lane Peral Lane S h erid a n A v e n u e CalTrain ROW O l m sted Road Abrams Court L a ne Wel les ley S t Yale St Alma Street Birch Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Proposed Expansion of Retail Combining District Existing Retail Combining District City Jurisdictional Limits Boundary 0'500' California AvenueExisting and Alternate OptionofProposed Expansionof theRetail Combining District CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-09-08 09:46:01 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) EXHIBIT A ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 5/18/2015 13.Discussion and Direction Regarding a Possible Ordinance to Limit Formula Retail and Other Land Uses to Preserve Ground Floor Retail Along Commercial Areas on California Avenue and Some Intersecting Streets. Attachment B ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 5/18/2015 Council Member Kniss left the meeting at 7:29 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to prepare a draft Ordinance for the California Avenue area to be reviewed for recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission with the following considerations included: a. Expanding the ground floor protections to include both sides of Cambridge Avenue, the lanes between California Avenue and Cambridge Avenue, extending Park Boulevard south to Grant Avenue and any other locations as found to be feasible and desirable; and b. Limiting formula retail on California Avenue; and c. Addressing the permanency of Conditional Use Permits; and d. Limiting restaurants on California Avenue to the current percentage and, independently, extending the Ground Floor District; and e. Limiting the number of hair & nail salons on California Avenue; and f. Consider limiting number of financial institutions on California Avenue; and g. Limit other retail uses on California Avenue to no more than a defined percentage; and h. Adding the words “predominantly” and “generally open to the public” to the definition of Retail Services, Municipal Code Section 18.04.03 (125), consistent with the Retail Urgency Ordinance; and i. Prioritize the requirement that any construction resulting from demolition or major rehabilitation be required to conform to ground floor retail requirements and review; and j. Prohibit opaque windows at the ground floor in ground floor protected areas for any use, including existing uses (excluding medical uses); and k. Any other such matter that the Planning and Transportation Commission finds beneficial to retail quality and retention; and l. Clarify that we do not want parking transferring from restaurant use to office use; and m. If any of the resulting recommendations require additional research, Staff is to return to the Council with an interim ordinance implementing those items that do not result in delay; and n. Direct Staff to analyze and return to Council with mechanisms to make non-conforming uses conforming on California Avenue and to do so on a less urgent basis than the above direction. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to change d “Limiting restaurants on California Avenue to the current percentage and, independently, extending the Ground Floor ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 5/18/2015 District” to “Looking at an appropriate level of limiting restaurants on California Avenue.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-1 Holman no, Kniss absent AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to add “analyze and if necessary propose changes to parking requirements commensurate with parking demands of restaurant use.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-1 Filseth no, Kniss absent AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to add “As a separate consideration, update Municipal Code Section 18.16.050.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to remove “Limiting new development, rehabilitations (off El Camino Real) to respect the historical pattern, where it exists, of narrow store fronts and square footages that tend to support smaller, local independent businesses.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-3 Burt, DuBois, Holman no, Kniss absent MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent City of Palo Alto (ID # 5642) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/18/2015 Summary Title: Cal Ave Retail Preservation Title: Discussion and Direction Regarding a Possible Ordinance to Limit Formula Retail and Other Land Uses to Preserve Ground Floor Retail Along Commercial Areas on California Avenue and some Intersecting Streets. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council discuss desired adjustments to ground floor retail protections in the California Avenue Area, including possible adjustments to the uses allowed and the boundaries of that district. Possible direction to staff would be to prepare and ordinance to define formula retail and require a Conditional Use Permit for new formula retail uses within the CC(2)(R)(P) zoning district. Executive Summary The City Council has undertaken a number of actions to preserve ground floor retail uses in the City’s commercial districts, and has prioritized an examination of associated zoning regulations in the California Avenue Area. This report is intended to initiate that discussion and staff is seeking City Council direction regarding next steps and possible parameters of an ordinance to amend the City’s zoning code and zoning map. Issues discussed include the definition of “formula retail” uses and their relationship to the character of California Avenue, as well as possible ways to regulate such uses in the future. This report also transmits initial feedback staff received from area residents, business owners and property owners. It is anticipated that the Council will provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance that provides greater retail and neighborhood preservation protections. Unless additional analysis and public outreach is desired at this juncture, a draft ordinance would be prepared and presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission for its recommendation and could be acted upon by the Council in late summer or early fall. Background Last September, the City Council held a study session regarding possible changes to commercial City of Palo Alto Page 1 Attachment C portions of the city’s zoning code and map. When discussing California Avenue, there was interest expressed to consider the following:  Strengthening the prohibition on non-retail uses on the ground floor;  Regulating chain stores by setting a quota on “formula retail-” and  Possibly limiting the number of restaurants The purpose of this meeting is to continue that discussion and direct staff as appropriate. Since September, staff conducted some preliminary research regarding formula retail uses and held two community meetings to gain perspectives that may help guide the Council. Concerns About Neighborhood Character Palo Alto emerged from the Great Recession more quickly than most communities. As vacancy rates dropped, commercial rents increased and developers sought approval for new office buildings, renewed pressure was placed on California Avenue. This part of the city is well known for its distinctive character. Residents and business owners cherish its uniqueness and are proud that it is distinguished from other commercial centers in the community. However, many believe that California Avenue is losing its character as more tenant spaces display signs of national chain stores. Concern has also been expressed about the vulnerability of independent ‘mom and pop’ stores and their ability to maintain a presence on California Avenue with rising lease rates. Many have seen an evolution on California Avenue that is less neighborhood- serving and increasingly focused on serving workers in nearby office buildings. In addition to changes in tenancy, the city’s streetscape improvement project is nearing completion. This project includes wider sidewalks, two new plazas, street furniture and other pedestrian amenities, which are anticipated to attract more people. As California Avenue is increasingly viewed as a destination place, its popularity will increase, which may increase its appeal to national retailers. Current Regulations California Avenue is commercially zoned with a pedestrian and retail shopping combining districts (shaded portion of map below). The retail combining district or “overlay” zone permits eating and drinking, personal services and retail uses on the ground floor and financial services are conditionally permitted (use definitions provided in Attachment A). All other permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the district must be located above the ground floor. City of Palo Alto Page 2 There are existing non-retail ground floor uses on California Avenue that preceded the enactment of the combining district, which are considered legal non-conforming if legally established. Such uses may continue and be replaced with similar uses but may not expand. Areas outside the retail overlay zone are generally zoned Community Commercial (2) Subdistrict (abbreviated as CC(2) and represented by the hatched markings on the map above). Zoning regulations limit office uses on the ground floor in the CC(2), subject to exceptions in Section 18.16.050 of the code. Existing Ground Floor Land Uses California Avenue between the Caltrain Station and El Camino Real has approximately 78 businesses on the ground floor. Eating and drinking establishments make up the highest proportion of uses with 24 businesses, followed by retail (20), personal services (16) and general office (16). Attachment B includes a summary report for California Avenue and other nearby streets. Excluding two banks and an insurance company, there are approximately eight chain retailers on California Avenue including four restaurants, depending on how one defines formula retail. Two other formula restaurants are located in the vicinity. The city owns property on Cambridge and Sherman Avenues, which is currently used as surface parking lots or have parking structures. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion Staff held two community meetings and conducted a questionnaire on Survey Monkey to receive community input on the topics of formula retail, restaurants and the California Avenue district boundaries. Additionally, staff researched formula retail regulations implemented in other California cities. Community Feedback It is clear from the community meetings that residents have a deep connection and identify with California Avenue. Some of these connections were established generations ago and reflect the relationships that have developed over time between property owners, store owners, customers and residents. California Avenue is a walkable district with a diversity of uses that serve the surrounding the neighborhood. Community members embrace its uniqueness and support the local businesses. Chain stores are viewed by some as a threat to the district’s character. Excessive numbers of restaurants are viewed, in part, as supporting the office workers in the area and as less resident-focused. Not all participants held as strong a view about chain stores as others, and there was very little to no support for an outright prohibition on chain stores in the district. Those that were concerned about this issue, advocated for a limit on the number of new formula retail stores, while others espoused the value of chain stores that draw more customers to California Avenue. All participants supported a diverse and vibrant district and some saw opportunities to extend the retail and pedestrian combining districts to Sherman and Cambridge Avenues, with the later generating more positive responses. Others cautioned about expanding the retail protections to other streets, favoring instead to reinforce the retail core on California Avenue. These proponents and others noted that the retail brick and mortar environment has changed significantly, in part due to online stores and low cost delivery of goods to homes. Moreover, zoning alone does not guarantee retailers will locate in all areas. Retail is a revenue sensitive business. Detailed market analysis is required to assess the appropriateness of retail in different locations. Retailers are interested in the demographics of a neighborhood, whether it has the right customers for the product or service being sold, whether other nearby retail markets draw customers away and, among other criteria, if there is room in the market to support more retail. If over regulated, some argued, the district may see vacancies, which bring other problems. Throughout the meetings there was some tension between those who advocated for more regulation to protect neighborhood character and those that favored market forces to determine appropriate businesses based on existing regulations. Many members of the California Avenue Business Association (CAABA/MOCA) attended the first meeting held in March. Sometime later, CAABA/MOCA met again without planning staff and among those voting, favored limiting any one type of use to no more than 25% of the total ground floor land uses. They also supported extending the ground floor protections to City of Palo Alto Page 4 Cambridge Avenue, connecting side streets to California Avenue and considered one side of Sherman Avenue a possibility for more regulation. Additionally, the city posted an informal questionnaire on Survey Monkey. A city representative attended the weekend farmer’s market and spoke with pedestrians on two other occasions during the week. An email was also distributed to lists the city maintains related to California Avenue. A total of 348 responses were received. The results are provided in Attachment C. One question gauged respondent’s reaction to whether there was too many, not enough, or just the right amount of certain land use types on California Avenue; here were the results: Too Many Just Right Not Enough Total Restaurants 7.23% 24 58.73% 195 34.04% 113 332 Shops (Retail) 1.22% 4 25.91% 85 72.87% 239 328 Nail/Hair Salons 48.41% 152 47.77% 150 3.82% 12 314 Financial Services 26.90% 78 64.48% 187 8.62% 25 290 Offices 42.38% 128 46.03% 139 11.59% 35 302 Independent Businesses 3.92% 12 47.71% 146 48.37% 148 306 Chain Stores (Retail) 26.73% 81 58.09% 176 15.18% 46 303 Chain Restaurants 37.95% 115 55.12% 167 6.93% 21 303 While the questionnaire results are not scientific, they are not surprisingly different from feedback received at the community meetings and through informal conversation. There is a desire to reinforce the retail environment with unique stores, allowing for some formula retail, and supported by a mix of restaurants. While hair and nail salons have their value, the desire for more of these establishments is extremely limited and perhaps has exceeded the desired balance. Parking The subject of parking was a passionate topic at the community meetings. It is generally perceived that there is a lack of parking to support the businesses on and around California Avenue. The city has 788 off-street parking spaces in the area in the form of surface lots and structures. The City Council’s adopted Infrastructure Plan includes a new parking garage for California Avenue, which will appear in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) proposed for adoption as part of the Fiscal Year 2016 budget. Staff is also investigating operational solutions such as valet parking during peak times that may provide a nearer-term benefit. City of Palo Alto Page 5 There is interest among those that participated in the community meetings for a new city garage in the district with ground floor retail. Some even envisioned subsidized rents for the ‘mom and pop’ stores that cannot keep up with escalating rents, but that enrich the neighborhood character. Others envisioned opportunities for a public space to be constructed in conjunction with the garage infrastructure improvements that could facilitate space for artists or other independent ventures that would further distinguish California Avenue from other commercial centers. Existing City parking facilities in the area were financed via an assessment district that sunset this year. New businesses choosing to locate in the area will have to provide the required parking on site or via credit for past participation in the assessment district. Off-site parking is an option, but only with a covenanted agreement with another property with excess parking spaces within 500 feet of a requesting business. Accordingly, it is unlikely that there will be further intensification of land use (from a parking perspective), which means new restaurants are likely going to be limited to locating in existing restaurant spaces unless a new assessment district or in-lieu parking program is created in the future. Adding floor area to existing retail or commercial buildings will similarly be limited to those properties that can provide parking onsite. Formula Retail A number of California communities regulate “formula” retailers, formula restaurants and even formula hotels. Many formula retail definitions are similar and generally include businesses that have a standardized array of services or merchandise, trademark, logo, layout, architecture, signs, décor, uniforms, etc. Attachment D has a list of California cities and the approach used to regulate formula retail. Some communities, such as San Francisco, require there to be 11 or more chain stores before it is considered a formula retail use (although they are currently considering increasing this threshold to 20); other communities do not establish a prerequisite limit. Some cities ban formula uses outright in certain districts, others establish a cap or require a discretionary review process, such as a conditional use permit (CUP). The latter requires the decision maker(s) to make certain findings in order to approve the use. In San Francisco, the decision to approve or deny a formula use is based on the following: 1) the existing concentration of formula retail businesses within the neighborhood; 2) whether similar goods or services are already available within the area; 3) the compatibility of the proposed business with the character of the neighborhood; 4) retail vacancy rates in the area; and 5) the balance of neighborhood-serving versus citywide or regional- serving businesses. A similar ordinance could be established for California Avenue. This street is believed to have eight formula retail establishments, identified in the following table: Address Business City of Palo Alto Page 6 249 & 251 California Avenue FedEx 299 California Avenue Pure Barre 334 California Avenue Aveda Salon 360 California Avenue Benjamin Moore Paints 361 California Avenue Starbucks 365 California Avenue Pizza Studio 369 California Avenue The Counter 421 California Avenue Subway As noted earlier, those that participated in the community meetings did not express an interest in an outright ban. While a limit was supported, there was not much discussion on what that limit should be. If the Council preferred not to ban or limit formula retail, it could still establish a discretionary review process. In Palo Alto, that would likely be a CUP, which is acted upon by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Individuals not satisfied with the Director’s decision can request a hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission, which would forward a recommendation to the City Council for final action. Next Steps There is interest in the California Avenue neighborhood for preserving the small, independent businesses that make up this unique commercial district. There are also real or perceived threats to this character due to increased development pressure, rising real estate prices, dynamic retail market and perhaps several other variables. Based on the data available at this time, staff recommends a discrete adjustment to the city’s zoning code to define formula retail and require a CUP for any new formula retail establishment on California Avenue. Existing formula retail that was legally established would be allowed to remain, but could not expand those tenant spaces without a CUP. This approach provides an opportunity to evaluate the mix and diversity of uses and allow for appropriate formula establishments that support and contribute to the character and vibrancy of the area. Moreover, it includes opportunities for interested parties to raise the matter to the City Council at no cost if dissatisfied with the Director’s decision. On April 6th, the City Council noted its interest in extending the retail combining district to Cambridge Avenue during a discussion on retail preservation. While the existing CC(2) zoning district offers some protections to preserve retail, the retail combining districts has a more finite list of permitted land uses: retail, eating and drinking, and personal services. As noted, some in the community also support this direction. Staff does not believe a restriction on the number of restaurants is necessary. Unlike University Avenue, California Avenue does not have a blended rate parking requirement for restaurants. Instead restaurants require 1 space for every 60 square feet of public service area. Conversion City of Palo Alto Page 7 of any retail or office space to restaurant requires more parking, which in most circumstances, cannot feasibly be provided on site. The city’s existing parking regulations and maturity this year of the California Avenue parking infrastructure improvements from decades ago effectively limits future restaurants on California Avenue unless parking is provided onsite (or off-site subject to certain criteria). The Council may also wish to consider creating new or augmenting existing contracts with financial/retail consultants to learn more about market conditions influencing decisions of retailers to locate on California Avenue, to evaluate some of the perceived threats to the area and identify strategies to encourage the retention of independent businesses that reflect the character on California Avenue. Staff looks to the Council with respect to guidance on other regulatory changes, including limits on nail or hair salons on California Avenue, which would involve amendment(s) to the definition of “personal services” in the zoning code, among other things. Timeline Depending on direction received from Council, discrete changes to the zoning code and district map could return to the Council shortly after its summer break. Between now and then, staff would develop a draft ordinance and present it to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their review and recommendation. If the Council desires additional community meetings/input or feels that consultant analysis is needed, this timeline would be extended, and the extent would depend on the direction received. Resource Impact Modest changes to the zoning code and district map can be accommodated within existing department budgets. Requests for consultant work may require appropriation from the General Fund, but that would depend on the scope of work directed by Council. Policy Implications This report addresses Council and community comments about the potential loss of character of the California Avenue commercial district due in part to formula retail uses. If no direction is provided to staff, current regulations would prevail and there would be no restriction on the establishment of formula retail uses on California Avenue. This district would still have standards that require retail, personal services and eating and drinking on the ground floor, except as otherwise permitted for legal non-conforming uses. Moreover, concern regarding Cambridge Ave would not be addressed and a broader range of uses would be allowed on the ground floor on that street including financial services, which are permitted by right. The City’s Comprehensive Plan supports vibrant pedestrian-oriented commercial districts, and the City Council recognized the importance of the California Avenue area when it requested development of a California Avenue Area Concept Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. While the Concept Plan has not yet been adopted, the draft plan calls for maintaining City of Palo Alto Page 8 the existing neighborhood-oriented commercial character of California Avenue and Cambridge Avenue (Policy CACP-2.1), and requiring active uses on the ground floor of buildings fronting on these avenues (Policy CACP-2.6). Environmental Review The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, if directed to prepare an ordinance, staff would further evaluate what level of environmental review would be required. Attachments:  A: Land Use Definitions (PDF)  B: Existing Ground Floor Uses on California Avenue (PDF)  C: Survey Monkey Results (PDF)  D: Partial List of California Cities Regulating Formula Retail (PDF)  E: Map of Ground Floor Cal Ave Land Uses (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 9 Attachment A - Palo Alto Municipal Code Definitions (18.04.030) "Retail service" means a use engaged in providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use, including but not limited to the following: groceries, meat, vegetables, dairy products, baked goods, candy, and other food products; liquor and bottled goods, household cleaning and maintenance products; drugs, cards, and stationery, notions, books, tobacco products, cosmetics, and specialty items; flowers, plants, hobby materials, toys, household pets and supplies, and handcrafted items; apparel, jewelry, fabrics, and like items; cameras, photography services, household electronic equipment, records, sporting equipment, kitchen utensils, home furnishing and appliances, art supplies and framing, arts and antiques, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, interior decorating services, office supplies, musical instruments, hardware and homeware, and garden supplies; bicycles; mopeds and automotive parts and accessories (excluding service and installation); cookie shops, ice cream stores and delicatessens. "Personal service" means a use providing services of a personal convenience nature, and cleaning, repair or sales incidental thereto, including: (A) Beauty shops, nail salons, day spas, and barbershops; (B) Self-service laundry and cleaning services; laundry and cleaning pick-up stations where all cleaning or servicing for the particular station is done elsewhere; and laundry and cleaning stations where the cleaning or servicing for the particular station is done on site, utilizing equipment meeting any applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements, so long as no cleaning for any other station is done on the same site, provided that the amount of hazardous materials stored does not at any time exceed the threshold which would require a permit under Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage) of this code; (C) Repair and fitting of clothes, shoes, and personal accessories; (D) Quick printing and copying services where printing or copying for the particular service is done on site, so long as no quick printing or copying for any off-site printing or copying service is done on the same site; (E) Internet and other consumer electronics services; (F) Film, data and video processing shops, including shops where processing for the particular shop is done on site, so long as no processing for any other shop is done on the same site; and (G) Art, dance or music studios intended for an individual or small group of persons in a class (see "commercial recreation" for other activities). "Eating and drinking service" means a use providing preparation and retail sale of food and beverages, including restaurants, fountains, cafes, coffee shops, sandwich shops, ice cream parlors, taverns, cocktail lounges and similar uses. A minimum of 50% of revenues from an "eating and drinking service" must be derived from the sale of food. Attachment B - Professional & General Business Offices 30% Eating and Drinking Services 26% Personal Service 16% Retail Services 14% Parking Lots & Garages 6% Medical Office 4% General Business 4% Total Ground Floor Establishments in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District Source: City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department A field survey was conducted on April 2 & 3, 2015 in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. It excluded Second or Third Story Office or Other Uses. It included California Avenue, Sherman Avenue, Cambridge Avenue and the cross streets of Park Blvd., Birch Street, Ash Street and parcels fronting El Camino Real. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Professional & General… Eating and Drinking Services Personal Service Retail Services Parking Lots & Garages Medical Office General Business Extensive Retail Service Public Facility Types of Establishments by Location Sherman Ave Cambridge Ave California Ave Source: City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department A field survey was conducted on April 2 & 3, 2015. It excludes Second or Third Story Office or Other Uses. *Public Facility includes Post Office, Court House, and Clinic *Extensive Retail Service includes Grocery Stores *General Business includes Banks and Financial Institutions *Medical Offices includes Dentist Office, Optometry *Retail Services includes all Retail Stores *Personal Service includes Hair Salons, Nail Salons, Dry Cleaners, Yoga Studios & Gyms, Tutoring Agencies, and Cobblers etc. *Eating and Drinking Services includes all Restaurants *Professional & General Business Offices includes Law Offices, Insurance Offices and all Other types of Professional Office uses *Service Uses includes Hotel Ground Floor Land Use by Zoning Category Approximate Number of Establishments California Avenue Eating and Drinking Services Eating and Drinking Services & Retail Combined Extensive Retail Service General Business Medical Office Personal Service Professional & General Business Offices Retail Services 79 23 1 2 2 1 16 16 18 Ground Floor Land Use by Zoning Category Approximate Number of Establishments Cambridge Avenue General Business Offices Churches & Religious Institutions Eating and Drinking Services Medical Office Parking Personal Service Professional & General Business Offices Public Facility (Post Office) Residential Retail Services 36 1 1 3 5 6 4 13 1 1 1 Ground Floor Land Use by Zoning Category Approximate Number of Establishments Sherman Avenue Parking Professional & General Business Offices Public Facility (Court House & Public Clinic) 14 4 9 1 Approximate Ground Floor Land Use by Zoning Number of Category Establishments Ash Street 4 Eating and Drinking Services 1 2 Parking Services Uses (Hotel) 1 Brich Street 9 Eating and Drinking Services 3 Parking 2 Personal Service 2 Professional & General Business 1 Offices Residential 1 Park Blvd 7 Eating and Drinking Services 3 Personal Service 1 Professional & General Business 3 Offices El Camino Real 6 Eating and Drinking Services 2 General Business 2 Parking 1 Service Uses (Hotel) 1 Attachment C Powered by City of Palo Alto California Ave Monday, April 27, 2015 Date Created: Monday, March 30, 2015 348 Total Responses Complete Responses: 348 Powered by 1 5/1/2015 Q1: On average, how many days during a week do you visit California Avenue? Answered: 346 Skipped: 2 Powered by Q1: On average, how many days during a week do you visit California Avenue? Answered: 346 Skipped: 2 Powered by 2 5/1/2015 Q2: How do you normally get to California Avenue? Answered: 348 Skipped: 0 Powered by Q2: How do you normally get to California Avenue? Answered: 348 Skipped: 0 Powered by 3 5/1/2015 Q3: If you drive, how would describe your ability to find parking? Answered: 284 Skipped: 64 Powered by Q3: If you drive, how would describe your ability to find parking? Answered: 284 Skipped: 64 Powered by 4 5/1/2015 Q4: When do you generally visit? (Click all that apply). Answered: 344 Skipped: 4 Powered by Q4: When do you generally visit? (Click all that apply). Answered: 344 Skipped: 4 Powered by 5 5/1/2015 Q5: What is your primary reason for visiting California Avenue? Answered: 323 Skipped: 25 Powered by Q5: What is your primary reason for visiting California Avenue? Answered: 323 Skipped: 25 Powered by 6 5/1/2015 Q6: On California Avenue today, is there too much, just right, or not enough of the following: Answered: 339 Skipped: 9 Powered by Q6: On California Avenue today, is there too much, just right, or not enough of the following: Answered: 339 Skipped: 9 Powered by 7 5/1/2015 Q7: Which of the following shopping centers do you visit MOST frequently? Answered: 338 Skipped: 10 Powered by Q7: Which of the following shopping centers do you visit MOST frequently? Answered: 338 Skipped: 10 Powered by 8 5/1/2015 Q10: What is your sex? Answered: 337 Skipped: 11 Powered by Q10: What is your sex? Answered: 337 Skipped: 11 Powered by 9 5/1/2015 Q11: What is your age? Answered: 332 Skipped: 16 Powered by Q11: What is your age? Answered: 332 Skipped: 16 Powered by 10 ATTACHMENT DPartial List of California Cities Regulating Formula Retail City Definition Provisions/ Requirements Findings and Decision Arcata A type of retail and/or service activity or retail sales and/or services establishment with greater than 10 outlets in the United States, other than "formula fast food restaurant" already addressed in another section of the Land Use code, which is required by contractual or other arrangement to use or maintain any one of the following: standardized array of services and/or merchandise, trademark, logo, service mark, signage, symbol, decor and/or color scheme, architecture, facade, lighting, layout, uniform apparel, or similar standardized feature. 1) Establishments determined to be formula retail and/or service businesses shall obtain a Use Permit, subject to Planning Commission Review, pursuant to findings in Section 9.72.080 of the LCU; 2) The building façade with the primary entrance of a formula retail and/or service establishment shall not have a street level frontage of greater than 50 linear feet and/or have its retail and/or service space occupy more than two stories. Existing structures which do not meet this standard shall be exempt; 3) The cumulative expansion of a formula retail and/or service establishment by 500 or more square feet of floor area, shall require a Use Permit amendment or initiate the Use Permit Process if the establishment does not already have such a permit. In addition to Use Permit findings as outlined in the Land Use Code, the review authority shall give special consideration to the following guidelines for approval: 1) Existing concentrations of formula retail/services in the City and surrounding areas of influence; 2) Availability of other similar retail/service uses within the City and surrounding areas of influence; 3) Compatibility of the proposed formula retail/service use with the existing architectural and aesthetic character of the surrounding neighborhood; 4) Compatibility of the proposed formula retail/service use with the existing mix of uses within the City and/or surrounding neighborhood; 5) Impact of any formula retail and/or service establishment as non‐ obtrusive and/or helpful in the preservation of the character of both the City and the specific neighborhood in which the establishment is proposed to operate; 6) Existing retail/service vacancy rates within the surrounding neighborhood and in the City; and 7) Existing mix of Citywide‐serving retail/service uses and neighborhood‐serving retail/service uses. 1) The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Land Use Code and the Municipal Code or is a nonconforming use in compliance with subsection 9.90.020A.1; 2) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and any applicable specific plan; 3) The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and potential future land uses in the vicinity; 4) The site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints; and 5) Granting the permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. Benicia Formula Business means an eating and drinking establishment that maintains any of the following features in common with more than four other establishments in the nine Bay area counties: standardized array of services and/or merchandise, trademark, logo, service mark, symbol, sign, decor, uniform, menu, or other similar standardized feature. Retail stores larger than 20,000 square feet and formula restaurants will not be approved unless they meet criteria outlined in the City's Municipal Code (For a list of criteria, see next column “Findings and Decision”) Approval of a use permit for a formula business and retail sales establishment larger than 20,000 square feet requires that the Planning Commission find that the proposed establishment will: 1) Complement existing uses and enhance the economic health of the surrounding area; 2) Be operated in a non‐obtrusive manner that preserves the City's or area's distinctive character and ambiance; 3) Not result in a concentration of formula and/or retail sales establishments {larger than 20,000 square feet} in the vicinity of the proposed use or citywide; 4) Promote the diversity and variety to assure a balanced mix of commercial uses available to serve both resident and visitor population; 5) Contribute to an appropriate balance of local, regional or national‐based businesses and small, medium and large‐ sized businesses in the community; and 6) Avoid an appearance commonly associated with strip retail or shopping centers. Calistoga Formula business shall mean a business which is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain any of the following: standardized services, décor, uniforms, architecture, signs or other similar features. This shall include but not be limited to retail sales and service, visitor accommodations, wholesale and industrial operations. Formula restaurant shall mean a restaurant devoted to the preparation and offering of food and beverage for sale to the public for consumption either on or off the premises and which is required by contractual or other arrangement to offer any of the following: standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation, decor, uniforms, architecture, or similar standardized features. Formula restaurants and visitor accommodation are prohibited, while other types of formula businesses are required to undergo review and apply for a special use permit from the Planning Commission. 1) That the proposed development, together with any provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan and other applicable provisions of this code including the finding that the use as proposed is consistent with the historic, rural, small‐town atmosphere of Calistoga; 2) That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; 3) That the proposed development has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the project will not result in detrimental or adverse impacts upon the public resources, wildlife or public health, safety and welfare; 4) Approval of the use permit application will not cause adverse impacts to maintaining an adequate supply of public water and an adequate capacity at the wastewater treatment facility; 5) Approval of the use permit application shall not cause the extension of service mains greater than 500 feet; 6) An allocation for water and/or wastewater service shall be made prior to project approval. Said allocation shall be valid for one year and shall not be subject to renewal; 7) That the proposed development presents a scale and design which are in harmony with the historical and small‐town character of Calistoga; 8) That the proposed development be consistent with and enhance Calistoga’s history of independent, unique, and single location businesses, thus contributing to the uniqueness of the town, which is necessary to maintain a viable visitor industry in Calistoga and to preserve its economy; 9) That the proposed development complements and enhances the architectural integrity and eclectic combination of architectural styles of Calistoga; and 10) To receive a use permit, a finding shall be made that the proposed development or use would be resident serving. This finding shall only apply to formula businesses. 1 Partial List of California Cities Regulating Formula Retail City Definition Provisions/ Requirements Findings and Decision Carmel‐By‐The A business which: (a) is required by Formula restaurants including fast food, take‐out and drive thru establishments are prohibited in the City. None indicated Sea contractual or other arrangements to offer standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation, employee uniforms, interior decor, signage or exterior design; or (b) adopts a name, appearance or food presentation format which causes it to be substantially identical to another restaurant regardless of ownership or location. Coronado A formula business is one that is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain a standardized array of services or merchandise, and standardized architecture, uniforms, logos, decor, etc. New formula restaurants must obtain a special use permit, may not locate on a corner, and must meet design standards. A Formula Fast Food Restaurant may only be established or relocated: 1) On a site that is not located on a street corner; except such a restaurant may be located on a street corner where the immediate prior use was a Formula Fast Food Restaurant; 2) Where it would not result in two or more Formula Fast Food Restaurant operating on that site (i.e., two or more Formula Fast Food Restaurant business entities requiring separate business licenses, or displaying in a manner visible from public property separate business trademarks, logos, service marks or other mutually identifying names or symbols, for the daily or weekly conducting of business on the same site); 3) When it would not result in Formula Fast Food Restaurant operating at more than 10 sites under the jurisdiction of this Ordinance; and 4) So long as the Planning Commission finds that establishing or relocating the Formula Fast Food Restaurant will not increase the intensity of use on the site to a level that will adversely impact: land uses in the area, pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic, or the public welfare. Los Gatos Formula retail business means a retail business which, along with seven (7) or more other business locations, is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain any of the following: standardized merchandise, services, decor, uniforms, architecture, colors, signs or other similar features. A conditional use permit shall be required for all formula retail businesses in the C‐2 zoning district. In addition, Formula Retail businesses in the C‐1, CH, and LM greater than 6,000 square feet shall require a conditional use permit. The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a conditional use permit for a formula retail business or a personal service business if any of the following findings are made: (1) The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with specific provisions or objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter; (2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of businesses in the commercial district in which the use is proposed to be located; (3) The proposed use would create an over‐concentration of similar types of businesses, or (4) The proposed use will detract from the existing land use mix and high urban design standards including uses that promote continuous pedestrian circulation and economic vitality. Malibu Formula retail means any type of retail sales activity and/or retail service activity conducted within a retail establishment which, along with 10 or more other existing, operational retail establishments located within the United States, is required to maintain two or more of the following features: 1) standardized array of merchandise of menu (meaning only 50% or more of in‐stock merchandise or menu items); 2) standardized color scheme; 3) standardized décor; 4) standardized façade; 5) standardized layout; 6) standardized signage, a service mark, or a trademark; and 7) uniform apparel. A conditional use permit shall be required for all new formula retail establishments located within the Civic Center commercial district and for existing formula retail establishments located within the Civic Center that relocate to a new tenant space, expand by 200 square feet or more of gross floor area, or increase service area by 50 square feet or more. Exempt uses include: • Grocery stores, • Drug stores/pharmacies • Gas station, • Banks/financial services • Real estate, • Insurance, • Post offices • Medical, and • Lower‐cost overnight accommodations In lieu of the findings required by Section 17.66.080, the Planning Commission shall make all of the following findings of fact, in a positive manner, in order to approve a formula retail use within the Civic Center commercial district: 1. The nature of the formula retail use is an otherwise permitted or conditionally permitted use within the subject commercial zone and complies with the policies and standards of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. 2. The formula retail establishment will not impair the City’s unique, small town character by promoting a predominant sense of familiarity or sameness in the Civic Center commercial district as viewed from its main arterial streets including pacific Coast Highway, Cross Creek Road, Civic Center Way, Malibu Road, or Malibu Canyon Road. 3. The formula retail establishment will not exceed 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Approval of the formula retail establishment will not result in more than 50 percent of each floor of a shopping center, as determined by the percentage of overall square footage or the net number of leasable tenant spaces (excluding the uses described in Section 17.66.130(F)(2)), whichever is greater, from being occupied by formula retail establishments. 2 Partial List of California Cities Regulating Formula Retail City Definition Provisions/ Requirements Findings and Decision Ojai Formula Business means a type of commercial business establishment, retail sales or rental activity and retail sales or rental establishment, including restaurants, hotels and motels, which, along with 10 or more other establishments, maintains three or more of the following features: (i) standardized array of merchandise or standardized menu; (ii) standardized façade; (iii) standardized décor or color scheme; (iv) uniform apparel; (v) standardized signage; or (vi) trademark or service mark. 1) A Formula Business may only be established on a site after obtaining a conditional use permit from the City for the operation of that use on such site. Change of ownership, by itself, shall not require obtaining a conditional use permit pursuant to this section; (2) No permit application of any kind shall be accepted or processed for a Formula Business that also possesses at least two of the following characteristics: Specializes in short order or quick service food and/or drink; Serves food and/or drink primarily in paper, plastic or other disposable containers; and payment is made by customers before food and/or drink is consumed. No conditional use permit shall be issued for a use that is a Formula Business located within the area of the Downtown Commercial Land Use designation of the City's General Plan if either of the following are true: 1) such establishment has street‐level frontage exceeding 25 linear feet on any street, or 2) the useable area of the building or structure wherein the Formula Business is to be located exceeds 2,000 square feet. For purposes of this section, "street level frontage" shall include frontage on private parking lots and access ways where the commercial building does not abut a public street. Except as provided in this section, no conditional use permit shall be issued for a use that is a Formula Business if such establishment exceeds 10,000 square feet of net total floor area. In addition to the findings required by Section 10‐2.2406 as prerequisite to the issuance of a conditional use permit, the Commission shall make all of the following findings prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit for a Formula Business: 1) The proposed Formula Business will not result in an over‐concentration of Formula Business establishments in its immediate vicinity or in the City as a whole; 2) The proposed Formula Business will contribute to an appropriate balance of small, medium and large‐sized businesses in the City; and 3) The proposed Formula Business has been designed to preserve and enhance the City's small town character and to integrate existing community architectural and design features which will preserve such character for the City's residents and visitors. Pacific Grove Formula food service establishments are required by contractual or other arrangements to operate with standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation, architecture, decor, uniforms, or similar standardized features. No use permit application shall be accepted, processed or considered for a food service establishment having all of the following characteristics: 1) It specializes in short order or quick service food service; 2) It serves food primarily in paper, plastic or other disposable containers; 3) It delivers food or beverage products in such a manner that customers may remove such food or beverage products from the food service establishment for consumption; and 4) It is a formula food service establishment required by contractual or other arrangements to operate with standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation, architecture, decor, uniforms, or similar standardized features. None indicated San Francisco The city’s regulations define a formula retail use as an establishment that shares common features, such as a standardized array of merchandise, trademark, architecture, and décor, with at least 11 other establishments in the United States. The term “retail use” includes both stores and restaurants. Throughout most of the city, including all of San Francisco’s Neighborhood Commercial Districts, formula retail stores and restaurants are considered conditional uses and require a permit. This means they must be approved by the Planning Commission on a case‐by‐case basis. The Planning Commission must consider the following factors when deciding whether to approve a formula business: 1) the existing concentration of formula retail businesses within the neighborhood; 2) whether similar goods or services are already available within the area; 3) the compatibility of the proposed business with the character of the neighborhood; 4) retail vacancy rates in the area; and 5) the balance of neighborhood‐serving versus citywide or regional‐serving businesses. San Juan FORMULA RETAIL OR RESTAURANT Formula Retail or Restaurant Business, and Formula Visitor Accommodations are subject to review by the Planning The following findings shall be required: 1) The business offers merchandise and/or services that serve Batista BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. A retail, restaurant, or fast‐food business that is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain standardized services, merchandise, menus, ingredients, food preparation, uniforms, décor, logos, architecture, signs, or similar features. FORMULA VISITOR ACCOMMODATIONS. A visitor accommodation business that incorporates physical features common among one or more of the other visitor accommodation businesses owned by the same company and that is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain standardized services, merchandise, uniforms, décor, logos, architecture, signs, or similar features. Commission so therefore the business/applicant shall fill out the Application Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit and any other pertinent applications as specified therein, pay fees specified, and submit plans as set forth therein. the unmet needs of the population; 2) Although the formula‐based business may have other store locations throughout the country, state, or region, the business will complement and enhance the character of the City; 3) Both exterior and interior appearance and presentation of the business is compatible with the existing scale of development, distinctive architecture and pedestrian orientation of the town character and results in an enhancement of the look and feel (i.e., character) of the surrounding area; 4) Signs shall conform to the City sign standards and Design Guidelines; and 5) Drive‐ thru food establishments shall be prohibited. 3 Partial List of California Cities Regulating Formula Retail City Definition Provisions/ Requirements Findings and Decision Sausalito Formula Retail means a type of retail sales activity or retail sales establishment, including food service, which is required to maintain any of the following: standardized ("formula") array of services and/or merchandise, trademark, logo, service mark, symbol, sign, decor, architecture, layout, uniform, or similar standardized feature. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any Formula Retail establishment in the City. 1) The Formula Retail establishment will be compatible with existing surrounding uses, and has been designed and will be operated in a non‐obtrusive manner to preserve the community's distinctive character and ambiance; 2) The Formula Retail establishment will not result in an over‐concentration of formula retail establishments in its immediate vicinity or the City as a whole; 3) The Formula Retail establishment will promote diversity and variety to assure a balanced mix of commercial uses available to serve both resident and visitor populations; 4) The Formula Retail establishment will contribute to an appropriate balance of local, regional or national‐based businesses in the community; 5) The Formula Retail establishment will be mutually beneficial to and would enhance the economic health of surrounding uses in the district; 6) The Formula Retail establishment will contribute to an appropriate balance of small, medium and large‐sized businesses in the community; and 7) The proposed use, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the unique historic character of Sausalito, and would preserve the distinctive visual appearance and shopping experience of Sausalito for its residents and visitors. Solvang A restaurant devoted to the preparation and offering for sale of food and beverages to the public for consumption either on or off the premises and which is required by contractual or other arrangements to offer any of the following: standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation, decor, uniforms, or similar standardized features. Formula restaurants are prohibited in the Village Center None indicated 4 195 2675 490 2275 480 466 444 425 2502 2508 409 405 408 2401 465 463 461 459 445 437 443335 2458 2454 410 430 2455 460456 454 448 425 431 475 453 451 449 439441 451453 446 454 456 410 469 450 320 306 404 303305307309 315 311 309311 315 2110 448 431 432 443 455 2100 2171 2091 2103 2111 2115 2127 2123 2119 436 446 431435437445 447451 478 482 484 2225 2237 391 390 381 373 360 376 2130 2140 2160 2166 423 424 457 2209 2215 2233 442729 421 431433435437 4394444 41435 422418416412 415417419 421 411 359 351 343 323 322 334 346 301 315 2130 314 201 2030 2060 222 234 244 254 264 280 291 290 281 271 231 237 251 261 305 301 440 414 406408 410 392 360 364 415 2438 415 409407 421 321 361 2415 200 2747 2660 444442 3337 44444471 405 409407 440305 444544135 2222 393935 381385 161 163 345341 347 370 368366 2500 2516 14 12 2510 2508 225506 225504 2502 362 302 330 332 280 2290 375 340 344 350 330 302 2150 261 250 285 315 325 335 350 318 306 320 310 277 2313 2307 309307 305303 301 299 380378 267 271 2350 245 240 255 265 220 230 240 290 260 2363 299 249 164 156 2000593 1 2 22434 450 442 2426 2222117 265 2343 2323 206 200 223 210 2170 220 230 2105 2155 254 260 274 2145 285 263 233 243 253 214 2005 2011 2031 2053 2065 2079 2091 2101 2115 2125 231 2110 2150 2151 2157 2145 2143 2211 211 221 2248 2250 2179 2181 2183 2185 2165 2171 123 150 270 2433 145 2785 101109 117 125 133 141 149 151 153 155 157 159 251 123 1963 2121 2098 2000 2087 2071 2045 2033 2011 2001 2080 2086 2441 2557 2559 2561 304 08 3316 324 200 5 2222557 2259 2261 6691773 7777795 222222222222222281 2283 11111 0 975319 2222222333333321 3 223322553 23222333333317 223344454497 22233351 100 10210101068 4 435 398 1 0 0 2029 480 475 2051 2700 261 2453 390 2504 2506 227 2437 477 2120 334 2431 417 275 370 250 2585 2162 2164 2441 429 2473 2457 2771 448 2155 2418 2432 367 2518 300 250 208 140 298 220 2260 21 96 414 420 434444802444 2149 2655 2021 22007375 22007783 2107 2101 2221 2370 22231 2287 2315 1 3 0 2137 2 2301 420 1 0 5 5 8 0 6 1 6 7 6 9 08 78 2 9 2 5 8 2 0 1 72 2 7 0 5 5 3 5 2 8 1 0 3 7 6 4 5 46 4 8 4 2 4 9 7 9 8 3 3 9 4 7 5 9 2 3 0 2 6 3 3 1 4 3 7 4 3 8 3 2 7 3 2 2 0 9 6 2 1 8 3 7 4 1 6 4 1 4 3 4 2 0 6 6 6 8 0 7 30 3 3 3 6 1 1 1 6 6 0 5 1 4 4 0 4 2 1 3 5 7 1 1 3 4 0 77 5 4 1 5 6 5 1 2 7 5 57 2 8 5 0 5 6 58 06 1 7 7 0 2 6 2 4 1 9 Wallis Park Lot C-9 Train Station, California Avenue S CCo u n t y C o u r t h o u s e a n d J a i l Lot C-2 Lot C-1 Lot C-3 Parking Garage Lot C-4 Lot C-5 Garage Ox f o r d A v e ue E Stanford Avenue Gr a n t A v e n u e 6K H U L G D Q $Y H -D F D U D Q G D / D Q H El Camino Real Sher man Ave n ue Ash Street Mimosa Lane Pa g e M i l l Ro a d Co l l e g e A v e n u e Birch Street Californ ia Avenue Park Boulevard Park Boulevard Street Sedro Lane PeralLane S h e ri d a n A v e n u e Birch Street CITY O F A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA A P RIL 1 6 189 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ne w M a y f i e l d L n 6W D Q I R U G $ Y H Attachment E - PALORetailEaƟng & Drinking (Restaurants) ID Number Business NameID Number Business Name 37 Accent ArtsAnatolia Kitchen Restaurant 2431 38 Benjamin Moore PaintsAntonio's 39 Blossom Birth ServicesBaume T h e C i t y o f P a l o A l t oBook Store ChrisƟan Science40Cafe B rioche 101 2687 41 Cigar HouseCafé Probono 208 Computer and Data ProcessingCheese Steak -U nder ConstrucƟon 42 25 8 5 Chez F ranc 43 Copy America 154 Coīee Shop 44 Country Sun 2501 256 3 256 5 256 7 256 9 2555 257 1 25 7 5 257 3 2575 25 7 9 25 7 7 25 8 1 2625 25 8 3 2635 24 2 1Counter Palo Alto The 45 Fed Ex 2280 Ca m b r i d g e A v e n u e 2401 2425 Domino's Pizza 2409 2417 116567 46 47 Fed Ex122 11 Fine Arts Gallery House 12 Izzy's Brooklyn Bagels 48 Keeble And Shuchat Photography 49 Keeble And Shuchat Photography 50 Key Nogal Lane13 JIN SHO 2460 26914 Joanie's Café 2484 15 La Bodequita Del Medio Mediterranean Wraps 51 Leaf And Petal 16 52 Molly Stone 53 Montaga Jewelry 54 Optometry Eye Works 55 Pharmacy 56 PrinƟng 57 261 RadioShack 276 251 204 17 Olive gardenBirch Street Lot C-618 Palo Alto Baking Café 19 304 Palo Alto Pizza 2160 231 20 Palo Alto Sol Restaurant 316 2060 2050 26031521 PaƟs Bistro 2435 2439 2333 22 323 328 Pizza Studio 58 Village Flower Shop23 Printers Cafe 333 332 24 Restaurant 333 2425 59 Village StaƟoners 60 Vin Vino Wine Ma p o f G r o u n d F l o o r Ca l i f o r n i a A v e n u e La n d U s e s 25 343 342 Restaurant 306312 2670 26 Restaurant 310318 320326 328 305 335450351 350 355 360 Personal or General Service27 Restaurant Birch Street 324 314322 313 2650 2640 366 345 Business Name28 359 360 Sea Food Restaurant 300356358 ID Number365 369 Lot C-729 Simply Sandwhich 334 61 Aj Tutoring Sevice 62 Avalon Art & Yoga Center 63 Aveda Salon 385 352354363 370 371 36030 SpalƟ 365 336338348350381 380 340344 34238331 Spice Kit Street Food 64 California Cleaners 346 39132 Starbucks 382 384 399391393 390 33 Subway 65 Campus BarbersAsh Street34 370 397Szechwan Cafe Restaurant 66 Chic Hair Salon400 35 36 Terun Thai Bistro 67 Cleaners Pilate Barber Hair Salon410411 2040 404 68 European Cobblery407420417425 410 422 69 Hair Salon Parking413 442253433416 70 Hair Salon425 439 430 71 Hair Sharper Club/ Nail Spa 72 Julian Chase Hair Design 73 La Joile 449 428453499 438 440 447447444 2450 450 421 Mahin and Company455 74449454 445454 75456 Massage Therapy Center 77 NTT Skin 2701458 460 76 Norge Cleaners 450 Lo t C - 8 447 445250Legend 450 458460463 470Cambridge Avenue 446264 Opus Arcade Pure Barre 80 City of Palo Alto GIS481Salon/Barber 2755 270578 2805 California Avenue This map is a product of the79 Sherman Avenue 2515 "Formula" %XVLQHVVRQ&DO$YH(>10 Locations) 81 Stript Hair Salon 82 Todd Hair Salon2325 2331 2335 2305Eating & Drinking Places (Restaurants) 479 Retail 2501 Personal or General Service Other (Office, Hotel,HWF531 A field survey was conducted on April 2 & 3, 2015. It excludes 2nd and 3rd floor uses. 0' 200' rrivera, 2015-05-04 09:38:25 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. CalAve ExLandUse CMData 042815 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto 195 2675 2305 2325 2331 490 2335 2275 480 2515 466 445 444 425 2502 2508 409 407 405 408 2401 465 463 461 459 447 445 437 435433 2458 2454 410 430 2455 460 456 454 448 425 431 475 2450 453 451 449 439441 451453 446 454 456 464 2805 2755 410 469 450 2650 2640 360 2701 425 455 320 306 404 345 303305307309 315 311309311315 2110 448 432431 443 455 456 454 444 428 416 404 410425 2100 465 475 2171 2040 2091 2103 2111 2115 2127 2123 2119 436 446 431435437445447451 478 482 484 2225 2237 391 390 381 373 360 376 2130 2140 2160 2166 424423 450 438 430 410411 417 463 470 457 449 460 454456458 420 2209 2215 2233 429427 421 431 433435437 439441443445447 422418416 412415417419421 332 342 350351 343 333 390 380 370 360359 363 381 393 411 350 359 351 343 323322 334 346 301 315 2130 314 304 316 2060 2050315 323 328 201 2030 2060 222 234 244 254 264 280 290291 281 271 231 237 251 261 305 301 231 440 414 406408410 392 360 364 415 2438 415 409407 421 321 361 24 1 5 399 385 305 200 2747 260 204 2660 444442 437433441447 405 409407 403405 2451 2443 2445 2447 395393 381385 161 163 167165 345341 347 370368366 2500 2516 2514 2512 25102508 2506 2504 2502 362 300 302 330 332 280 384 22 9 0 366 400397 391 383 371 365 355 375 340 344 350 330 302 2150 261 250 285 315 325 335 350 318 306 320 310 277 2313 2307 309307305303 301 299 382 380 378 267 271 2350 2460 245240 255 265 220 230 240 290 260 2363 299 2435 2439 249 164 156 201205209213 2450 2442 2434 2426 217 265 2343 2323 206 200 223 210 2170 220 230 2105 2155 254 260 2742145 285 263 233 243 253 214 2005 2011 2031 2053 2065 2079 2091 2101 2115 2125 231 2110 2150 2151 2157 2145 2143 2211 211 221 2248 2250 2179 2181 2183 2185 2165 2171 2555 2501 123 150 270 2401 2433 2431 2409 2417 2425 145 2785 2635 2625 101109 117 125 133 141 149 151 153155 157 159 251 2123 531 2121 2098 2000 2087 20712045 2033 2011 2001 2080 2086 453 24 2 1 2441 2557 2559 2561 25 6 3 25 6 7 25 6 5 25 7 1 25 7 3 25 7 5 25 7 7 25 7 9 25 8 1 25 6 9 25 8 3 25 8 5 304 306308310312 314 316 318 320 322 324 326 328 334 336338340342344346 348350 352354 356358 360 200 2255 2257 2259 2261 2267 2269 2271 2273 2275 2277 2279 2281 2283 2309 2311 2313 2315 2317 2319 2321 2323 2325 2333 2335 2337 2341 2343 2345 2347 2349 2351100 102104106108 435 398 1 00 2029 480 475 2051 2700 261 2453 390 2504 2506 2227 365369 2437 477 2120 334 2431 481 417 275 276 370 391 250 50 450 2585 413 2162 2164 2441 2333 429 422 2473 2457 2771 450 479 458460462 448450452 440 421 2155 2418 2432 313 433 439 367 208 269 354 2518300 250 208 140 298 261 324 220 2425 2260 2196 414 420 423 438440442444 425 2149 2655 122 2021 2073 2075 2077 2083 2107 2101 333 447 449 499 2221 2160 154 2370 251 2231 2287 2315 101 2575 2670 2501 2705 370 2484 2687 1 3 0 2137 230 1 420 2280 7 6 8 4 8 51055 8 0 6 1 6 7 6 908 7 8 2 9 2 582 0 1 7 2 2 7 0 5 5 3 5 2 8 1 0 3 4 5 4 6 4 8 4 2 4 9 7 9 8 3 3 9 4 7 5 9 2 3 0 2 6 3 3 1 4 3 7 4 3 8 3 2 7 3 2 2 0 9 6 2 1 8 3 7 4 1 6 4 1 434 2 0 6 6 6 8 0 7 3 0 3 3 3 6 1 1 1 6 6 05144 0 4 2 135 7 113 4 0 7 7 5 4 1 5 6 5 1 2 7 5 5 7 2 8 5 0 5 6 5 8 0 6 1 7 7 0 2 6 2 4 1 9 WallisPark Lot C-6 Lot C-7 Lo t C - 8 Lot C-9 Train Station, California Avenue S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e a n d J a i l Lot C-2 Lot C-1 Lot C-3 Parking Garage Lot C-4 Lot C-5 Garage Parking Oxford Avenue ue El Camino Real Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Gran t Ave n ue Sh e r i d a n Av e n u e Ja c a r a n 3da L a n e El Camino Real Sher man Ave n ue Ash Street Mimosa Lane Pa g e M i l l R o a d College Ave n ue Cambr idg e Avenu e Ne w M a y f i e l d L a n e Birch Street Californ ia Avenue Park BoulevardNogal Lane Park Boulevard Street Sedro Lane Peral Lane S h e ri d a n A v e n u e Birch Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Cambridge Avenue California Avenue Sherman Avenue "Formula" Businesses on Cal Ave (>10 Locations) Eating & Drinking Places (Restaurants) Retail Personal or General Service Other (Office, Hotel, etc) 0'200' Ca l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Ex i s t i n g U s e s Ar e a M a p v0 9 0 8 1 5 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2015-09-08 14:43:52 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) Park Boulevard ID Business Name 1 Anatolia Kitchen Restaurant 2 Antonio's 3 Baume 4 Cafe Brioche 5 Café Probono 6 Cheese Stake _Under Construction_ 7 Chez Franc 8 Coffee Shop 9 Counter Palo Alto The 10 Domino's Pizza 11 Fine Arts 12 Izzy's Brooklyn Bagels 13 JIN SHO 14 Joanie's Café 15 La Bodequita Del Medio 16 Mediterranean Wraps 17 Olive garden 18 Palo Alto Baking Café 19 Palo Alto Pizza 20 Palo Alto Sol Restaurant 21 Patis Bistro 22 Pizza Studio 23 Printers Cafe 24 Restaurant 25 Restaurant 26 Restaurant 27 Restaurant Birch Street 28 Sea Food Restaurant 29 Simply Sandwhich 30 Spalti 31 Spice Kit Street Food 32 Starbucks 33 Subway 34 Szechwan Cafe Restaurant 35 Terun 36 Thai Bistro 85 Jade Palace Eating & Drinking (Restaurants) ID Business Name 37 Accent Arts 38 Benjamin Moore Paints 39 Blossom Birth Services 40 Book Store Christian Science 41 Cigar House 42 Computer and Data Processing 43 Copy America 44 Country Sun 45 Fed Ex 46 Fed Ex 47 Gallery House 48 Keeble And Shuchat Photography 49 Keeble And Shuchat Photography 50 Key 51 Leaf And Petal 52 Molly Stone 53 Montaga Jewelry 54 Optometry Eye Works 55 Pharmacy 56 Printing 57 RadioShack 58 Village Flower Shop 59 Village Stationers 60 Vin Vino Wine Retail ID Business Name 61 Aj Tutoring Sevice 62 Avalon Art & Yoga Center 63 Aveda Salon 64 California Cleaners 65 Campus Barbers 66 Chic Hair Salon 67 Cleaners Pilate Barber Hair Salon 68 European Cobblery 69 Hair Salon 70 Hair Salon 71 Hair Sharper Club/ Nail Spa 72 Julian Chase Hair Design 73 La Joile 74 Mahin and Company 75 Massage Therapy Center 76 Norge Cleaners 77 NTT Skin 78 Opus Arcade 79 Pure Barre 80 Salon/Barber 81 Stript Hair Salon 82 Todd Hair Salon 83 True Salon 84 G Hair Salon Personal or General Service Attachment D To: Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission From: Steve Pierce Date: August 25, 2015 Re: California Avenue Formula Retail Ordinance The stated purpose of the proposed ordinance (Ordinance) is to “preserve existing ground floor retail” and “regulate the proliferation of formula retail businesses” (Section 1, Finding N). In addition, the Ordinance seeks to expand retail by extending the Retail Combining District (RCD). The RCD should not be expanded and Section 3 of the Ordinance should be expunged in total or at least as it pertains to the non El Camino facing properties on Cambridge Ave. It is one thing to protect existing retail, it is another to seek to expand it into areas that traditionally are not retail in character. Consider the following: 1. Protection All retail in the CC (2) zone, including the meager amount of retail on Cambridge is already protected. Retail uses cannot be converted to office or other non-retail per PAMC 18.16.050 (a). 2. Non-Conforming Uses The Ordinance could render nearly all the current uses on Cambridge non-conforming. Only business in four non El Camino facing buildings would be allowed under the Ordinance. The balance of the nearly 100 ground floor tenants would become non-conforming. These are mostly office uses. The several barber shops, hair salons, and nail shops (Hair Retail) would be required to obtain conditional use permits (CUP). (Refer to Exhibit A). This is not good planning practice and it would create hardship for small business and property owners with no benefit to the community. (It is more difficult to conduct business and improve buildings with non-complying or CUP uses and it consumes more staff time to administrate.) 3. Grandfathered Uses Office uses would be grandfathered. However, if a building were to be significantly remodeled or ground floor office space were to remain vacant for an extended period, the grandfather status would terminate and replacement ground floor uses would be restricted to retail. In this way the Ordinance is forcing the conversion of non-retail space into retail. This is not desirable or feasible for the reasons outlined below. 4. Building Suitability Most of the Cambridge Ave buildings were built as offices. They do not have the storefronts or other features required by retail. Many of the buildings are built to the property lines on all four sides. Unlike the California Ave properties that were built specifically for retail, there is no rear alley on the north side of Cambridge for deliveries or dumpsters. Adding delivery trucks to Cambridge would only exacerbate traffic problems. 5. Market Feasibility Cambridge Ave is not a good retail corridor. It is a street of office buildings with a few small retail operations, primarily Hair Retail. The location and preponderance of office uses make it sub-par for Attachment E retail. In contrast, California Ave has what retailers want, an uninterrupted concentration of retail on both sides of the street. The small intermittent pockets of Hair Retail on Cambridge even if augmented with future conversions to retail, will not create the critical mass for successful retail. You cannot zone retail into existence. 6. Redevelopment The Ordinance will create a disincentive for property owners to do major upgrades. Such would trigger the conversion of ground floor space to retail an economically non-viable use and therefore a major risk. Tired and unattractive buildings will remain because owners will want to preserve grandfathered uses. In all likelihood the Ordinance would have discouraged the recent construction of the Embarcadero Media (Palo Alto Weekly) building at 450 Cambridge. 7. Retail Nuisances Retail would be incompatible with adjacent uses. The north side of Cambridge borders residential uses. Retail activity has incumbent nuisances: noise, truck deliveries, food waste, trash compactors, extended hours of operation, etc. It is a basic principal of city planning that such land uses not be located adjacent to residences. Office uses are much more compatible with residential and should be maintained to buffer residences from other California Ave activities. In summary, the retail on Cambridge and elsewhere on the CC (2) is already protected from displacement by office. Further, the expansion of the RCD to include Cambridge Ave will not foster the movement of retail into this marginal location with unsuitable buildings. In addition, retail is not a desirable use in close to residence. Let the office buildings remain office buildings and delete Section 3 from the Ordinance. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6045) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/21/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adoption of Interim Ordinance for Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit Boundaries Title: PUBLIC HEARING - Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Establishing a 50,000 Square Foot Annual Limit on Office/R&D Development in a Portion of the City Including Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor. Environmental Assessment: This Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Adoption From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the subject ordinance (Attachment A), establishing an annual limit of 50,000 square feet for new Office/R&D development in a subset of the City comprised of Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor for an interim period of two years, or until the Comprehensive Plan Update is adopted, whichever is less. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto and the region have experienced dramatic job growth since the end of the recession, resulting in increases in traffic, parking demand, and other impacts of growth. This growth and the attendant impacts are not directly addressed by the City’s current growth management strategies, which include a cumulative cap on non-residential development in downtown and in the City as a whole. Over the course of six meetings from January through June of 2015, the City Council discussed growth management strategies that might effectively address the pace of growth and provided staff with direction to develop an interim ordinance that would put in place an annual limit on new development of office and research & development (R&D) space in the City’s fastest changing commercial districts. The interim ordinance is intended to control the pace of growth and change in these areas for a two-year trial period or until the Comprehensive Plan Update is City of Palo Alto Page 2 adopted, with the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan Update may perpetuate or modify this program. The Council’s recommended annual limit of 50,000 square feet per year will be effective at constraining development in years when the City is experiencing a lot of development pressure, as demonstrated by historic data for the past 15 years. In this timeframe, the 50,000 square foot limit would have acted as a constraint on development during six years. In other years, the cumulative total of new square footage entitled in the affected areas was less than 50,000 square feet. The attached draft ordinance reflects the City Council’s specific direction on parameters of the annual limit program, including affected land uses and exemptions, the process by which the annual limit would be implemented, the criteria that would be used to evaluate competing projects, and the disposition of pending or “pipeline” projects. The ordinance also reflects the Planning & Transportation Commission’s recommendation regarding specific boundaries of the program, including the exemption of coordinated area plans (Palo Alto’s version of specific plans), like the SOFA II plan. All of these issues are discussed further below, and four questions are posed regarding potential adjustments to the draft ordinance. Background The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains an overall cap on the amount of non-residential development that can occur in Downtown and in the City as a whole, but does not currently limit the pace of development.1 This issue was discussed at public workshops regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update in the summer of 2014, and the City Council took up the idea of limiting the pace of new office/R&D development over the course of six meetings from January through June of 2015. (CMR: 5877; CMR: 5689; CMR: 5621; CMR: 5565; CMR: 5518; CMR: 5404.) On March 23rd, the City Council adopted a series of motions directing staff to (among other things) prepare an interim ordinance to effectuate an annual limit on new office/R&D development in those areas of the City experiencing the most rapid change: Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor. The Council’s motions are included as Attachment B and also identified measures to be considered for adoption on a permanent basis as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update. Key factors for the preparation of the interim ordinance identified by the Council include but are not limited to;  Office/R&D annual limit would run until the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan or two years whichever is sooner; 1 The cap that applies to the City as a whole was established by Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 and addresses non- residential development in “monitored areas.” Non-residential development pursuant to this policy is not close to reaching the 3.2M square foot cap. Non-residential development in Downtown may reach the 350,000 square foot cap established for that area (in Comprehensive Plan Program L-8) within the next several years, necessitating reevaluation of this limit. City of Palo Alto Page 3  The limit would apply to an area comprised of the Downtown, California Avenue area, and the El Camino Real corridor;  The limit would be set at 50,000 sq. ft. of new office/R&D development (net gain) per year. For a variety of reasons explained in prior staff reports (See CMR: 5565), the data associated with monitoring of Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 is considered less intuitive and useful than data on development approvals that is submitted by the City to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for use in the Congestion Management Plan (CMP). This CMP data provides a similar, though more refined picture of non-residential development in Palo Alto since it separates office uses from retail and from other non-residential uses. The one disadvantage is the CMP data’s use of the Fiscal Year, rather than the calendar year for reporting purposes. Also, the CMP data is only considered reliable as an estimate of square footage changes for the period from 2001 to the present. Table 1 below presents the updated CMP data for the fiscal years 2001 thru 2015 for geographic areas identified by the City Council’s motion on March 23, 2015 and is based on the boundaries shown in Attachment C. As explained further in the Discussion section below, these suggested boundaries differ from the boundaries of the “Commercial Centers” identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and are based instead on zoning district boundaries. Table 1. Net New Non-Residential Development Based on Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Classifications by District from FY2001 to FY2015 California Ave/Ventura Area Downtown Area ECR Corridor Stanford Research Park Other Totals Retail 59,898 -48,852 -24,153 0 5,349 -7,758 Office and R & D 263,674 315,586 46,210 320,577 -570,053 375,994 Other -147,354 49,407 -14,193 22,331 733,294 643,485 Total 176,218 316,141 7,864 342,908 168,590 1,011,721 Notes: 1. CMP data is reported by the City to the Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) each fiscal year and can be sorted by geographic area. 2. The numbers above represent the net change in each land use over the period from FY2001 to FY2015 and is based on planning entitlements granted. 3. These figures do not include “pipeline” projects and do not include the Stanford Medical Center (SUMC) or square footage gained/lost as a result of the Mayfield Development Agreement. 4. “Retail” is broadly defined to include automotive services, commercial recreation, and other uses that do not fall into one of the other CMP categories. 5. The CMP data does not distinguish between general office, medical office, and other types of office uses, although it does distinguish between office and R&D. Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, July 2015 City of Palo Alto Page 4 On June 15, the City Council further discussed the details of the interim ordinance to limit new office/R&D development by discussing (1) the applicability of the limit to land uses as they are defined in the City’s zoning ordinance; (2) the process and criteria that shall be used to evaluate applications for compliance with the annual limit; and (3) effect of the limit on applications that are currently in the “pipeline.” (See CMR: 5877). The Council adopted another series of motions addressing these issues as discussed in detail below. See Attachment D for the 06/15/15 City Council action minutes. As noted earlier, the cumulative totals for non-residential development only tell part of the story. The pace of growth is better reflected by looking at the commercial areas on an annual basis, as shown in Table 2 in Attachment E. As shown in Table 2, a 50,000 square foot annual limit in the commercial districts affected by the proposed ordinance would have acted as a constraint in six of the past 15 years (FY2006, FY2007, FY2010, FY2012, FY2014 and FY2015). In other years, the cumulative total of new square footage entitled in the affected areas was less than 50,000 square feet. The Planning & Transportation Commission considered the draft ordinance at their meetings of August 12, 2015 and August 26, 2015, ultimately recommending adoption of the ordinance as drafted with the addition of an exemption for coordinated area plans like SOFA II. The majority of the PTC felt that the suggested boundary and exempt uses were appropriate. Throughout much of the PTC’s discussion, it was clear that members were ambivalent about the idea of an interim annual limit for a variety of reasons. One Commissioner characterized a temporary, two-year limit as a “distraction” from the Comprehensive Plan Update process, and another referred to it as a “blunt instrument.” While ultimately recommending the ordinance for adoption, the Commissioners seemed to believe that the program would be more fair and easier to implement if the annual limit were administered on a first-come-first served basis (rather than through a competitive process). The PTC also suggested that the review criteria be explicitly weighted, or not included at all as they could produce a "beauty contest." Some PTC members also felt that a "rollover provision" that allowed unbuilt space to be built in the following years would mitigate unpredictable economic downturns. Please see Attachment F for the minutes of the 08/12/15 and 08/26/15 PTC meetings for more specifics regarding the Commission’s discussion. Discussion The attached draft ordinance includes specific provisions regarding district boundaries, land uses and exemptions, the process and criteria for administering the program, and its applicability to pending (“pipeline”) projects. These parameters are summarized below along with a number of questions for the Council’s consideration. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Boundaries The Council directed staff to prepare the ordinance so the office/R&D annual limit would apply to the Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Corridor areas but did not define the specific boundaries of these areas. The proposed ordinance identifies the boundaries shown in Attachment C (map of potential boundaries for office R&D Cap and 1989 Commercial Growth Monitoring Areas). These boundaries generally conform with the zoning districts where office/R&D uses are permitted within the three areas rather than following the boundaries of “commercial centers” defined in the Comprehensive Plan. This would mean that the annual limit would apply to more parcels in the California Avenue Area and the El Camino Corridor than if the Comprehensive Plan boundaries were used, and fewer in the Downtown. (While there would be somewhat fewer affected parcels in downtown, those non-affected parcels are not currently zoned for office/R&D, so the exclusion is not expected to substantively change the effectiveness of the proposed annual limit.) The City Council deadlocked when discussing the issue of boundaries because there was no majority either to include or exempt coordinated area plans (Palo Alto’s version of specific plans), like the SOFA II plan, ultimately voting to refer the office/R&D annual limit boundaries to the PTC. The rationale for exempting coordinated area plans (there is currently only one that allows office development) is that these areas have been the subject of neighborhood-specific planning through a public process. The rational for not exempting these areas is that net new office/R&D development in the area contributes to the pace of district-wide change and associated impacts. The PTC recognized that the process of establishing coordinated area plans involves a significant amount of civic engagement and conveys the community vision of development for that area or neighborhood. Therefore, PTC recommended that the Council adopt the attached draft ordinance using the proposed boundaries, but excluding coordinated area plans (See Figure 1 below or Attachment G for the proposed boundaries excluding coordinated area plans). This exemption has been added to the draft ordinance since the PTC’s meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Question 1: Would the City Council like to accept the PTC’s recommendation and approve the draft ordinance with the suggested boundaries and an exemption for coordinated area plans? Figure 1: Map of Palo Alto showing areas where office and/or R&D uses are permitted or conditionally permitted and areas where an annual limit of 50,000 sq. ft. per year is proposed excluding coordinated area plans (SOFA I and II) (Attachment G) Land Uses & Exemptions The City Council’s direction was to prepare an ordinance that would apply office/R&D limit to Research and Development (R&D), Administrative Office, General Business Office, Professional Office, and Medical Offices over 5,000 square feet as defined in the Municipal Code 18.04.030. The Council also wished to exempt projects generating less than 2,000 square feet of net new office or R&D space and “self-mitigating” projects. The applicable land uses and exemptions have been included in the draft ordinance, which has been amended since the PTC’s hearing to clarify that government offices would not fall within the scope of the ordinance, since they are considered Public/Quasi-Public Facility Uses per Municipal Code Section 18.28.040. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Process & Criteria The draft ordinance would establish a procedure by which applications are accepted and processed as they are currently, except no applications would be approved until after March 31 each Fiscal Year. At that point, if the square footage proposed by all applications combined would exceed the annual limit, completed applications that have been recommended for approval by an advisory body like the Architectural Review Board would be ranked based on scoring criteria and provided to the City Council for evaluation and action prior to the end of the Fiscal Year on June 30. If the square footage proposed by all applications combined would not exceed the annual limit, the completed applications that have been recommended for approval would be acted upon using the usual process. The City Council’s March 23, 2015 motion included proposed criteria for evaluating projects in a competitive process and additional criteria were suggested at the June 15th meeting. The proposed ordinance includes all of these criteria and does not provide any guidance as to how they should be weighted:  density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surrounding;  ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking;  quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality;  environmental quality;  the monetary and/or non-monetary value of public benefits offered.  Mixed use projects including substantial housing;  Mixed use projects including retail;  Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios;  Any entitlement applications involving an Office/R&D development project deemed “complete” in terms of CEQA review after March 31, 2015 but prior to June 15, 2015. Members of the PTC and the public have pointed out that without a weighting system, the competitive process envisioned by the ordinance is not particularly transparent or predictable. Also, with the use of a competitive process rather than a first-come-first system, the program will be complex and time consuming for both the staff and the Council. Question 2: Would the Council like to reconsider the use of a competitive process and amend the ordinance to rely on a first-come-first-served system? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Question 3: If the Council elects to retain the competitive process in the draft ordinance, should the criteria be weighted either in the ordinance itself or in the administrative procedures referenced in the ordinance? “Pipeline” Projects The Department of Planning and Community Environment currently (as of August 31, 2015) has 12 pending applications for discretionary projects that would result in a net increase in office or R&D square footage, not counting applications for preliminary architectural review, since such applications do not result in a planning entitlement. The pending applications are listed in Table 3 below and segregated into those within the recommended boundaries (11) and an application outside the boundaries (one). As shown below, the sum total of “pipeline” projects within the recommended boundaries currently pending exceeds the proposed annual limit of 50,000 gross square feet by approximately 84,000 square feet. Individual projects include those that have been in process since last year (for example, the 3045 Park Blvd and 2747 Park Blvd applications), and applications that have been filed quite recently (for example, the 3265 El Camino Real application filed in July 2015). The pending projects are also at different stages of “readiness,” based on their categorization as complete or incomplete, and their status in terms of CEQA review and whether they have been recommended (or not) for a final action. Table 3. “Pipeline” Projects with net new Office/R&D square footage as of August 31, 2015 Address Date of Application Application Status Application Deemed "Complete" Date Net Sq Ft Cal Ave Net Sq Ft Downtown Net Sq Ft El Camino Corridor Net Sq Ft Other Areas 2747 Park Blvd 10/6/2014 Application Complete - Preparing EIR 4/10/2015 28,200 3045 Park Blvd1 10/6/2014 Application Complete - Preparing EIR 4/10/2015 29,120 3225 El Camino Real2 1/5/2015 Application Complete -Preparing Initial Study 5/28/2015 3,437 2755 El Camino Real 11/4/2014 On Hold – Planned Community Zoning Application 29,187 2585 El Camino Real 4/29/2015 Notice of Incomplete Sent 08/01/15 9,408 380 Cambridge Ave 6/16/2015 Notice of Incomplete Sent 07/15/15 2,917 425-429 University Ave3 6/19/2014 Appealed - HRB on 09/10/15 & ARB on 09/17/15 10,660 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Address Date of Application Application Status Application Deemed "Complete" Date Net Sq Ft Cal Ave Net Sq Ft Downtown Net Sq Ft El Camino Corridor Net Sq Ft Other Areas 411 Lytton Ave- 437 Lytton Ave 12/9/2014 Application Complete 5/8/2015 6,096 901 High St 2/9/2015 Notice of Incomplete Sent 08/30/2015 9,950 3877 El Camino Real4 11/20/2014 Application Complete - Initial Study 12/21/2014 4,020 3265 El Camino Real 7/23/2015 Notified “Application Incomplete” during 08/19/15 DRC meeting 1,357 3170 Porter Dr5 3/23/2015 Notice of Incomplete Sent 04/15/15 29,046 Totals by Area 102,269 26,706 5,377 29,046 Notes: 1. Project proposes 29,120 sq ft of office and demolishes the existing 17,956 sq ft of mostly automotive uses (some office use supporting the automotive uses is included in the existing 17,956 sq ft) 2. Project proposes 10,437 sq. ft. of commercial space, but is required to maintain 7,000 sq. ft. of retail (retain existing retail FAR). There is a potential for approximately 3,437 sq. ft. of office use 3. 10,660 sq ft = 12,860 - 2,200 sq ft; Existing office approximately 2,200 sq ft; proposed office = 12,472 + 388 = 12,860 sq ft; 388 sq ft = 775/2 ground floor utility spaces (stairwells, etc) split w/ retail use. Deemed "Complete" prior to 03/31/15 and will be excempted from Limit 4. Project proposes 4,020 sq ft net gain of Office which includes shared lobby space with other retail square footage. There is no existing office on this site. 5. Projects are "Designated Sites and Projects" under the Mayfield Development Agreement • The list above only includes projects with a formal Architectural Review Board (ARB) application. It does not include projects in the Preliminary ARB process. • The net Office/R&D square footage are based on the applicant's project proposal and may be revised before the project receives a Planning Entitlement. • The list above only includes projects with a proposed net increase in Office or R&D square footage and is not a comprehensive list of all current pipeline projects. Pursuant to Council’s direction, the draft ordinance would exempt pipeline office/R&D development projects with applications deemed “complete” by March 31, 2015. The Council may wish to reconsider their direction depending on the time elapsed between this date and their consideration and adoption of the proposed ordinance. There are two pending projects (425-429 University Ave and 3877 El Camino Real) deemed “complete” in terms of CEQA review prior to 03/31/15 that will be exempted from the annual limit while four pending projects were deemed “complete” in terms of CEQA review after 03/31/15 but prior to 06/15/15 (2747 Park Blvd., 3045 Park Blvd., 3225 El Camino Real, and 411-437 Lytton Ave.). Pursuant to the Council’s direction, these pending projects, if recommended for approval by an advisory body such as the Architectural Review Board (ARB), will be given additional consideration in the evaluation process of projects affected by the office/R&D annual limit (see the discussion of criteria above). The rest of the remaining pending projects were either “incomplete” as of 06/30/15 or are projects outside the recommended boundaries of the office/R&D annual limit. (One project is a pending Planned Community zoning application that is on hold and has not been reviewed for completeness.) City of Palo Alto Page 10 Also, if the Council chooses to accept the PTC’s recommendation to exempt coordinated area plans, one pipeline project (901 High St) proposing 9,950 square feet of office space, would effectively be exempted from the annual limit. Question 4: Does the Council wish to reconsider the March 31, 2015 date for exempting pending applications due to the passage of time and instead exempt all applicable pipeline projects deemed “complete” prior to June 15, 2015 or the effective date of the ordinance? Policy Implications The proposed program would seek to moderate the pace of development without changing the zoning regulations that affect land uses and densities. The annual limit program would be tested on a short term basis, and during that period would complement – and not replace – growth management strategies in the current Comprehensive Plan, which consist of a cumulative cap on non-residential Downtown and Citywide. In this way, the proposal would implement Comprehensive Plan Policy B-1:”Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure that business change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods.” If the annual limit approach is adopted on a permanent basis after the two year trial, it would likely involve amendments to the policies and programs about growth management in the Comprehensive Plan, for example Program L-8 about the Downtown cap. Timeline Establishment of an annual limit on development of net new office/R&D square footage, even on an interim basis is a complex endeavor that has the potential to substantially affect property owners who have already invested in pending applications. If the Council takes their action to adopt the draft ordinance tonight, this could effectively mean beginning the FY16 trial as of an effective date in November (i.e. 30 days after a second reading in October.) Consistent with the Council’s direction on March 16, 2015, the proposed ordinance would make the annual limit effective for two years (FY16 and FY17), at which time it would cease, unless it were affirmatively continued or modified/replaced. By separate action, the City Council could also choose to make adjustments, cease, or extend the program at any time before the end of two years. Environmental Review Adoption of an ordinance implementing a short term (two year) limit on the amount of office space that can be entitled in a subsection of the City will have the effect of perpetuating the status quo if it discourages new applications for development or slows down the processing of pending applications. Also, while a longer-term annual limit might have the effect of directing City of Palo Alto Page 11 office development to other areas of the City or stimulating alternative development (such as housing), these market shifts are unlikely to occur within the two year time frame. For these reasons, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed temporary annual limit would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment and no review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update will evaluate the potential long-term impacts of the proposed annual limit on office/R&D development and will be used to inform a decision to extend the short term (interim) program at the end of two years if desired. Attachments:  Attachment A: ORD Office Growth Meter (PDF)  Attachment B: March 23, 2015 City Council Action Minutes (PDF)  Attachment C: Map of Office/R&D Office Limit Potential Boundaries and 1989 Commercial Growth Monitoring Areas (PDF)  Attachment D: June 15, 2015 City Council Action Minutes (PDF)  Attachment E: Annual Non Residential Growth in Subject Areas FY2001-FY2015 Based on CMP Classifications (PDF)  Attachment F: Draft Excerpt PTC Minutes of August 12 and 26, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment G: PTC recommended boundaries for office and R&D annual limit draft ordinance (PDF) Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 150909 cs 0131471 1 Ordinance No.__________ Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 18.85.200 (Annual Office Limit) to Chapter 18.85 entitled “Interim Zoning Ordinances” Imposing an Office Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet in Designated Areas of City FINDINGS A. The City of Palo Alto has long been considered the birth place of Silicon Valley. With its proximity to Stanford University, its international reputation, its deep ties to technology firms, its highly rated public school system and its ample public parks, open space and community centers, Palo Alto continues to serve as a hub for technology-based business. B. Palo Alto is considered one of Silicon Valley's most desirable office markets. According to one study Class A office rates have climbed 49 percent since the start of 2010. The same study reported Class B office space increasing by 114.4 % since 2010. C. In particular, average commercial rental rates have gone up significantly from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 the average monthly rental rate citywide for office was $4.57 per square foot. That rate increased to $5.12 in 2015. D. As a result, the City has seen a steady increase of new Office and Research and Development (R&D) projects. According to data submitted by the City to support the Valley Transportation Authority’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP), since 2001, the City has added 234,002 of net new square feet of office/R& D development in the California Avenue area; 315,586 in the downtown area, and 46,210 in the El Camino Real corridor. E. While this new development is consistent with the City’s zoning ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan, the rate of change has been faster than anticipated, resulting in changes in the character of the City’s commercial districts. The changes have also resulted in additional parking demand, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions, and negatively impact the City’s jobs/housing ratio. F. Based on the CMP data, there have been six years since 2001 in which more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office/R&D development have been entitled in these districts combined, and these six years include the last two (fiscal years 2014 and 2015). G. Record high monthly rental rates for office space and low vacancy rates suggest that the rapid pace of development is likely to continue, putting pressure on sites that are not currently developed to their maximum potential, and contributing to a feeling in the community that the character of the City’s commercial districts are changing too fast. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: 150910 cs 0131471 2 Rev. September 9, 2015 SECTION 1. A new Section 18.85.200 (Annual Office Limit) is added to Chapter 18.85 entitled “Interim Zoning Ordinances” to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: “18.85.200 Annual Office Limit 18.85.201 Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the definitions below: (a) Office Annual Limit Area shall include the area shown in Exhibit A, comprising the commercial districts of Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Real corridor. The South of Forest Area (SOFA II) and any other areas that are the subject of coordinated area plans shall be exempt from this Ordinance. (b) Office Annual Limit Land Uses shall include any of the following uses in the Office Annual Limit Area: 1. Research and Development as defined in Section 18.04.030(123); 2. Administrative Office Services as defined in Section 18.040.030(6); 3. General Business Office as defined in Section 18.040.030(61); 4. Medical Office greater than 5,000 net new square feet as defined in Section 18.04.030(95); and 5. Professional Office as defined in Section 18.04.030(116). (c) Qualifying Application shall mean an application for a permit or other planning entitlement for an Office Annual Limit Land Use which (1) has been determined to be complete, (2) has completed the necessary analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act and (3) has been reviewed by all required commissions and/or Planning Director, as applicable. 18.85.202 Office Annual Limit. During the pendency of this Ordinance no more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office Annual Limit Land Uses per fiscal year shall be approved by the City in the Office Annual Limit Area. (a) For purposes of this Ordinance, the fiscal year shall be defined as July 1 to June 30. (b) The 50,000 square foot limit imposed by this section shall not apply to exempt projects as defined in 18.85.203 and such projects shall not be counted towards this limit. (c) This restriction shall be in addition to any other applicable growth restriction including but not limited to Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 and Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Code. In the event multiple policies apply to a project, the policy most restrictive of growth shall apply. 150910 cs 0131471 3 Rev. September 9, 2015 18.85.203 Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from this Ordinance: (a) Small Projects. Projects containing less than 2,000 net new square feet or less of Office Annual Limit Land Uses and accessory office space that is incidental to and customarily associated with a principal use or facility are exempt from the Office Annual Limit. (b) Small Medical Office Projects. Projects containing 5,000 net new square feet or less of Medical Office are exempt from the Development Cap. (c) Self-Mitigating Projects. Projects that both: (1) provide sufficient rental housing such that the combination of dwelling units and Office Annual Limit Land Uses would improve the current citywide job/housing balance of 3.04 jobs for every employed resident; and (2) provide substantial transportation demand management strategies (individually or in cooperation with other projects or programs) to improve the current parking and traffic conditions. (d) Pipeline Projects. Projects which have been approved, or which are considered “pipeline projects” as follows: 1. Projects which obtained a planning entitlement for an Office Annual Limit Land Use prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 2. Projects which are the subject of a planning entitlement application that was submitted to the City in 2013 or 2014 and deemed complete by the City on or before March 31, 2015. (e) City Office Space. New office space used by the City of Palo Alto. 18.85.205 Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment. An applicant may request that the requirements of this Ordinance be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this Ordinance would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Any such request under this section shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Director together with an economic analysis or other supporting documentation and shall be acted upon by the City Council. 18.85.206 Procedures for Reviewing Qualifying Applications. The following additional processing and approval requirements shall apply to Office Annual Limit Land Uses: 150910 cs 0131471 4 Rev. September 9, 2015 (a) No Qualifying Application for an Office Annual Limit Land Use shall be acted upon by the Director or by the City Council between July 1 and March 31 of the following year. (b) If the combined square footage proposed by all Qualifying Applications that are pending on March 31 would not exceed the annual limit, the Qualifying Applications shall be acted upon using the Zoning Code’s usual process immediately following March 31. (c) If the combined square footage proposed by all Qualifying Applications would exceed the annual limit, the Director shall rank all Qualifying Applications based on scoring criteria set forth in Section 18.85.207 and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council may accept the Director’s recommendation or reevaluate the ranking based on the scoring criteria. Based on their review, the Council shall approve in ranked order one or more Qualifying Applications to achieve a maximum of 50,000 net new square feet. The Council may approve applications as proposed and recommended, and may require modifications of any project to reduce the proposed square footage in order to stay within the 50,000 square feet Office Annual Limit. The Council’s action on all Qualifying Applications shall be made before the end of the fiscal year on June 30. (d) Any application which is subject to City Council evaluation and action pursuant to Section (c) above and which was not approved by the City Council shall be denied unless, at the request of the applicant, it is rolled over to the next fiscal year for processing in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance. Further, in lieu of modifications to the project’s Office Annual Limit Land Use, the applicant can elect to roll over the application to the next fiscal year. The City and applicant may agree to extend any applicable processing time periods to effectuate this provision. 18.85.207 Selection Criteria. The City Council shall evaluate applications subject to the annual limit using the following criteria: (a) The density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surroundings; and (b) The ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking; and (c) The quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality; and (d) Environmental quality; and (e) The monetary and/or non-monetary value of public benefits offered; and (f) Mixed use projects including substantial housing; and (g) Mixed use projects including retail; and 150910 cs 0131471 5 Rev. September 9, 2015 (h) Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios; and (i) Any entitlement application involving an Office Annual Limit Land Use submitted to the City in 2013 or 2014 and which was deemed complete by the City on or before June 15, 2015. 18.85.208. The Director has the authority to adopt rules or procedures to implement the efficient and equitable implementation of this Ordinance.” SECTION 2. Supersede. This Ordinance supersedes any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. This ordinance shall expire within two years of its effective date or upon Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update, whichever occurs first. SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is a temporary measure designed to slow the rate of change in some commercial areas of the City. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ 150910 cs 0131471 6 Rev. September 9, 2015 City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment CJL Stanford Shopping Center Downtown/Unniversity Area UniversityStation PAMF Town & Country California AvenueArea Fry's Site Stanford Research Park El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor Alma Plaza Stanford MedicalCenter CharlestonCenter R-1 San AntonioArea San AntonioArea Midtown West BayshoreArea EdgewoodPlaza East BayshoreArea MSC Embarcadero EastArea SOFA I SOFA II R-1 R-1 (7000) East MeadowCircle l a s P u l g a s H i l l R o a d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d P a g e M i l l R o ad R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University Avenue y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real n e R o a d F o o t h i l l E x p r e s Hi l l vi e w E a st B a y s h or e W e st B a y s h o r e Fabian S a n d Hill R oa d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona AvenueArastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Los Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct Mc Kellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive HemlockCourt Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Capitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley StreetSouth CourtBryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado AvenueByron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley StreetEl Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael DriveSt Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina W ay Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive Driftwood Drive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia StreetBowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Arastradero Road Miranda Avenue Avenue uela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRoblesAvenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Av enue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Exp La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley StreetPrinceton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madron o Aven u e Portola Avenu e Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan AvenueJacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road Morton Street Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar LaneAlannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon AvenueBlair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara DriveColorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado AvenueSimkins Court Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way Emb Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison AvenueScott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer Avenue Guinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenueChaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlowe Stree Maple Street Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton StreetCowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wils o n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive WestCrescentDrive Cre University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell R oad Parkinson AvenuePine Street Mark Twain Street Louis RoadBarbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays DriveLois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Edgewood Drive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion AvenueWelch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Hi Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Wa y Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 WLane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenu e Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Ch Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail DrQuail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolu mne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryes sa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado CtAlvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cooksey Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court JenkinsCourt Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L L ane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomitaCourt Lom ita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears CourtMears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mira da Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hi ll Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way R a i mundo Wa y Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra W alk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco CourtSan Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm Road Thoburn Court Tolman DriveValdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Road Loop Road North Yard Road Pep Ring Road Pep Ring Road Pep Ring Road Alpine Access Road Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r voir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch RoadPasteur Drive Pasteur Drive This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Commercial & RT Zoning Districts - Office is a Permitted Use w/ Possible GF & Size Limitations ROLM & RP Zoning Districts - Office and R & D is a Permitted Use MOR Zoning District - Medical Office is a Permitted Use PF Zoning District - Office is a Conditional Use GM Zoning District - R & D is a Permitted Use & Office is a Conditional Use Stanford Research Park SOFA I CAP SOFA II CAP Proposed Annual Office and R&D Cap Areas City Jurisdictional Limits 0'2200' Of f i c e a n d R & D Zo n i n g D i s t r i c t s wi t h Pr o p o s e d O f f i c e a n d R & D C a p ex c l u d i n g Co o r d i n a t e d A r e a P l a n s CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2015-09-03 15:34:34 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) EXHIBIT A CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 7 Special Meeting March 23, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:09 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois arrived at 6:20 P.M., Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff arrived at 6:46 P.M., Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Presentation to Development Services Department Regarding Recognition of Achievement by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for its Administering of the Building Codes Attaining the Highest Standards for Structural Safety. Study Session 2. Update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Collection of All of its State Water Project Costs via Property Taxes Instead of Water Rates. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions James Keene, City Manager requested that the City Council continue Agenda Item Number 4- Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Public Works Department to Submit a Function Classification Request to Caltrans to Expand the Number of Streets Eligible for Resurfacing Work Using Federal or State Grant Funding. until a later date in April 2015. Minutes Approval MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to approve the minutes of January 26, 31 and February 2, 2015 with the addition to the January 26, 2015 minutes, page 39 of the vote for Agenda ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 3/23/2015 Item Number 8- Potential Litigation (as petitioner) – Caltrain Joint Powers Board – Peninsula Corridor Electrification. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3 and 5-8, Agenda Item Number 4 continued to a date in April 2015. 3. Approval of Two 3-Year Contracts for a Computer and Data Center Data Storage or 'Cloud Backup' Solution Totaling $618,991: 1) Exucom Contract Number C15156183 in the Amount of up to $327,121 for Data Center Backup; 2) Code42 Contract Number C151566312 in the Amount of $291,870 for Computer and Laptop Backup. 4. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Public Works Department to Submit a Function Classification Request to Caltrans to Expand the Number of Streets Eligible for Resurfacing Work Using Federal or State Grant Funding. 5. Approval of Amendment Number Seven to the City’s Lease Agreement with McCandless Limited, LLC., For Office Space at 1005 and 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto. 6. Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract C14153010 with Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting to Increase the Contract by $400,000 for an Amount Not to Exceed $784,999 for On- Call Planning Services Needed to Support Implementation of the City's Individual Review Program. 7. Request for Procedural Change - Present the Results of the Animal Services Audit to the Finance Committee Rather Than to the Policy and Services Committee. 8. Approval of a Wastewater Enterprise Fund Contract with Precision Engineering, Inc. In the Amount of $7,405,730 for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Projects 24, 25, and 26 in University South, Professorville and Old Palo Alto Neighborhoods. ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 3/23/2015 MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 3 AND 5-8: 9-0 Action Items 9. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Continued from March 2, 2015). MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff to return with discussion of elements of an interim Ordinance along the following lines, and that Staff will have discretion to provide certain alternatives under the following guidelines and other aspects that Staff recommends for consideration: 1) Cap would run until the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan; and 2) Areas would cover University Avenue, California Avenue and El Camino Real districts; and 3) Limit of ~50,000 sq. ft. of new office/commercial development net gain per year; and 4) That it have a set of scoring standards to attempt to drive quality, including: A. Traffic impacts; and B. Parking impacts; and C. Design: Human scale of urban design, compatibility with surroundings, architectural quality; and D. Environmental quality of building; and E. Other potential public benefits. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return with options of what uses to include in the Cap. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add “Potential intensity of use,” under Number 4. ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 3/23/2015 AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff, that the Cap would run until the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan or two years, whichever is sooner. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman no INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return with alternatives with types of development that might be excluded from the interim Ordinance. AMENDMENT: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to exclude the Stanford Research Park only with a clear and definitive means of addressing: 1. Single occupancy vehicle trips; and 2. Looking at minimizing the conversion of R&D to Office. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include discussion of any additional zoning change measures. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff to include an alternative of no new net car trip increase in the Comprehensive Plan update. MOTION PASSED: 8-1 DuBois no MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XX to direct Staff as part of the Comprehensive Plan update to investigate a 35,000 sq. ft. office development limit within the Congestion Management Plan. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to further define and evaluate as part of the ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 3/23/2015 Comprehensive Plan update ways to encourage mixed-use that are not predominately office space. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to direct Staff to include consideration of an employee fee or tax in the context of the Comprehensive Plan discussion in regards to office and job growth. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to direct Staff to consider under the Comprehensive Plan discussion of Stanford Research Park including comprehensive Traffic Demand Management, and a limitation of conversion of R&D to office in the Research Park. Council Member DuBois advised he would not participate in this Motion due to his wife working at Stanford. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating 10. Approval of a Residential Curbside Compost Collection Program and Adopting a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5314 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Council of the City of Palo Alto for $387,000 for the Purchase of Kitchen Buckets and New Outreach Materials.” MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: 1. Approve a new residential curbside collection and composting program of food scraps commingled with yard trimmings in the green carts, effective July 1, 2015; and 2. Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $387,000 to fund the purchase of kitchen buckets and outreach materials that are needed as part of the implementation of the new residential curbside compost collection program. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 3/23/2015 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Scharff reported on his attendance at the Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board meeting earlier in the evening. At the meeting, he learned that the Expressways have not received regular maintenance since 2010 due to the lack of funding. This has led to decreased road quality. Council Member Wolbach attended the Gunn High School production of Anything Goes, which was a fantastic performance. Council Member Burt presented at and sat as a panelist during the Local Government Commission Annual Conference this past weekend. He reported that California is viewed as a leader in regards to climate action planning and carbon neutrality and Palo Alto is viewed as the the leader on becoming carbon neutral. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to agendize a discussion of temporarily suspending the fees associated with a single story overlay. Council Member Berman attended Mix It Up at Duveneck Elementary School, his elementary school alma mater. Students from different grades participated in a lunch time project to bridge gaps between different ages. He stated Council Member Wolbach also participated in Mix It Up. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to agendize exploring the density of units in multi-family zoning and easing the regulations for adding second units. ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 7 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 3/23/2015 The Council went into the Closed Session at 11:41 P.M. 11. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-Potential Initiation of Litigation (1 Matter) Santa Clara Valley Water District funding of State Water Project obligation through property tax levy. Govt. Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:35 P.M. Mayor Holman reported there was no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:36 A.M. El Camino Real El Camino Real Alma Street Alma Street Alma St University Avenue University Ave S. Rengstorff Avenue Santa Cruz Avenue Valparaiso Avenue Santa Cruz Avenue Middlefield Road Middlefield Road Middlefield Rd Bayshore Fwy Bayshore Fwy Embarcadero Road Charleston Rd Santa Cruz Avenue Sand Hill Road Arastradero Rd Page Mill Rd Alma St San Antonio Ave Junipero Serra Blvd San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek CJL Stanford Shopping Center Downtown/Unniversity Area UniversityStation PAMF Town & Country California AvenueArea Fry's Site Stanford Research Park El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor Alma Plaza Stanford MedicalCenter CharlestonCenter R-1 San AntonioArea San AntonioArea Midtown West BayshoreArea EdgewoodPlaza East BayshoreArea MSC Embarcadero EastArea SOFA I SOFA II R-1 R-1 (7000) East MeadowCircle s P u l g a s l l R o a d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d P a g e M i l l R o ad a d E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University Avenue a y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real e R o a d F o o t h i l l E x p r e H i l lv i ew E a st B a y s h o re W e st B a y s h or e Fabian S a n d Hill R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Area 5Southeast Palo Alto/San AntonioRoad/BayshoreCorridor Area 3Midtown Area 5Southeast Palo Alto/CharlestonCenter Area 2Urban Lane/UniversityAvenueMulti-modalTransit Station Area 2Urban Lane/Town &Country Village Area 7Central Palo Alto/Cal-Ventura Area 4EastBayshore Area 6SouthEl CaminoReal Area 9Sand Hill Corridor/Stanford ShoppingCenter /Professional Offices Area 1Downtown/University Ave/South of Forest Area(SOFA) Area 8StanfordResearchPark Area 7Central Palo Alto/Cal Avenue Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona AvenueArastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Lo s Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct McKellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive HemlockCourt Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Capitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley Street South CourtBryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley StreetEl Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael Drive St Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina Way Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia StreetBowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Arastradero Road Miranda Avenue ue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRoblesAvenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road F La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley StreetPrinceton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton CourtOxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford AvenueBirch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield LaneBirch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road MortonStreet Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar LaneAlannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon AvenueBlair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara DriveColorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado AvenueSimkins Court Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way Embarcadero Road Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero RoadKingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison AvenueScott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer AvenueGuinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenueChaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlowe Street Maple Street Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton StreetCowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wils o n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive CrescentDrive University Avenue Center Drive EastCrescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson AvenuePine Street Mark Twain Street Louis RoadBarbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero RoadWalter Hays Drive Lois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane EdgewoodDrive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion AvenueWelch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand HillRoad Lane 66 Bryant StreetRamona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 WLane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road OlmstedRoad Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenue Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail DrQuail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolu mne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryessa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado CtAlvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cooksey Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court JenkinsCourt Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L L ane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomitaCourt Lomita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears CourtMears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mirada Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hill Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way R a i mundo Way Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra Walk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco TerraceSan Francisco CourtSan Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm Road Thoburn Court Tolman DriveValdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via PalouVia Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Pep Ring Road Pep Ring Road Alpine Access Road Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello WayGovernors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r v oir Ro a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch Road Pasteur Drive Pasteur Drive 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 1989 9 Study Areas Commercial Growth Monitoring SOFA I CAP SOFA II CAP Possible Annual Office and R&D Cap Areas City Jurisdictional Limits 0'2221' Pr o p o s e d O f f i c e a n d R & D C a p an d 19 8 9 C i t y w i d e C o m m e r c i a l G r o w t h M o n i t o r i n g A r e a s CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2015-09-03 15:46:36OfficeCAP 1989StudyAreas 0415 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) Attachment C CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 12 Special Meeting June 15, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:07 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Presentation of a Donation Check from the Palo Alto Library Foundation to the Palo Alto City Library. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to hear Agenda Item Numbers 14 and 15 before Agenda Item Number 13. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-12A. 2. Approve and Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute the Following Energy Efficiency Evaluation Support Contracts in a Combined Not to Exceed Amount of $250,000 per Year for a Three- Year Term With an Option to Extend Either or Both Contracts for an Additional Two Years: (A) TRC Engineers, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $210,000 per Year; and (B) Energy & Resource Solutions, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $40,000 per Year. ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 3. Approval of Contract No. C15158881 for $270,000 With Palo Alto Housing Corporation for Provision of Below Market Rate (BMR) Administration Services Over a Two Year Period. 4. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C09124501 With GreenWaste of Palo Alto That Would Increase Zero Waste Services, Increase Efficiencies, Increase the Annual Costs by Approximately $1,366,000 in FY2016, to Support Composting and Anaerobic Digestion Programs; and Extend the Contract Term for an Additional Four Years to End June 30, 2021; Adoption of Resolution 9517 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Revise Utility Rules and Regulations No. 2, 3, 11 and 24 to Reflect New Zero Waste Service Changes.” 5. Approval of a $9,500 Grant From Silicon Valley Creates, a $9,600 Grant From the National Endowment for the Arts, a $45,000 Contribution From the Friends of Palo Alto Children’s Theatre and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 5328 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to the General Fund in the Amount of $64,100.” 6. Approval of a Contract With Graham Contractors, Inc. in the Amount of $1,311,073 For The FY 2016 Preventive Maintenance Project, the First of Four Contracts in the FY 2016 Street Maintenance Program Project (CIP PE-86070). 7. Approval of a Three-Year Contract With an Option of Two, One-year Extensions With American Guard Services, Inc. in the Amount Not to Exceed $321,215 Per Year for the First Two Years, and $328,624 for the Third Year and Authorization for Additional But Unforeseen Work Not to Exceed $32,121 Per Year for the First Two Years and $32,862 for the Third Year. 8. Confirmation of Appointment of Edward Shikada as Assistant City Manager and Approval of Employment Agreement. 9. Resolution 9518 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Public Works Department to Submit a Function Classification Request to Caltrans to Formally Add the Streets Reclassified as Part of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan to the Caltrans System Map.” ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 10. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S14152995 in the Amount of $14,949 with Balance Hydrologics, Inc. for the Design and Implementation of an Enhanced Flood Warning System for the San Francisquito Creek Watershed. 11. Adoption of Fiscal Year 2016 Investment Policy. 12. Finance Committee Recommendation that the City Council Adopt: 1) Resolution 9519 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Fiscal Year 2016 Water Utility Financial Plan and Amending the Water Utility Reserve Management Practices;” 2) Resolution 9520 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Fiscal Year 2016 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan and Amending the Wastewater Collection Utility Reserve Management Practices;” 3) Resolution 9521 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Fiscal Year 2016 Electric Utility Financial Plan and Amending the Electric Utility Reserve Management Practices;” and 4) Resolution 9522 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Fiscal Year 2016 Gas Utility Financial Plan and Amending the Gas Utility Reserve Management Practices.” 12A. Approval of a Three-year Contract With Municipal Resource Group (MRG) for Council Appointed Officers Evaluations for an Amount not to Exceed $123,000. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 14. PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance 5329 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 2016, Including Adoption of Operating and Capital Budgets and Municipal Fee Schedule;” Adoption of Five Resolutions, Including: 1) Resolution 9523 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase of 2.7 Percent and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2;” 2) Resolution 9524 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 2.7 Percent Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2016;” 3) Resolution 9525 entitled “Resolution of the ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Wastewater Collection Fee Increase of 9.0 Percent and Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6, and S-7;” 4) Resolution 9526 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Residential Refuse Rate Increases Ranging Between 9.0 Percent and 19.0 Percent, and Amending Utility Rules and Regulations 2, 3, 11, and 24;” 5) Resolution 9527 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Salary Schedule Attached to the 2014-2016 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Employees, as Amended by Resolution No. 9053 to Add One New Position and Change the Title of Two Positions; Amending the 2013-15 Memorandum of Agreement Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Adopted by Resolution No. 9398 to add One Position and Correct the Salary of One Position; and Amending the Terms for the Utility Management Professional Association, as Amended by Resolution Nos. 9492 & 9503 to Correct the Salary for One Position and Add Two New Positions; and Refer to the Finance Committee a Discussion of Changes to the Public Art Ordinance to Simplify the Calculation of the Public Art Fee and a Discussion of Usage and Replacement of Pool Vehicles (Continued From June 8, 2015).” Public Hearing continued from June 8, 2015. Public Hearing closed at 5:31 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve the Finance Committee and Staff recommendation that the City Council adopt the portions of the Police and Fire Department Budgets and CIP relating to Stanford University for the Fiscal Year 2016 and related Ordinance and Resolution portions. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss that there will be no planned revenues from Single-Story Overlay applications included in the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve the budget including $50,000 for Automated External Defibrillators (AED), and amendments as discussed: ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 A. Budget Amendment Ordinance which includes: 1. City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget; and 2. Amendments to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget; and 3. Revised City Table of Organization; and 4. Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Municipal Fee Changes; and B. Resolution Adopting a Dark Fiber Rate Increase of 2.7 Percent and Amending Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 and EDF-2; and C. Resolution Amending Utility Rate Schedule D-1 (Storm and Surface Water Drainage) to Increase Storm Drain Rates by 2.7 Percent Per Month Per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2015; and D. Resolution Adopting a Wastewater Collection Rate Increase of 9.0 Percent and Amending Utility Rate Schedules S-1, S-2, S-6 and S-7; and E. Resolution Adopting a Refuse Rate Increase of 9.0 Percent and Amending Utility Rate Schedule R-1; and F. Resolution Amending Salary Schedules for the Management, Professional, and Confidential Unit, the Utilities Managers of Palo Alto Professional Association, and the Service Employees International Union: G. Refer to the Finance Committee a discussion of changes to the Public Art Ordinance to simplify the calculation of the Public Art Fee and a discussion of usage and replacement of pool vehicles. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: a. Refer to the Finance Committee consideration of stronger encroachment fees for construction that impact portions or all of a city street or sidewalk; and ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 b. Keep the Code Enforcement-Lead position in the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget; and c. Direct Staff and the Finance Committee to return in six months with an update on the Animal Shelter; and d. Direct Staff to investigate increasing Business Registry participation up to and including increasing late fees; and e. Include an additional $80,000 for Project Safety Net. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 15. PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: Staff Recommendation that the City Council Adopt a Resolution 9528 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Rate Schedules W-1 (General Residential Water Service), W-2 (Water Service from Fire Hydrants), W-3 (Fire Service Connections), W-4 (Residential Master-Metered and General Non-Residential Water Service), and W-7 (Non-Residential Irrigation Water Service) to Increase Average Water Rates by 8 Percent (Continued From June 8, 2015).” Public Hearing continued from June 8, 2015. Public Hearing closed at 6:33 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to approve Staff recommendation to adopt Water rates. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 13. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit Applicable to Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor on an Interim Basis (Continued From June 1, 2015). MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to use the precise boundaries as outlined in the Potential Office/R&D Cap Boundaries as proposed by Staff and; the Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Development Cap) will not apply to Office Space approved as ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 part of a Coordinated Area Plan or Specific Plan, with the exception of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase Two (SOFAII) and Staff will return with information pertaining to the impacts of excluding SOFAII from the Development Cap. AMENDMENT: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to remove the following from the Motion “and; the Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Development Cap) will not apply to Office Space approved as part of a Coordinated Area Plan or Specific Plan, with the exception of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase Two (SOFAII) and Staff will return with information pertaining to the impacts of excluding SOFAII from the Development Cap.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-4 Burt, Filseth, Holman, Schmid yes, DuBois not participating MOTION FAILED: 4-4 Berman, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach yes, DuBois not participating MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss that projects generating less than 2,000 square feet of net new office space will be exempt from the Development Cap. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to apply the Development Cap to these Land Uses defined in Municipal Code Section 18.04.030: Research & Development, Administrative Office Services, General Business Office, Medical Office over 5,000 square feet and Professional Office. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to exempt from the Development Cap, self-mitigating projects; projects providing sufficient rental housing such that the job/housing balance would improve, and which would also provide substantial Transportation Demand Management plans (individually or in cooperation with others) to improve the current parking and traffic impacts. MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Filseth, Schmid no, DuBois not participating ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: a. Establish a procedure by which applications are accepted and processed as they are currently; and b. Except that, no applications received after July 1 or the effective date of the Ordinance would be approved until after March 31 of the following year; and c. At that point, if the square footage proposed by all applications combined would exceed the annual limit, completed applications that have been recommended for approval by an appropriate advisory body would be ranked based on scoring criteria and provided to the City Council for evaluation and action; and d. If the square footage proposed by all applications combined would not exceed the annual limit, the completed applications that have been recommended for approval would be acted upon using the usual process. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XX to give preference to projects that have a jobs/housing ratio of 2.3:1 or less. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Schmid no, DuBois not participating MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to evaluate applications subject to the annual limit using the following criteria: a. Their density of development in the context of underlying zoning and its surroundings; and b. Their ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking; and c. The quality of their design, including their attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, their compatibility with surroundings, and their overall architectural quality; and ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 d. Their environmental quality; and e. The monetary and/or non-monetary value of public benefits offered; and f. Mixed use projects including substantial housing; and g. Mixed use projects including retail; and h. Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to exempt projects in the pipeline since 2013 or 2014 from the Development Cap. AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to exempt projects that applied since 2013 or 2014 which the application is complete, from the Development Cap. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to exempt projects in the pipeline that received project approval by July 1, 2015 or the effective date of the Ordinance. AMENDMENT A: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman moved to exempt projects that applied since 2013 or 2014 which the application is complete, from the Development Cap. AMENDMENT B: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to exempt projects that applied for in 2013 or 2014, which the applications were complete March 31, 2015, from the Development Cap; and for projects with applications complete June 15, 2015, as one of the criteria considered as part of the 50,000 square foot Development Cap. AMENDMENT B PASSED: 7-1 Schmid no, DuBois not participating ACTION MINUTES Page 10 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to use the precise boundaries as outlined in the Potential Office/R&D Cap Boundaries as proposed by Staff. MOTION FAILED: 4-4 Berman, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach no, DuBois not participating. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to use the precise boundaries as outlined in the Potential Office/R&D Cap Boundaries as proposed by Staff and; the Development Cap will not apply to Office Space approved as part of a Coordinated Area Plan or Specific Plan, with the exception of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase Two (SOFAII) and Staff will return with information pertaining to the impacts of excluding SOFAII from the Development Cap. MOTION FAILED: 4-4 Burt, Filseth, Holman, Schmid no, DuBois not participating MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to continue this item to a date uncertain. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to use the precise boundaries as outlined in the Potential Office/R&D Cap Boundaries as proposed by Staff; and the Development Cap will not apply to Office Space approved as part of a Coordinated Area Plan or Specific Plan, with the exception of SOFAII. Staff will return with information pertaining to the impacts of excluding SOFAII from the Development Cap; and any coordinated area plan which allows net new square footage of Office/R&D Space, the 50,000 square foot Development Cap will be reduced by that amount. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add “half of” to the last sentence of the Substitute Motion. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member XX to adjust to compensate for timeframes involved. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND ACTION MINUTES Page 11 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-4 Berman, Scharff, Holman, Kniss no, DuBois not participating SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to refer the Office/R&D Cap boundaries to the Planning and Transportation Commission. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 5-3 Berman, Scharff, Filseth no, DuBois not participating 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance 5330 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending for 22 Months and 15 Days Urgency Interim Ordinance 5325, Placing a Temporary Moratorium on the Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and “Retail Like” Uses to Other Uses Citywide; Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Under Section 15061 and 15308.” Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at: 10:33 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to adopt an Ordinance extending the Urgency Interim Ordinance placing a moratorium on the conversion of ground floor retail and retail-like uses to other uses citywide. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 17. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Site & Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception Application for a Three Story Mixed-Use Building on a 27,000 Square Foot Site Zoned Service Commercial (CS) At 441 Page Mill Road. The Project Has Been Revised to Contain 19,093 Square Feet of Commercial Space, 91 Off-Street Parking Spaces, and 16 Apartment Units, Including Five Below Market Rate Units, and Includes a Request for Three “Off Menu” Concessions Under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.15 and the State Density Bonus Law and Based on a Revised Economic Analysis Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared. Public Hearing opened at 10:46 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 11:26 P.M. ACTION MINUTES Page 12 of 12 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 6/15/15 MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve: a. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Addendum; and b. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP); and c. The revised Site and Design Review application; and d. The two Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs); and e. The three density bonus concessions for the revised project at 441 Page Mill Road, based on Architectural Review (AR), Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Context Based Design Criteria and Density Bonus Findings, and subject to the conditions in the draft Record of Land Use Action; and INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER the following changes to the Revised Draft Record of Land Use, Section 8. Conditions of Approval: f1. Number 6, sentence three, change “City may also” to “City shall also”; and f2. Number 7, sentences one and two change “three units” to “five units”; and f3. Number 11, last sentence change “but normally mitigated” to “but shall be mitigated”; and f4. Number 26, add at the end “All trees proposed on the plans shall be maintained for the life of the project”; and f. Below Market Rate units will remain below market rate units for 50 years. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Schmid no Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:59 P.M. Table 2. Annual Non‐Residential Growth in Subject Areas FY2001‐FY2015 Based on CMP Classifications CALAVE BY YEAR FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Total Retail 1,377 ‐953 0 0 0 49,680 ‐2,000 0 ‐85 0 0 1,270 728 7,045 2,836 59,898 Office / R&D 5,828 4,490 0 0 26,320 1,860 60,703 0 1,754 0 0 58,473 0 45,406 58,840 263,674 Other 0 ‐4,740 0 0 ‐26,320 ‐12,600 ‐52,709 1,724 0 0 0 ‐52,709 0 0 0 -147,354 Total 7,205 ‐1,203 0 0 0 38,940 5,994 1,724 1,669 0 0 7,034 728 52,451 61,676 176,218 DOWNTOWN BY YEAR FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Total Retail 3,063 ‐5,040 ‐5,260 1,883 0 ‐16,006 ‐212 ‐6,636 13,421 ‐18,835 ‐11,009 1,507 0 ‐5,728 0 ‐48,852 Office / R&D 9,601 42,210 0 0 10,201 76,268 410 10,535 0 17,510 28,148 48,356 26,739 45,608 0 315,586 Other ‐1,800 8,155 0 23,868 ‐13,096 ‐5,000 27,185 0 0 0 ‐12,862 22,957 0 0 49,407 Total 10,864 45,325 ‐5,260 25,751 ‐2,895 55,262 27,383 3,899 13,421 ‐1,325 4,277 49,863 49,696 39,880 0 316,141 ECR BY YEAR FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Total Retail 5,847 511 0 812 0 3,833 0 0 0 ‐34,406 4,342 ‐6,292 0 1,200 0 ‐24,153 Office / R&D 2,080 1,191 0 0 0 6,185 0 0 0 33,979 0 0 2,775 0 0 46,210 Other 1,370 0000‐223,000 15,000 10,476 ‐19,454 95,730 0 105,685 0 0 0 ‐14,193 Total 9,297 1,702 0 812 0 ‐212,982 15,000 10,476 ‐19,454 95,303 4,342 99,393 2,775 1,200 0 7,864 Notes: 1. Shaded rows indicate those years where new office/R&D development in the three areas combined exceeded 50,000 square feet. 2. Non‐residential change in square feet excludes Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) expansion; although it has planning entitlements/approvals, total build out and full occupancy is expected in the future. The SUMC expansion is expected to add 1.3 million net square feet. 3. Non‐residential net change in square feet based on Planning Entitlements from FY 2001 to FY2015. Data excludes Mayfield Development Agreement Projects which demolishes approximately 323k of non‐residential square feet and replaces 300k of demolished square feet into Stanford Research Park. 4. Due to VTA's Congestion Management Program's (CMP) Land Use Classification System, "Retail" may include other uses such as Personal Service, Commercial Recreation, Automotive Services and other commercial uses that is not Office, Hotel/Motel, Manufacturing, R&D, and Industrial uses. v071515 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 August 12, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Interim Ordinance for the establishment of Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit applicable to7 Downtown, California Avenue Area and the El Camino Corridor - The Planning and8 Transportation Commission will Consider a Recommendation to the City Council for Adoption of an9 Interim Ordinance to Establish an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit Applicable to Downtown, the California10 Avenue Area, and the El Camino Corridor on an Interim Basis. For more information contact Hillary11 Gitelman at Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org12 13 Acting Chair Fine: [Starts in progress] to reconvene this meeting and move on to Item Number 3, which14 is an Interim Ordinance for the establishment of Office/Research and Development (R&D) Annual Growth15 Limit applicable to Downtown, California Avenue, and the El Camino corridor.16 17 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you, Commissioners. Hillary Gitelman, the Planning Director and I have18 a brief PowerPoint. This is a little bit of a complicated item before you. It’s consideration of an Interim19 Ordinance that’s included in your packet, which would establish an annual limit on the amount of office20 and R&D space that could be permitted by the City in a given fiscal year. So the background to this is21 really the tremendous increase in employment that’s happened in the region since the end of the22 recession and that’s shown on this graph. And we know that at least some of the job growth here in Palo23 Alto and in the region is the fact, is a function of new nonresidential development. Obviously some of it24 comes from existing building space being filled up by new jobs and new employees, but there is a portion25 of the growth that’s being accommodated in new space. And we know that job growth including the26 portion accommodated in new space contributes to traffic congestion, parking demand, and housing27 affordability challenges.28 29 We also know that in Palo Alto a lot of the growth that’s happening or new development that’s happening30 is consistent with our zoning, but it may be changing the character of some of our commercial districts31 more quickly than I think folks were anticipating. And as a growth management strategy the City has32 always utilized the concept of a cumulative cap. So there’s a citywide cap on nonresidential development33 and there’s a Downtown cap on nonresidential development. And in the community, in the Comp Plan34 workshops we held in the Summer of 2014 members of the community posed to us whether that concept35 of a cumulative cap is really effective as a growth management strategy or whether instead we should be36 looking at the pace of development. I’m getting again at this sort of rate of change. The City Council37 took up this issue in March of this year and requested that we start work on this interim ordinance that38 you see here this evening. They gave us very specific direction on the parameters of this ordinance in39 mid-June and so we’re going to walk you through some of that tonight and then are happy to answer any40 questions you have.41 42 Just to continue kind of on the background side of this in our discussions with the City Council we spent a43 lot of time talking about what data we have and what data we don’t have. There are really two viable44 data sets that we could use to talk intelligently about the track record in terms of nonresidential45 development in the City. There’s a data set that we collect and report on having to do with programs46 and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Effectively it doesn’t really distinguish between different types of47 nonresidential uses so we report every year on the amount of nonresidential development, but retail,48 office, hospitals, hotels, they’re all lumped into one big nonresidential category. In addition, that dataset49 doesn’t cover the City as a whole. It’s really specific to what’s called in the Comprehensive Plan50 monitored areas. And so those are real disadvantages when we’re trying to look at a citywide or a51 district specific program that doesn’t conform to the monitored areas in the plan.52 53 And so we have this second data set that’s shown on this slide and it has to do with a reporting function.54 We’re required to report on an annual basis to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)55 ATTACHMENT F 2 information on land use and development for use in the congestion management plan, so transportation 1 planning exercise. And this data set is a little shorter, it doesn’t go back as far as the Comprehensive 2 Plan data set, but it doesn’t have some of those disadvantages. It does look at the City as a whole and it 3 does distinguish between different nonresidential uses. So in this case we’re showing a citywide total of 4 about 376,000 net square feet (sf) of office R&D space over the 15 years shown. And more if you look 5 only at the sub areas of the City that the proposed ordinance is looking at. So that’s Downtown, the 6 California Avenue area, and the El Camino corridor. There are a couple disadvantages to this data set as 7 well. One is of course it only goes back to 2001 and the other is more just an inconvenience than 8 anything else. It’s based on the fiscal year rather than the calendar year, which introduces this 9 complexity to the whole thing that is unfortunate, but we can do it. 10 11 So just looking at the data in terms of net change over 15 years it isn’t really all that interesting because 12 there have been additions and deletions and so the totals don’t tell the whole picture. This is a chart that 13 reflects the data in Attachment E in your staff report. Attachment E shows a numeric table. This is a 14 graph showing that very same data and what it shows is over the 15 year period there have been 5 15 years, 5 fiscal years in which the pace of development in the affected areas exceeded 50,000 sf. So 16 there were kind of peaks or spikes in the amount of space entitled in those years. And this was really the 17 Council’s concept of the interim office limit affecting these fast changing areas of setting a limit at 50,000 18 sf is not to prevent new development or halt nonresidential job growth, but it’s to sort of moderate the 19 pace and take care of the spikes in that graph. 20 21 So on June 15th and as I mentioned the City Council had a very detailed discussion and looked at a 22 variety of parameters that they gave us guidance on and resulted in the draft ordinance in your packet. 23 There was one issue in particular that the Council sort of deadlocked on and they specifically wanted the 24 Commission’s input on. They were very clear that they wanted to apply this Interim Ordinance to these 25 three districts that I’ve mentioned: Downtown, the California Avenue area, and the El Camino Corridor. 26 But where they deadlocked was on whether the coordinated area plans should be included in the 27 boundaries or not. They also did not give us specific detailed, they basically didn’t take a vote buying 28 into the boundaries that we had shown because they sort as I said they sort of deadlocked 4-4. And 29 what we’re showing here is the staff recommendation; it’s also in your packet, of how we could define 30 the boundaries of these districts. And we’ve used really zoning district boundaries to define the areas in 31 each case rather than the boundaries of these “monitored areas” in the Comprehensive Plan. If we had 32 used the monitored areas in the Comprehensive Plan the California Avenue district would be much 33 smaller and it wouldn’t capture where some of the development is occurring in that area. And so we 34 thought that the zoning district boundaries were more effective. 35 36 And again the real issue that the Council had was whether existing and potential future coordinated area 37 plans should be exempted. The only existing one that’s relevant is the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) 38 Plan so that appendage to the Downton district shown, but of course there’s a potential that there could 39 be future coordinated area plans and if there was an exemption established or a principle in the 40 ordinance that those should be exempted then it would apply to any future coordinated area plans as 41 well. And just for those of you who are not familiar with this term as I wasn’t when I came to Palo Alto, 42 coordinated area plans is really a terminology that we use here in Palo Alto for specific plans. Very 43 comparable to a specific plan or a precise plan some jurisdictions call it. 44 45 So in addition to discussing the boundaries and again not coming to resolution on that the Council 46 discussed land uses and exemptions that would apply in this case. The land uses that they directed us to 47 craft the ordinance around are all different types of office space, R&D; these are the definitions from the 48 code. So it’s R&D, administrative office services, general business office, medical office uses over 5,000 49 sf, and professional offices. They did specify that they’d like to see in the draft ordinance some 50 exemptions. Again, they wanted to exempt medical offices less than 5,000 sf. They also wanted to 51 exempt any small office project, so less than 2,000 sf. And they wanted to include in the ordinance an 52 exemption that we can draw your attention to in the text for “self-mitigating projects.” The idea being 53 that if it’s a mixed-use project that has a sufficient number of dwelling units to counterbalance the job 54 growth that would happen and actually try and make the jobs/housing balance in Palo Alto a little better 55 that that could be considered a self-mitigating project. It would also have to mitigate for traffic and 56 3 parking and other things. And then they included an exemption for some pipeline projects and we’ll talk 1 about that issue in a minute. And also something that I realized we didn’t put in the ordinance, but we 2 clarified at the time with the Council and we could consider this that actually maybe we did put this in, 3 but the accessory office uses, home occupations, and government offices would not be affected by the 4 ordinance. 5 6 So the hardest part of this whole exercise has been coming up with a process for administering an annual 7 limit. It would be relatively straightforward if we were talking about a first come, first serve program. So 8 the first guy in the door with the completed application is first in line for the allocation of office space and 9 when the annual allocation is used up then the people who are at the back of the line end up waiting for 10 the next year. The Council instead wanted to try a competitive process and to make a competitive 11 process is really challenging. The way we’ve structured this in the ordinance and the Council kind of 12 directed us to proceed in this direction was that we would accept and process applications as we do 13 currently. So most applications for example [will come it] office projects will come in, they’ll have to go 14 to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the ARB will make a recommendation to the Director, the 15 Director will approve, and then it’s appealable to the Council. What we said, we said in the ordinance is 16 that it will proceed as usual. So the ARB will make their recommendation, but the application, the 17 Director will not act on the approval of the project until after March 31st of any given fiscal year. So 18 that’s three quarters of the way though the fiscal year. And on March 31st we’ll take stock of all of the 19 applications that are basically pending, waiting for approval, and if they all add up to less than 50,000 sf 20 they all get approved like usual. Director approves them all, those that are people want to appeal they 21 can appeal to the Council. If they’re not appealed the approval is done. But if we get to March 31st of 22 the year we’re holding all this stable of projects in the queue and the sum total of the projects exceeds 23 the 50,000 sf annual limit then the staff would rank those projects against the criteria in the ordinance 24 and the City Council would decide the winners and losers, who would get the office allocation and who 25 would either be denied or put back in the pool for the next year. So that’s the process that’s set forth in 26 the ordinance that the Council directed us to include. 27 28 They also spent some time talking about what criteria should be used. Presently in the ordinance these 29 criteria are not weighted, but they address things having to do with the intensity of use, potential 30 impacts, compatibility, public benefits. And they wanted to give a leg up to applications that are not 31 exempted, but that were deemed complete before July 1, 2015, which brings up the subject of pipeline 32 projects. 33 34 So this is another issue of some complexity and there’s a table in the staff report that gives a list of some 35 of the projects that were, office projects that were pending in our office at the end of last fiscal year. So 36 June 30/July 1. Basically pipeline applications are pending applications for discretionary approval that 37 propose net increases of office and R&D space. That’s how we’ve defined it. And the Council’s direction 38 was to exempt pipeline projects that where the applications were deemed complete prior to March 31, 39 2015. And then as I mentioned they wanted to give a leg up to applications that were in the queue and 40 deemed complete between March 31st and July 1st. What we say in the staff report is that we think that 41 the Council may wish to consider some of these dates depending on when this ordinance actually gets to 42 them for their review and action and I’ll talk about the timeline a little bit at the very end here. 43 44 Let me just show you the chart from the staff report that describes the pipeline projects. We can, I can 45 try and answer some questions about this chart if you’d like, but the one thing I wanted to note that 46 there are three applications that fall into this category of having been deemed complete between March 47 31st and June 30 or July 1. They are the first two projects on Park Boulevard and although that’s shown 48 as combined close to 60,000 sf of net new office space they’re actually only proposing about 40,000 sf of 49 net new building space. One of the buildings historically had an auto service use of some kind 50 [unintelligible] or something. So all of the I guess I should say all of these each one of the lines on this 51 table has a lot of detail behind it and we could get into very detailed questions about each of them at 52 some point if that’s necessary. The third application that falls into the category of between March 31st 53 and July 1 is the one at 3255 El Camino that’s proposing about 3,400 sf. 54 55 4 So as you’d expect there are some policy implications here and I think that’s partially why the Council 1 directed us to bring forward an ordinance that would implement this on an interim or trial basis, kind of 2 see what happens. It does increase uncertainty for property owners and for neighbors. You never know 3 which projects are really going to make it through this competitive process or not. In fact, as the year is 4 going on you don’t even know if the projects collectively are going to get to the 50,000 sf limit where 5 there would be a competition or whether it’s going to be one of those years that’s just under the limit 6 and no competition would occur. 7 8 We did explain to the Council or suggest to the Council that if we made this kind of program permanent it 9 does have the potential to have impacts on other areas of the City. It could direct growth to other areas 10 where you don’t have this kind of annual limit. It could also discourage some types of office uses that we 11 like, nonprofit offices, some medical offices could be discouraged. And so all of these kind of potential 12 impacts of the program we’ll have to look at in the EIR for the Comprehensive Plan update if this is 13 something that the Council would like to consider on a permanent basis. For now in this ordinance it’s an 14 interim program, no more than two years, so we don’t think that these kind of larger kind of economic 15 shifts about directing growth elsewhere or stimulating other kinds of growth I mean it’s really a couple of 16 years is not going to be long enough to see those kind of impacts. 17 18 So in terms of the timeline we’re hoping for your recommendation today. Again, definitely focusing on 19 the issue of boundaries, but your role is to make recommendations to the Council on proposed 20 ordinances, zoning ordinance amendments. So that’s what this is. We currently are tentatively 21 scheduled to go back to the City Council on September 15th for their review and consideration of the draft 22 ordinance with your recommendation and then it’s a zoning ordinance so it requires a second reading 23 that would happen sometime after that. And then it would not be effective until 30 days after the second 24 reading. As I’ve indicated it would be in place for two years, so the idea is fiscal year 16 and 17 so the 25 fiscal year we’re in right now and the following fiscal year and then it would sunset unless it’s 26 affirmatively continued or modified as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. So sorry that was kind of 27 a longwinded summary, but I’d be happy to answer any questions and we’re looking forward to hearing 28 your comments and those of members of the public. 29 30 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you so much, Director. Let’s open up the public hearing on this. We have two 31 speakers, five minutes each. 32 33 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: So the first speaker is Robert Moss to be followed by Ray Paul. 34 35 Robert Moss: Yeah, thank you. Not be surprised to hear that the jobs/housing imbalance and the 36 amount of development we allow in Palo Alto is not a new problem. It’s been discussed for decades. 37 And I have an example it talks about employment. I have a copy of what nobody in City Hall knows 38 exists, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan from 1976, and talking about employment they said we have 39 some problems. Existing employment level should not be increased until adverse impacts can be 40 avoided. The potential for employment increases should be reduced. Low employment density should 41 be maintained. Existing business should be kept healthy and industrial/commercial uses should be clean, 42 quiet, and [unintelligible]. One of the things they projected in 1976 we had about 60,000 workers in Palo 43 Alto. They projected we would have 81,500 by 1990 and it would level out because we wouldn’t have 44 any more place to put them. That development would essentially stop; of course it hasn’t happened. 45 46 Second, nobody thought about it until recently I’m sure I gave you this before, but they’ve done some 47 surveys on how many workers there are per square foot. And for decades the nominal value has been 48 four per 1,000 or 250 sf each. Well they’ve done some surveys and in February of 2012 they found that 49 a quarter of the office spaces had 100 sf or less per employee. And 40 percent said that by 2017 they 50 would be under 100 sf also. In Palo Alto it’s gone even faster because of our high rents for office space. 51 So we don’t have four workers per 1,000 sf, we have at least seven or eight. This creates a little 52 problem, which was predicted. Established neighborhoods will have more commuters parking on their 53 streets. Other neighborhoods will experience more traffic as commuters seek less congested routes. 54 That was predicted 40 years ago. Came true, didn’t it? 55 56 5 So I have a couple of suggestions for the proposal that’s before you. One of them is I’d like to see the 1 annual limit reduced from 50,000 to 30 or 40,000. If [unintelligible] to 30,000 over the last 15 years it 2 would have been two years which exceeded the 30,000 limit. If it was reduced to 40,000 it would have 3 been only one additional year. So let’s reduce it. 4 5 Second, I think we should expand the area we’re talking about. You shouldn’t limit it just to Downtown, 6 California Avenue, and El Camino. We have other areas which are office and industrial: San Antonio and 7 Bayshore. And if you put limits only on the three areas which are suggested I can tell you for certain 8 that office use in the areas in the City which aren’t regulated specifically San Antonio and Fabian will see 9 a big burst in office development. So the entire area which is commercially zoned should be included in 10 the area which is limited. 11 12 Finally, we have to have hard data on how many people actually work here. We have got a business 13 registry. We don’t have a business license tax. We’re one of four cities in the entire state that doesn’t 14 have that, but the registry isn’t working. Less than a third of all the businesses have actually signed up 15 because the fee for not registering is a stinking $50. That should be increased to at least $500 and if 16 they haven’t registered after six months increase it to $1,000. That’s the only way we’ll have any real 17 hard data on how many people work here and where they work and it will give us a real option for 18 identifying where we need better transit, where we have to change the zoning, where we have to adjust 19 things so the jobs/housing imbalance doesn’t get even worse. And as you know the imbalance we have 20 right now we’re getting pushed by the state to build more housing, which is going to create even more 21 problems because where are you going to put it? Going to rezone the existing R-1 zones? [Uh uh]. So 22 we have some problems. We should solve them now, not wait another 20 years. 23 24 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ray Paul and that’s our last speaker card on 25 this topic. 26 27 Ray Paul: Hi, I’m Ray Paul from Jay Paul Company. You’ll have to excuse my voice I’m a little hoarse. 28 And I’m here to talk about the pipeline projects aspect of the proposed ordinance. We have two of the 29 applications that might have been in the pipeline because they are applications were complete as of April 30 10th, roughly 10 days after the March 31st cut off. And the one question to ask yourself is what is the 31 point of allowing pipeline projects to continue on via the normal process? And I think it’s simply a 32 recognition of the amount of resources that a developer puts into getting to that stage. In our case it’s in 33 excess of $500,000 for the two projects. 34 35 And so how does it happen that a cut off is set two and a half months prior to the meeting of the Council 36 in which it gets set? You can actually look at the Council meeting and see that there was a great deal of 37 confusion when this discussion was had and it’s fairly clear that what the Council was after was to limit 38 the amount of pipeline projects that would get through to something under 50,000. That eliminated our 39 two projects. The problem with that approach in our view is that it makes a distinction without a 40 difference. The fact is that we are no different than any other project in the pipeline that was actually let 41 through in terms of the kind of commitment of resources that we had made at that point in time. And I 42 think it’s suspect whenever anything is backdated and in particular it’s suspect when this pipeline 43 distinction got backdated to March 31st. During the discussion the date of July 1st was put out there and 44 it wasn’t until I believe several people began to figure out what was going to happen, namely that our 45 projects would get through, there are about 40,000 sf of additional space. 46 47 Frankly, we don’t think that this result is either fair or equitable. And we have a proposal and the 48 proposal is very simple and it would be acceptable to us and we think it’s particularly unfair in light of the 49 fact that this is available. What the Council could do and what we would ask them to consider as an 50 alternative is to give us not a preference that is nondescript where we are given some consideration, but 51 to simply allow projects that were complete before the June 15th date have their applications complete to 52 be treated in a queue according to the when they were completed and to go through the normal process. 53 And what that gives us that the existing proposal does not give us is the certainty that we will eventually 54 be able to develop our project without spending another $500,000 on a completely new set of plans 55 because the City is in the process of new zoning and a new Comprehensive Plan. So in summary there’s 56 6 a simple way out of this that would meet the City’s needs of not having more than 50,000 sf developed in 1 any given year and would not make a distinction without a difference for our two projects. Thank you. 2 3 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you, and with that we’ll close the public hearing on this issue. I’d like to start 4 off a little bit by saying obviously the impetus behind this ordinance is to address quality of life impacts 5 particularly caused by the jobs/housing imbalance. That said this is a pretty wide ranging ordinance with 6 a lot of effects so we as a Commission owe it to our City and our Council to dig deep on this and surface 7 any potential issues. I’d also like to say I’d prefer us not to wordsmith this document, let’s do try to 8 provide staff with helpful recommendations. With that let’s open it up to questions from the Commission. 9 Commissioner Downing. 10 11 Commissioner Downing: I’m wondering if perhaps we could guide the discussion a little bit. The first part 12 of this to focus on the coordinated area plans since that’s the part that the Council was most interested in 13 hearing our advice about maybe we could discuss that first, just that particular aspect and then go to 14 other things so we make sure that we cover this completely. 15 16 Acting Chair Fine: So I think Council asked us to focus on the coordinated area plans and the boundary 17 issue. I’m happy to focus on those two things first, but I do think we have to take this in totality. Sound 18 ok? To start the discussion with the coordinated area plans and then the boundary issue and then move 19 on to any other issues we have? Let’s do it. 20 21 Commissioner Downing: Ok, so a couple of different thoughts I had on a coordinated area plans. So I’ll 22 throw some of them out and ask you guys for what you think about them. So I had a couple of different 23 thoughts about this. So the coordinated plan is a very special form of planning because it involves deep 24 community investment in conversation and dialogue to come up with that plan. in order to do one of 25 these plans you would form a committee of stakeholders in that area made up of neighbors and business 26 owners or residents, workers, everybody who has an interest would probably participate in the planning 27 of such an area and it would probably be a fairly long drawn out process that would take many months to 28 do. So I just want to give a little background on what that means because I’m not sure that everyone 29 knows. So if we came up with a coordinated plan it would be after months and months of conversation 30 by such a committee as well as public hearings, lots of input, coming to Planning and Transportation 31 Commission (PTC), coming to ARB, coming to the Council. So this would be something that would be 32 well vetted and would have a lot of eyes and thoughts and conversations about it. It would not be a 33 surprise to anybody. 34 35 So with that in mind I’d like to say that I’m a big fan of coordinated area plans because it really gives the 36 neighbors, it gives the people who have the biggest stake in this the biggest voice, which is really great 37 and it’s a really great way of community planning because no one is surprise, no one says we didn’t 38 know, no one says we didn’t have enough time. Everyone’s working on it together so coordinated plans 39 are great things. I want to encourage them. I hope we see more of them in the City and to that end 40 one of the thoughts that I had about this is that it may be decided that that specific area actually has its 41 own growth meter. So I could see a community saying ok, we’ve planned it out in such a way, but we 42 actually only want 15,000 feet a year, right? Depending on the size of the area, we don’t know, but I 43 could see a community coming up with their own meter. And it might be slower than the meter we’re 44 proposing here. 45 46 So one of the things I’d like to put out here is the idea that if that community comes up with its own 47 meter or its own way of metering that should be respected. So 10,000, 15,000 sf a year or whatever it is 48 that they decide might be something they do. Another way that they could do it if a project is fairly large 49 and it has multiple components if it has housing, commercial, residential, retail, I could see them saying 50 well, in order to support the retail we need to do the office at the same time, whatever it is that they 51 come up with. Or maybe they say well, all the housing has to be built first only then can you build 52 anything else. So my first proposal would be to respect any meter that comes with a coordinated area 53 plan. 54 55 7 My second proposal that could be an additional proposal could be an alternative, but it would be to 1 actually extend the mitigation concepts that the Council has already come up with. So the Council has 2 said that if a particular mixed use project has more housing in it than jobs that it creates then it is self-3 mitigating. And I could actually see extending that same concept to coordinated area plans as well, 4 right? Because I don’t really see any difference between housing on top of office on the bottom and 5 housing next to office. To me these are more or less the same things. So Council has already come up 6 with that concept and I could see using that here. 7 8 The last comment I would like to make is given all the community input that goes into these plans and 9 how thoroughly vetted they are I would, I’m actually surprised that this was very controversial over at 10 Council because my own response to that would be that any construction within that coordinated plan 11 should actually be prioritized. Because of all the projects the City hears the projects that come out of 12 that coordinated area plan are the ones that have had the most community input. So those are my 13 thoughts to kick this off and I leave it to you. 14 15 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Michael. 16 17 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: So I’d like to qualify my comments with the notion that I think that the 18 approach of using a cap, a temporary cap is troubling to me as a distraction from a commitment to 19 complete the Comprehensive Plan update and to update the Zoning Map. And I think that the challenges 20 that the that arise in terms of updating the Comp Plan and in relation to that the Zoning Map take a great 21 deal of attention, focus from the Council, from the staff, and from the community. And because they’re 22 so important and complex it’s a protracted process that is I think leading Council into considering 23 temporary measures, which I believe are a distraction and should be avoided. But I’ll probably want to 24 talk about that more in depth when we get to that part of our discussion. 25 26 I tend to support the comment from the public by Mr. Moss that if you have a set of concerns which are 27 citywide in nature relative to development, growth, jobs and housing, traffic, parking, whatnot to the 28 extent that you sort of squeeze the balloon in one place Downtown, Cal Ave., El Camino there may be 29 unintended consequences of development simply being displaced into areas that are not included within 30 City boundaries by the temporary cap, which I contend is a bad idea. So I think that when I listened to 31 the most recent Council discussion on this topic which went for several hours, I’m not sure I made it to 32 the end. It was late at night by that point. Many, many points were made by Council Members. Director 33 Gitelman’s presentation was very complete. Many issues were posed and not all these had ready 34 answers. 35 36 I think that the, I’m sensitive to the difficulty of administration that would be placed upon the staff. 37 Director Gitelman spoke to this earlier. I think that comment from the public from Mr. Paul suggests that 38 there may be difficulties of fairness or even logic in terms of do you simply take applications in 39 chronological order or do you have a cut off? Is this a some sort of a postdating or ex post facto law or 40 maybe subject to legal challenge because a lot of money is involved and property rights affected? And I 41 think that the burden of on the staff of applying not particularly well defined criteria which may become 42 subjective in the final analysis are, is going to be a source of future controversy that would be avoidable. 43 44 And I would think that if we are to respond to the Council’s curiosity about whether this temporary cap 45 might relate to coordinated area plans we can take the example of the California Avenue Concept Area 46 Plan, which is not exactly coordinated area plan or a specific plan or precise plan, but that’s been 47 languishing in the planning process for many, many years. It’s come to the PTC several times. There’s 48 been numerous public meetings. And the last time when I was Chair of the PTC and we reported to the 49 Council on what we had done and whatnot there was some consternation from Council that they hadn’t 50 actually had on Council meeting’s agendized the discussion of the California Avenue Area Plan and there 51 was some frustration that this had been many, many years in the background and never on the front 52 burner. So I think that the hypothetical desire to use a device such as coordinated area planning is very 53 relevant to Palo Alto, but it’s simply almost impossible to imagine the current players are going to be able 54 to address that effectively. 55 56 8 So I think the cap overall is probably fatally problematic. I think that if you try to restrict it to certain 1 areas but not others which have commercial zoning and excluding the Research Park may be illogical for 2 the same reason then any hope that you could place reliance on coordinated area planning which itself is 3 a multi-year, decade, sort of a lifetime pursuit in Palo Alto isn’t going to help. So I will stop with that and 4 hold till my next turn. 5 6 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 7 8 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I’m going to just go through the four topics in order. You know generally I 9 think the writing’s on the wall and I think City Council is going to enact this ordinance irrespective of 10 some of the concerns that Commissioner Michal has that I share, but that said if there was, I think to be 11 effective my perspective here is that we do include boundaries on the annual limit. I would support that. 12 I support that staff, I support that recommendation from staff and I think everybody on every side of this 13 issue has some concerns about the impacts. What you had talked a little bit about policy impacts and 14 about real impacts and I think there’s a lot of concern from both sides of this sort of table here that how 15 will this impact our community’s general vitality and prosperity? And or to what extent is this so 16 necessary that [and] because otherwise the vitality and prosperity is going to be diminished because we 17 don’t have this office cap? 18 19 I think that the two year sunset in some regard is an opportunity for us to test this out. And so I want to 20 I know that’s not a part of the discussion that timeline, but I want to just throw out that I would like 21 some clarity on whether or not that sunset would be March of 2017 if it was retroactively applied to 22 March 2015. And then would that sunset date theoretically would be two years from what date? 23 24 I think the land use exemptions that you suggested all sounded very thoughtful. We didn’t hear tonight 25 from anybody who was interested in suggesting another exemption, but I would encourage anyone 26 listening to take the opportunity in the weeks between now and when Council reviews this to contact our 27 staff if you feel that there’s an argument for a different exception. Our staff works really hard to sort of 28 come up with the universe of wonderful ideas, but if there’s an idea out there that or an exception that 29 hasn’t been properly reviewed I really would encourage that exception to be delivered to the staff and I 30 would support a Motion tonight that didn’t necessarily limit the exceptions to those that you suggested 31 tonight, but allowed staff to continue to evolve their rationale on exceptions between now and when they 32 present to City Council. 33 34 I think with respect to the process and criteria for implementing an annual limit that is an area where I 35 have tremendous concern. I there [isn’t] a lot of people feel like the Planned Community (PC) process is 36 a process that lacks a lot of transparency. And this description of a competitive process and my 37 preconceived notions of a competitive process give me the same sense of concern. I don’t want to get 38 into I mean… Number 3 is the quality of their design. I would suggest that there are… our ARB is staffed 39 by architects and it’s a position appointed by our City Council and there’s I believe a sensibility in terms of 40 the review that an individual architect may not appreciate that type of architecture, but they will work 41 together with the architect submitting the project to improve upon it. I have a little bit of a concern with 42 the community participating in a review of the quality of design and whether or not a building is 43 compatible with the surroundings. I would be concerned that we would see projects, if I could just have 44 a couple more minutes? I would be concerned if that we would be picking projects that in a way that 45 frankly feels a little un-American and so I don’t I would encourage staff and I would encourage City 46 Council not to pursue a competitive process. I think a first come first served process would be much 47 more I guess fair and reduce ambiguity and reduce any kind of lack of transparency. 48 49 I just want to finish with the last one if that’s alright? So applicability to pipeline projects, I completely 50 appreciate this notion that individuals who have applied have spent half a million dollars. I think that’s in 51 some regards probably there are some applications where that number is actually underestimated. And I 52 don’t want to touch upon whether or not there is a legal issue here, but I just can’t appreciate how we 53 would do that because when someone begins their application process while it may not be complete that 54 process by which they sit with staff at the Development Center or with staff at higher levels of the 55 Planning Department is a team and collaborative approach. And so they’ve spent all these resources in 56 9 an effort to get their application completed. It’s not as if when, it’s not as if an application that is 1 incomplete but submitted is any less worthy of development, it’s just that the staff hasn’t finished its 2 review and I think to some extent our staff for example, has its own… it’s my understanding that in the 3 Planning Department there are like these timelines. So if you apply for something there’s a four week 4 turnaround for a response. At least that’s the case in some residential projects, right? And so to some 5 extent it doesn’t even seem entirely fair for an applicant who’s submitted a project to be to have that 6 level of uncertainty. If I and I’m not, but if I was a developer I can imagine that the next and the last 7 couple of months I’ve had sleepless nights because these are some of our developers are local and some 8 aren’t, but their this is their living. And so I am a little concerned about that. 9 10 And the last comment I want to make is you had mentioned earlier that this 50,000 sf cap will act as 11 some sort of buffer for the spikes. And the market in some regards is our buffer on spikes. And I 12 thought it was particularly telling that San Francisco has a rollover plan. I would encourage staff and the 13 City Council to consider a rollover plan. In years that we don’t hit the 50,000 that, those square feet 14 should rollover to the next year indefinitely. If our concept here is that we can manage 50,000 sf of 15 growth then this concept of the [spike] so you made the statement that we’re trying to sort of even out 16 the spikes. You can even out the spike on a year where there’s lots of resources to invest in our assets, 17 but on a year where there’s no resources to invest in an asset you can’t encourage it. So for example, 18 it’s not surprising to me that in 2006 and 2007 you saw a lot of growth, 2008 you didn’t see very much, 19 and in 2009 you didn’t see very much. I am a little surprised that in 2011 and 13 it was that’s a little 20 odd, but those are years where there won’t be very much investment and you wouldn’t be able to 21 encourage it. So I just think that it’s telling that San Francisco did it differently and I wonder if there are 22 some merits to investigating that approach. So that’s it, that’s basically all I have to say about it. 23 24 Commissioner Downing [I think? Off mike]: [Unintelligible]. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: I feel this just I think I mentioned at the very beginning, but I feel the same way 27 about coordinated plans. I, you know when you’re hungry you’re not supposed to go shopping for food 28 because you’re going to probably buy too much and you’ll buy things that you don’t really want to eat. I 29 think some of the issues that we are having with finalizing these coordinated plans is that there’s a 30 tremendous uncertainty as to what’s our Comprehensive Plan going to be. So everything has stalled. 31 When I first joined the Commission we were a part of a Comprehensive Plan update and a lot of those 32 elements that we worked on are in a holding pattern essentially because they are being rewritten. I 33 don’t, I share the concern that a coordinated area plans will not materialize. So invoking them seems 34 redundant. I just I don’t know if that even makes sense. So I don’t know if that answers your question, 35 but I think this is going to sunset before the coordinated area plans come into effect so in some regards I 36 don’t even know if it’s relevant to have the discussion because I don’t know how they would sort of work 37 together. 38 39 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Alcheck. I’m going to start just with the coordinated area 40 plan and the boundary issues and then move on to more general stuff. If this were to go through I 41 would not support including the coordinated area plans. I kind of agree with Commissioner Downing that 42 coordinated area plans take a lot of civic engagement and they essentially build that community buy in 43 for a vision of development that’s really where the zoning and Comprehensive Plan the rubber hits the 44 road. I wouldn’t support including them in this cap. 45 46 With regards to the boundary issue this boundary includes all but two of the pipeline projects. That 47 seems pretty good, I guess. But then you get to the issue of when we put a boundary on this of course 48 development is going to go elsewhere; speaking to that I’d also say that development would go to some 49 of the exempted uses even if they are self-mitigating. That might be another problem for this City. 50 51 So moving on I have some particular questions about the size of the cap and the pipeline and the criteria. 52 Why 50,000? I don’t know if staff has an answer, anybody in the public? 53 54 10 Ms. Gitelman: Well, the 50,000 number came from the Council and I think it really was because of the 1 data that you see on this slide. It was a number that was chosen to be effective at kind of moderating 2 the peaks. 3 4 Acting Chair Fine: Right, so I mean if the goal there is to moderate those peaks and control the impacts 5 then we should be projecting the impacts from this cap whether it’s 25,000 sf, 50,000, or 100,000. 6 Whatever that number is we should actually be projecting forward what we think the impacts will be so 7 that the community knows what they are. I happen to agree with Commissioner Alcheck. I think a 8 rollover would be an appropriate mechanism to implement there. 9 10 Moving on to the pipeline and the dating of it, I’d like to ask would this qualify as an ex post facto law 11 where applications that were in, that were, sorry, that were submitted by March or past March the March 12 deadline, but before Council had taken up this issue would this be some kind of taking from those 13 applications? 14 15 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. No, it 16 wouldn’t be. The way courts typically look at entitlements is that the entitlement vests at the time that 17 it’s actually issued. And so the issuance date is the appropriate date to look at to determine which laws 18 apply. So as long as this ordinance is in effect at the time that the actual permit is issued then it’s not 19 considered an ex post facto law. 20 21 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, so then in that case it appears to me that’s actually the backdating in a way is 22 almost to catch projects that were in the pipeline. I don’t find that particularly fair to the developers. 23 There is a lot of people who have invested time and money and effort into making those plans and just 24 the fact that this discussion came up later seems to be unfair to them. My opinion is that if this does go 25 through it should be dated to the ordinance adoption date, which I understand probably will cause a rush 26 of developers trying to get their projects in before that date, but so be it. The fact is we’re actually living 27 through the issue that we haven’t finished our Comp Plan and I think that is on the City. It shouldn’t be 28 shifted to developers in that regard. 29 30 With regards to the evaluation criteria I tend to agree with Commissioner Alcheck. I think it’s setting up 31 the City and the Council for criticism and it puts developers who have already submitted their plans at a 32 loss in terms of they haven’t crafted a project that’s to these right criteria. The criteria don’t have any 33 weighting. It seems pretty subjective to me and I’m not sure that’s the best option for development in 34 the City. 35 36 A few more points; I agree with Commissioner Michael that this is a big distraction from the hard work of 37 the Comprehensive Plan. And I’m wondering if staff can kind of characterize how much effort this will 38 take and will that take away from us finishing the Comprehensive Plan? 39 40 Ms. Gitelman: Well, I mean clearly it’s involved some attention and effort on staff’s part. I’ve had a lot of 41 assistance from Roland Rivera on our staff who manages this data set and who’s done a lot of the 42 analysis and Cara Silver and I have each had to spend quite a bit of time on this. But other than the fact 43 that yes, it takes time and the Comprehensive Plan update is another project that takes time and a lot of 44 attention I don’t know that I could characterize it any more than that. 45 46 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, so in my opinion and thoughts on this a cap here seems like a pretty blunt 47 instrument to address quality of life issues whereas our Comprehensive Plan and particularly the zoning 48 updates that come after them are an opportunity to come together and think of creative solutions to 49 actually address those impacts. There’s already a lot in the works in terms of the business registry, 50 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, parking programs in the works and I think it’s 51 strongly worth thinking about whether this is going to impact our evaluation and ability to finish the 52 Comprehensive Plan and whether this actually addresses the issues which are parking and transportation 53 and affordability of housing. I don’t particularly see this ordinance doing that. I think at that moment 54 I’m done, but I’d like to turn it back to anyone else on the Commission with comments or questions. 55 56 11 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: So I think the comments from my colleagues are hopefully helpful to Council 1 and to staff. And I agree with most all of them. I made a number of notes earlier based on Director 2 Gitelman’s presentation and comments from the Commission. And in no particular order to the extent 3 that we’d like to respond to the public concern about the impacts of growth and to the extent that we 4 have a list of projects which are currently in some state of working through the Palo Alto process, if the 5 arbitrary notion of 50,000 net new feet is what Council believes meets the public need and there is about 6 100,000 sf of projects, 102,000 sort of currently in the process, and you’re looking at a two year period 7 rather than trying to impose upon staff some draconian administrative process of determining sort of 8 where, when, how, and why to differentiate among these proposals why not simply say that as of the 9 time that the Council finally takes action if the list of things that’s in process is approximately what you’d 10 like to see constrained over a two year period why not just say that’s it? There’ s a moratorium anything 11 beyond that, but keep it simple. 12 13 I want to come back just to the notion that I think that the use of a cap whether it’s interim or 14 cumulative or citywide or based on coordinated area planning which itself is hasn’t happened I would 15 much prefer to see the energy and attention and the vision of the Council directed at articulating policies 16 that and maybe draft policies that they would like to propose for inclusion in the Comp Plan. For 17 example, in the Land Use Element you might have a policy that relates to the rate of growth. And you 18 might have various programs and Comp Plan details that would support that policy, but I think that the 19 Council has by focusing on interim ordinances taken its eye off the ball of the Comp Plan. And I think 20 that the concern about rate of growth is legitimate, but I think it belongs as a policy in the Comp Plan 21 and I think the Council should focus their attention at that high level of importance and drop the interim 22 ordinance and go back to the Comp Plan. 23 24 And also to implement the policy that it ultimately decides in terms of updating the Zoning Map I think [I 25 sort of] probably attended a number of Council meetings where Mayor Holman or others who were 26 particularly astute on Planning issues said well, we shouldn’t we should zone for what we want. And I 27 may be misquoting, but I think that that’s generally a good impulse and if we’d like to have development 28 of a certain nature in a certain location then maybe we can promote that, that would preserve the 29 residential character of the existing neighborhoods that maybe would promote more walkable 30 neighborhoods proximate to transit or alleviate the jobs/housing imbalance, but that to me come through 31 the Comp Plan and the Zoning Map and not a cap. Not an interim cap that you try to make permanent. 32 The whole notion of a cap seems to me to be politically correct, but almost impossible to administer. 33 34 The words blunt instrument were mentioned. I had written that down here. I mean how do you allocate 35 between different neighborhoods? Why [you’ve] exclude the Research Park? If traffic impact is a 36 concern that is just as much of an impact on the City as Cal Ave. and it’s they’re right next to each other 37 so that’s illogical. This question of prioritizing and I think it’s, it was certainly well intentioned in the 38 Council discussion that I viewed online and in Director Gitelman’s presentation that certainly there may 39 be factors that would seem to be useful in trying to make these decisions, but I think that again I don’t 40 like the notion of a cap. And when you try to think of the factors and the exemptions the exemptions are 41 probably going to swallow the whole and you may actually as you if you place certain neighborhoods out 42 of you know, ineligible for new development then [unintelligible] go to the other neighborhoods. If you 43 say well these are the exemption that you’re going to encourage those it’ll be a distortion in favor of 44 exemptions that wouldn’t necessarily what you would want in your land use policies. So that was I think 45 well intentioned, but I think probably would be the grounds for many future disputes that are avoidable if 46 you drop this notion of a cap. I’ll stop at that. 47 48 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 49 50 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I want to highlight something that I think Commissioner Fine mentioned 51 that I think is relevant. I, if we do a competitive process I imagine that the resources and time of staff 52 would actually be pretty intense that the process [involved]. I also think if you use a competitive process 53 you’re actually encouraging applications, right? So you get a bunch of people who applied in January and 54 they’ve maxed their 50,000 sf of potential development, but you’ve got a developer later on in the year 55 who’s like well I might throw it in there because I might win the beauty contest. And so you’re 56 12 encouraging sort of an over subscription of applications, right? If we do a first come first served process 1 then in theory, right, you have individuals just applying and let’s say the applications add up to 400,000 2 sf. So basically the next eight years of development have been applied for in 2016. Well at least you 3 know as an individual considering investment in the community where you stand. I won’t be able to 4 develop this property if I apply today until 2023. And that is I really want to suggest that there is a 5 tremendous benefit to creating a process that provides transparency, stability, and gives everybody a 6 sense of where they are. 7 8 So if for no other reason than I can’t even imagine how much busier you would be if you had to 9 administer a process that involved a beauty pageant and I call it a beauty pageant because that’s a little 10 cynical, I know. But I do want to say this, I’m not opposed to supporting a Motion to recommend this 11 interim motion or interim ordinance or ordinance for that matter. San Francisco has this ordinance. 12 Walnut Creek has this ordinance. This is not this, I appreciate this idea that it’s a blunt tool, but our 13 community has spoken and our Council has provided direction and I think to some extent we owe it to 14 our, we owe it to ourselves and to our community to try it. But I do think that we should, that doesn’t 15 necessarily mean that we shouldn’t at least attempt to fine tune it in such a way that we don’t make it 16 like really hard for us to succeed at administrating, administering it. And I think that’s why I’ll try to 17 speak for all of us, I think that’s why some of us are concerned with the pipeline process because that 18 just we’re going to if you were in the pipeline you’d hate it and I think that’s why some of us are 19 uncomfortable with the competitive process. 20 21 And I don’t necessarily think and you can say where did we come up with 50,000? I think you could 22 have said that about any number and I appreciate the idea that we could of fined tuned and sort of 23 identified well what number is it where we are uncomfortable. The number that we uncomfortable is 24 one. One additional square foot of office space is making people uncomfortable. Maybe it doesn’t make 25 you or I uncomfortable, but it’s making a significant proportion of our community uncomfortable. And so 26 I think from there’s one end of the spectrum here which wishes the number was zero. 27 28 And so I think I’d like to end tonight with a Motion. I would suggest that we, I’d like to make a Motion 29 that we recommend to City Council to approve this cap and I would hope that they would the cap that 30 they would approve would incorporate changes that reflect our concerns about the successful 31 implementation of that cap in a way that our, that we don’t create a lot of tension between the two sides 32 of the desk at the Development Center, right? I think that’s a, I think that’s my goal at least in making 33 this recommendation. And so if that’s acceptable as a Motion I will (interrupted) 34 35 Acting Chair Fine: I think I get your drift. If you could just sharpen it up a little bit for Council. 36 37 MOTION #1 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I’ll use the language here that… I would like to make a Motion that the PTC 40 recommend the draft ordinance included as Attachment A establishing the annual limit of 50,000 sf for 41 new office and R&D subject to the interim sunset two year provision and/or until the Comprehensive Plan 42 is adopted, whichever is less as it’s written here. And I would also suggest that that ordinance, I wonder 43 if I should bifurcate this, but I would suggest that that ordinance not include a competitive process, but 44 serve first come first serve process. And I would suggest that that ordinance include a rollover for 45 unused square feet in years when we can’t attract any development investment. And I would encourage 46 that ordinance to include the exceptions that staff has presented tonight and any other exemptions that 47 staff determines are acceptable in the next two weeks or four weeks. And finally, I would encourage, I 48 would support that that ordinance be applicable to the boundary as laid out by staff tonight. 49 50 Acting Chair Fine: Alright, thank you Commissioner Alcheck. So we have a Motion on the table which is 51 the boilerplate plus that the ordinance not include a competitive process, the ordinance does include a 52 rollover, the ordinance does include the exceptions as outlined in this presentation, and the ordinance 53 includes, sorry, what was the last? 54 55 13 Commissioner Alcheck: I mean I know this part is not perfect, but for the sake of just getting it to them 1 so that they can discuss it the boundaries suggested by (interrupted) 2 3 MOTION #1 FAILED 4 5 Acting Chair Fine: The ordinance does include the boundaries as in this document. Do we have a second 6 or any amendments? So we do not have a second. So if I would add a few amendments. One I can 7 think of at the moment I don’t know if it’ll get a second still. 8 9 Commissioner Michael: [Unintelligible-off mike] Substitute Motion. 10 11 SUBSTITUTE MOTION #1 12 13 Acting Chair Fine: I’d like to make a Substitute Motion then since there was no second. Thank you. 14 Essentially the same Motion, but also bringing the pipeline up to the date of adoption of the ordinance. 15 16 Commissioner Alcheck: I apologize for not including that. If that will get your second then I will 17 accommodate that or if you would like me to second your Motion then I will. Second. 18 19 Acting Chair Fine: Ok. 20 21 SECOND 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t think you’re asking me about a friendly amendment, so I will second your 24 Motion if it’s my (interrupted) 25 26 Acting Chair Fine: Substitute the Motion, yes. 27 28 Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t know why I didn’t include that. 29 30 Acting Chair Fine: Are there any more amendments or discussion on this Motion? Commissioner Michael. 31 32 Commissioner Michael: So my intention is to vote against the Motion because I think that the mechanism 33 of the cap is not preferable to the effort that could be used instead by staff and Council and the various 34 boards and commissions to articulate instead of the interim ordnance for the cap to articulate polices, 35 draft policies, and related language that could be considered in the Comp Plan update process. 36 37 Acting Chair Fine: Other comments? Commissioner Downing. 38 39 Commissioner Downing: Yeah, so I haven’t had a chance to speak about this a little bit broadly. So I 40 would like the opportunity to do so. So the reason why we’re looking at this ordinance is because we’re 41 concerned with the impacts of growth. We’re concerned with parking, we’re concerned with traffic, we’re 42 concerned about use of resources, access to resources. I find all of those concerns about quality of life 43 to be incredibly important. Those are real concerns and are real problems that our community is facing 44 and I take them really seriously and I think that we need to do more than we’ve been doing although I 45 will also say that we’ve been doing a lot. There’s a lot of programs that are coming up, about 12 46 different programs that deal with traffic and parking that will be implemented within the next year, year 47 and a half. 48 49 So with that in mind the point I would like to make about this is that from my perspective the entire 50 ordinance just kicks the can down the road, right? It slows down those impacts, but it doesn’t actually 51 do anything to get rid of them or mitigate them, make them not happen. And I think it’s really clear 52 when you look at this chart and you look at that growth of office, right? So let’s say you have this 50,000 53 cap, right? You can see that for any year that we don’t build that 50,000, right, you just wait for a slow 54 year and then you build it then, right? So you’re still going to get all your office development that you 55 were going to get, but you’re just spreading it out across the years. And so my concern with that is that 56 14 you’re investing lots and lots of time and staff time, money, resources to basically 10 years from now end 1 up in the exact same place as without this ordinance, right? Because these things even out over years 2 and that’s all money that you could have actually been spending on real programs that would have 3 actually gotten rid of the things that were the problem in the first place, right? With all the money that 4 we spend on staff time, resources, monitoring, beauty contests, all the different Council hearings we’ve 5 had, I mean we spent six months on this ordinance already and it’s going to be months until this thing is 6 finally approved, right? So we’ll have spent close to an entire year on a two year ordinance. 7 8 And so my point is that that’s all money that you could have used to actually buy people commuter 9 passes, expand our public transportation networks, expand shuttles, expand bike access, expand 10 sidewalks, right? You could have actually just given people money to take Ubers, right? There’s a lot of 11 different things that you could have done with this money and a lot of different things that you could 12 have done with the time that we spent on this. And that’s my real concern is that this doesn’t actually 13 get rid of any of the problems that we have, it just slows them down. And that is problematic because I 14 think the quality of life issues are there and they’re real. And I would actually really like to solve them. 15 And I’d like to spend time solving them and coming up with problems that are going to fix them instead 16 of doing this, which I think is just a band aid. It looks good on paper and it sounds really great, but it 17 doesn’t actually do much for us. 18 19 The other point I’d like to make Mr. Moss was talking about the intensification of office use and people 20 packing more people into offices. When you actually run the numbers of all the office space on Palo Alto 21 even one percent intensification, one percent increasing the number of people in your building 22 overwhelms anything that you get by this cap, right? So if you’re worried about more cars driving in, if 23 you’re [unintelligible] about more people creating traffic this doesn’t really do much for you, right? 24 Because even a one percent intensification eats up any gains you get this way. So that’s another thing to 25 keep in mind because this is just it encourages people to cram more people into offices. It intensifies 26 those uses even further and I’m not really sure you want that. That sounds worse than the alternative. 27 28 And then lastly Bob Moss right again, you are pushing development to other areas. You’re pushing 29 development to the SRP, you’re pushing development to San Antonio, out to the Bay and the issue with 30 that is that you’re pushing development to places where there’s no public transit. So we know that 31 companies that are on a Caltrain have only 40 percent of their employees driving alone. We know that 32 people [unintelligible] on all those other places have an almost 100 percent driving rate. So if your goal 33 was to reduce the number of people driving to our City and creating traffic you’re doing the opposite with 34 this. 35 36 So I can’t help but feel that this ordinance is ill advised and I agree with everybody else on the PTC who 37 have said likewise. And again, it’s because I do care about quality of life and I do live here and I do have 38 to drive here and I’d like it to be better than it is. And I just don’t think it gets us there. That being said, 39 I understand that Council they have cooked up a plan that they are happy with. They are in agreement, 40 they want to move this forward, and at the end of the day we’re an advisory body, right? No matter 41 what it is that we advise it seems pretty clear that Council’s already decided on what they’re going to do. 42 So we can help them as much as we can with the technical details and providing the additional 43 information we’ve provided today, but I think the asterisk for most of us is this is how to get the details 44 right, but you’re sort of missing the forest for the trees. 45 46 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m glad you didn’t say yet that you wouldn’t support the Motion, because in an 49 effort to salvage this… so let me, I want to respond to two things that you said. The first is I don’t think, 50 I think San Francisco’s implementation of their cap suggests that it wouldn’t be 50,000 every year. There 51 is money for development and when there is no money for development there is no development. And it 52 follows the market so in San Francisco for example like the report said because of their rollover they saw 53 a lot more development in the last couple of years and they didn’t see any in the years that or they didn’t 54 see very much in the years where they didn’t hit the cap because the economy didn’t support that 55 15 development investment. And so I don’t think that we’re just going to see 50,000 sf developed every 1 year. 2 3 And I also think that like to, I think to be fair I think for many people in our community the growth rate 4 itself is the problem. So you were, you were suggesting that we’re not really mitigating the problem. I 5 think from many people’s perspectives that you could do all of the things that you suggested with money 6 like the Uber rides and the various things that you suggested and that still wouldn’t be enough if we 7 continued to allow the growth rate that is occurring and so we would never achieve any positive 8 mitigation. It would still be like a diminishing scale of mitigation. We would not reach the same sort of 9 rate of growth. 10 11 So I guess my response to your comment is the following: if you knew the ordinance was going to pass, 12 if you knew that there was going to be an ordinance, what would you suggest we, what would your 13 recommendation, how would you suggest that ordinance be crafted to make it better? And that’s, that’s 14 sort of the goal of, was the goal of my Motion and it’s the goal of why I seconded Commissioner Fine’s 15 Motion, which is that I think this ordinance is going to come to pass and I think we’re going to test it out. 16 It’s going to be two years and we’re going to see what happens. And there are a few things that I think 17 we could do right now to improve it. And I think it would make a difference if our Commission had a 18 positive, had a conclusive recommendation, if we didn’t come to a tie with no recommendation approved 19 that suggested what we thought would be better. I don’t want to suggest to you that I think it’s perfect, 20 but I also want them to hear from all of us that there are ways to make it better if it’s going to happen 21 anyways from your perspective. And so if there’s an amendment, if there’s anything else that could 22 make it better, you knew it was going to happen anyways, how would you, how can we move forward 23 with your support I guess? 24 25 Commissioner Downing: Right, so I support the Motion as made and I support the amendments that 26 have been made. I am in favor of it. 27 28 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you both. Commissioner Alcheck I do have an answer to that question, but I do 29 want to go over the Motion once more; after my comments let’s call the vote. So we are moving that the 30 City Council adopt the ordinance establishing an annual limit of 50,000 sf for new office and R&D 31 development in a subset of the City comprised of Downtown, Cal Ave., and El Camino corridor for an 32 interim period of two years or until the Comprehensive Plan update is adopted, whichever is less. The 33 ordinance has a couple amendments including that the ordinance not include a competitive process for 34 evaluating projects, the ordinance should include a rollover, and it should include the exceptions as 35 outlined in this project or presentation. The ordinance should include the boundaries as suggested by 36 Council and the ordinance should bring, I’m sorry? 37 38 Commissioner Downing: [Unintelligible – off mike] staff. 39 40 Acting Chair Fine: Boundaries as suggested by staff, thank you, and the ordinance should bring the 41 pipeline deadline up to the date of adoption of the ordinance. Now for a few comments and then I’ll call 42 the vote. I’m sorry. 43 44 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: [Unintelligible – off mike]. 45 46 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, well I’ll just go through this and then you can go. So I really appreciate how hard 47 our Council and staff cares about the concerns of our citizens and impacts they face from developments 48 ongoing and in the future of Palo Alto, but this ordinance doesn’t address those development impacts and 49 furthermore it prejudices the City and staff against particular types of development based on subjective 50 criteria. So I’m not going to be supporting my own Motion. I’m not a developer, I’m not a homeowner, 51 I’m not a business owner, I’m just someone who lives in Palo Alto and I want to see this continue, to see 52 this City continue to thrive, be interesting, and be an economically successful place. In my opinion the 53 City’s efforts would be much better spent focusing on the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning updates 54 that come after that and policies which put our developments on a newer, better course. Of course 55 16 Council can still consider this ordinance and if they do adopt it I highly encourage them to explore the 1 amendments we’ve made. 2 3 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: So I should know more about this; but so this ordinance which I don’t like, but 4 in its current form it speaks to a certain amount of square footage per year of net new development in 5 relationship to what is the current square footage of office throughout the City. So for example, if rather 6 than a number of net new square footage in the entire City spread across Downtown, Cal Ave., and El 7 Camino what’s the square footage in Downtown currently? What’s the square footage currently along El 8 Camino? What’s the square footage in Cal Ave.? What’s the square footage elsewhere: Midtown, San 9 Antonio, Research Park? And if you express it as a percentage versus square footage what would that 10 look like? So for example, if you’re talking about no more than X percent in any commercial area net 11 new and let’s say it’s I don’t know 5 percent or 1.5 percent whatever the incremental growth of any 12 particular so you have an impact that’s proportionate in areas which are commercially zoned rather than 13 a just a number which has all sorts of problems relative do you or do you not do rollover? What about a 14 single project which would be bigger than the total amount that might be a good project [unintelligible] 15 the Council can do whatever they want as an exception, but if you this idea of expressing it differently as 16 a percentage rather than a number seems to me [they] might have some bearing and make it citywide. 17 Make it everywhere that was commercially zoned that allows office so you don’t and I would also 18 encourage no exemptions. 19 20 I think that this should be as simple as possible. And I think you want to distort people’s behaviors 21 around a well-intentioned road map for how to have an advantage. You’re, I think Commissioner 22 Downing was pretty articulate in terms of the Universal concern in Palo Alto for quality of life in all of its 23 different dimensions and how that may be impacted by growth of office use, but just because it’s a 24 medical office and because you like medical offices or maybe it’s a small office, what if it’s a different sort 25 of an office which we also like, but it’s… but I think you if you’re overly prescriptive or if you’re 26 prescriptive at all I think you introduce distortions which would make the administration of this more 27 difficult. I think then the notion of competition and the beauty contest I think just seems to me to be a 28 train wreck coming down the road. 29 30 And I do think that I would like when we do a vote I’m probably going to vote against the ordinance 31 because I think that it’s a substitute for proper planning in the form of the Comp Plan update and the 32 Zoning Map and it’s sort of a, it’s a belief that we can address the litany of problems that Commissioner 33 Downing went through I thought was pretty articulate. This isn’t the solution to those problems. And so 34 I would encourage all of the well intentioned efforts of Council and staff and the public to address I think 35 more enduring long term solutions to real problems. 36 37 VOTE 38 39 Acting Chair Fine: Should we take a vote on this Motion? All those in favor? Commissioners Alcheck and 40 Downing. All those against? So the Motion does not pass. 41 42 SUBSTITUE MOTION #1 FAILED (2-2-3, Commissioners Fine and Michael opposed, Commissioners 43 Tanaka, Rosenblum, and Gardias absent) 44 45 Acting Chair Fine: At this point do we close the issue and move on to the next one or? 46 47 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Commissioners. I think we have two choices. We could continue this to an 48 evening when Commissioner or Chair Tanaka will be back and he can resolve the deadlock or you could 49 continue working to see if there’s a Motion, another Motion that could be supported by the 50 Commissioners who are present here this evening. 51 52 Commissioner Alcheck: Clarification, who supported the Motion? 53 54 Acting Chair Fine: You both supported it. 55 56 17 Commissioner Alcheck: You did not support your Motion? 1 2 Acting Chair Fine: No. 3 4 Commissioner Downing: Your own Motion? 5 6 Acting Chair Fine: No. I wanted to make a Motion that I thought would be helpful to Council in terms of 7 some of the amendments, but I was not in support of it. 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible – off mike]. 10 11 Acting Chair Fine: So my opinion there thank you, Director (interrupted) 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: Can I ask a question? Is there a variation of the Motion or any Motion? Is there 14 a variation of this Motion that you would support? Or are you, or I’m just trying to understand, are you 15 supporting a Motion that we recommend not approving this ordinance? I’m trying to understand that. 16 17 Acting Chair Fine: I don’t want to preclude Council from doing what they see is best for the City. I don’t 18 support this ordinance. I think there are improvements that could be made if it goes forward, but in full I 19 don’t support this ordinance. With regard to Director Gitelman’s comments I am personally in opinion 20 that we should wait for the rest of our Commission. 21 22 Ms. Gitelman: You know I can make one other suggestion. I mean if you could make a Motion just 23 against and had three votes to recommend against the ordinance that would be taking action too, but it’s 24 up to you. We can also wait until Commissioner Tanaka is back; I think Commissioner Rosenblum is 25 conflicted out. Oh, oh that’s right. So Commissioner Gardias will be back as well so we’ll have two 26 additional Commissioners. 27 28 Acting Chair Fine: So would anybody on the Commission like to make a Motion against or should we 29 postpone till Chair Tanaka returns? 30 31 MOTION #2 32 33 Commissioner Downing: I would Motion against, I think it should just go back to Council. 34 35 Acting Chair Fine: Is there a second? 36 37 SECOND 38 39 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: I will second Commissioner Downing’s Motion. 40 41 Acting Chair Fine: Alright, so we are voting on a Motion not to recommend this ordinance, the option of 42 this ordinance. Shall we vote? 43 44 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: Can I speak to my second? 45 46 Acting Chair Fine: You may, sorry. 47 48 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: So I believe that the PTC is an advisory body and we make recommendations 49 at Council and the Council has the power to act on this. One of the ways that the Council is informed of 50 our recommendation is through the verbatim minutes of our meeting. And I believe that they will have 51 the full benefit of the minutes of our discussion this evening. If it would be helpful to Council for us to 52 continue this to a date certain so that there would be more commentary from people who are not 53 conflicted out who are not in attendance tonight we could do that certainly, but I think that there’s a 54 sense of urgency at the Council level to get this back to them and maybe we should just let them have it 55 with the benefit of our verbatim minutes. 56 18 1 VOTE 2 3 Acting Chair Fine: Alright, are we ready to vote? All those in favor of not recommending the Motion? 4 She wasn’t going to support it. 5 6 Commissioner Downing: Wait a minute. 7 8 Acting Chair Fine: We were just voting on a Motion not to recommend that the City Council adopt this 9 ordinance and as Commissioner (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Downing: That seems different because I thought the question at hand was whether or 12 not we wanted this to come back to PTC again. Is that the question? 13 14 Commissioner Alcheck: If you make a Motion it doesn’t come back if your Motion passes, just to be clear. 15 If your Motion is to wait until we have a Commission that’s different. The Motion you made was 16 (interrupted) 17 18 Ms. Silver: My, excuse me, my understanding of the Motion was the Motion was to recommend against 19 adopting the ordinance. And there was a Motion and a second on that Motion. That’s what’s on the 20 table. 21 22 Acting Chair Fine: That was your Motion seconded by Commissioner Michael. 23 24 Commissioner Downing: [Unintelligible – off mike]. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: Well, she’s entitled to not support it. You did not support your Motion. 27 28 Acting Chair Fine: Right, you don’t have to support your own Motion. So I think we’re deadlocked on 29 this. 30 31 Ms. Gitelman: I think you could withdraw your Motion. If we misunderstood your Motion you can 32 withdraw. 33 34 MOTION #2 WITHDRAWN 35 36 Commissioner Downing: Yeah, I think I’m going to withdraw. There has [been misunderstand]. 37 38 MOTION #3 39 40 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, I’ll make a Motion that we not recommend this issue for adoption. 41 42 SECOND 43 44 Acting Vice-Chair Michael: I will second that. 45 46 VOTE 47 48 Acting Chair Fine: Right, the Motion on the floor is that we not recommend to Council the adoption of this 49 ordinance. All those in favor? All those against? 50 51 MOTION #3 FAILED 52 53 Ms. Gitelman: Ok, maybe you could adopt a Motion continuing this matter until August 26th? And we will 54 hear it as the first item on the agenda and your colleagues will help decide. 55 56 19 MOTION #4 1 2 Acting Chair Fine: Yes, I’d like to make the Motion that we postpone this to August 26th, our next 3 meeting. Is there a second? 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: Second. 8 9 VOTE 10 11 Acting Chair Fine: All those in favor? All those against? 12 13 MOTION PASSED (3-1-3, Commissioner ________ against, Commissioners Tanaka, Rosenblum, and 14 Gardias absent) 15 16 Commissioner Alcheck: I thought that was your Motion? 17 18 Commissioner Downing: [Unintelligible – off mike]. 19 20 Acting Chair Fine: No, that was my Motion. Alright, we’re done with this item. 21 22 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Commissioners. 23 24 Acting Chair Fine: The vote is three to one (interrupted) 25 26 Ms. Gitelman: We’ll take this up again on the 26th. 27 28 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you everyone for, yes. 29 30 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible – off mike]. 31 32 Acting Chair Fine: It’s hard working the negatives. Let’s take a few minutes of break and then we’ll do 33 the last item. 34 35 Commission Action: Commission discussed and item continued to date certain of August 26, 2015 36 1 1 2 Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes August 26, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Interim Ordinance for the establishment of Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit applicable to7 Downtown, California Avenue Area and the El Camino Corridor: The Planning and Transportation8 Commission will Consider a Recommendation to the City Council for Adoption of an Interim Ordinance to9 Establish an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit Applicable to Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and10 the El Camino Corridor on an Interim Basis. For more information contact Hillary Gitelman at11 Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 201512 13 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so we’re now going on to our second item and I think Commissioner Rosenblum you14 are conflicted so you can’t attend this one.15 16 Commissioner Rosenblum: [Unintelligible – off mike].17 18 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Oh, yes, please. No, please actually the Political Reform Act19 does require you to state why you’re recusing yourself.20 21 Commissioner Rosenblum: I have been advised to recuse myself because this issue impacts Stanford,22 which is the employer of my wife.23 24 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so let’s begin Item 2, the Interim Ordinance for the establishment of Office/Research25 and Development (R&D) Annual Growth Limit applicable to Downtown, California Avenue Area and the El26 Camino Corridor. Does staff want to make a statement on this just to help frame the conversation?27 28 Hillary Gitelman, Director: I’d be happy to do that. Hillary Gitelman the Director. First let me29 acknowledge this is a continuation of a hearing from our last meeting at which there were only four30 members of the Commission present. It would be good to hear when we get to Commissioner comments31 that the two members who were absent had listened to the whole tape and are prepared to act on this as32 a continuation of that hearing.33 34 Because we had that earlier hearing I’m not going to review the whole slideshow again. I am, we do35 have it here in case you’d like, you have questions about it, but let me just briefly recap the draft36 ordinance before you establishes an annual limit on the amount of office space that could be approved in37 a subset of the City. The subset includes Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Real38 Corridor. The limit according to the Council was set at 50,000 square feet (sf) in the ordinance. The idea39 of the ordinance is really to control the pace of development more than the cumulative total or amount of40 development, which is currently the growth management strategy that’s in the City’s Comprehensive41 Plan.42 43 The City Council’s direction on this ordinance was very specific. It included a direction regarding the44 50,000 sf limit, direction on the type of projects that should be exempt, the type of uses that fall under45 the purview of this ordinance, basically all office/R&D uses except for office projects less than 2,000 sf46 and medical offices less than 5,000 sf. Council also provided direction on the definition of pipeline47 projects that would be exempted from the ordinance and on a competitive process and criteria that48 would be used by the Council to evaluate proposals in the event that the total applications pending in a49 given year exceeded the 50,000 sf limit. Those of you, most of you or all of you will remember the50 ordinance describes a process where basically projects are accepted for review and processed as they are51 today, but nothing will get approved until after March 31st of a fiscal year. And on March 31st basically52 we look at the sum total of applications that are pending. If it is less than 50,000 sf then those53 applications are approved, if it’s more than 50,000 sf then they go through this competitive process.54 55 2 So the one issue where the City Council really deadlocked and asked for the Commission’s input was on1 this issue of boundaries. We’ve recommended boundaries in a map in the ordinance and it’s basically the2 three areas that I mentioned using zoning district boundaries kind of to identify where office uses are3 permitted in those districts, but the Council couldn’t reach agreement on whether to include or exclude4 coordinated area plans like South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) 2. Currently SOFA 2 is part of the area5 around that’s shown for Downtown and it’s currently the only coordinated area plan that the City has that6 allows office space although of course in the future there could be additional coordinated area plans. So7 this is an area that the City Council specifically asked for the Commission’s direction and our8 recommendation for you this evening is that you review the proposed ordinance and recommend9 adoption with a very specific recommendation regarding the boundaries of the area affected and this10 issue of whether coordinated area plans should be exempted. I’d be happy to answer any questions.11 12 Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So before we go to the Commission I want to just take it to the public and see13 if there was any comments that anyone has.14 15 Vice-Chair Fine: We have two speakers, Mr. Lee Lippert followed by Mr. Bob Moss.16 17 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, Mr. Chair, if we could hear from you and Commissioner Michael about or no, it18 was Commissioner Gardias about the fact that you’d read the or listened to the hearing, the last hearing19 and were prepared to act on the whole of the record that would be great.20 21 Chair Tanaka: Well, I was going to take public comment first.22 23 Ms. Silver: So just as a clarification so in quasi-judicial matters if a Commissioner is not present at the24 first hearing they may not make a decision if the matter is continued unless they’ve reviewed the25 videotape of the original hearing. But since this is a legislative matter it’s not required that you review26 the tape. Of course it’s helpful and I believe we sent a link to the first hearing.27 28 Chair Tanaka: Sure, ok. So let’s do the public hearing. So the speaker each has five minutes.29 30 Lee Lippert: Chair Tanaka and Commissioners, I’m Lee Lippert. No single topic could be more31 appropriate and timely to greenhouse gas reduction and climate change as the cap on commercial office32 space. Embodied in the proposed office cap are three potential carbon impacts that come together:33 traffic, urban growth, and architecture. I use architecture with a small A as I’ll address building design34 later from another, other than visual aesthetic, neighborhood compatibility or character defining point of35 view.36 37 Traffic is a corollary of urban growth. As you know Palo Alto has a population of 66,000 residents which38 swells to a daytime population of 110,000 people. If you build it they will come; however, in the light of39 recently published Palo Alto Transportation Department survey the majority of single occupancy40 automobiles are retail clerks and restaurant workers that cannot afford to live locally and must commute.41 These are mainly lower income earners and even with just recently adopted Palo Alto minimum wages,42 wage, many of these workers cannot afford to live locally. The majority of single occupancy automobiles43 coming to Palo Alto, the minority of single occupancy automobiles coming to Palo Alto are office workers44 or business professionals who prefer carpooling or taking public transportation. This traffic and parking45 survey needs to be more closely examined to evaluate the true impacts from commercial office and R&D46 development versus blue collar workers that cannot afford to live here. These exact numbers should be47 clearer with the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) rollout.48 49 However, urban growth and commercial density isn’t completely blameless either. With the 60:100 ratio50 we currently have a very steep jobs/housing imbalance. Unless Palo Alto’s elected officials have the51 acumen to build more affordable housing we will continue to have professionals and blue collar workers52 commuting here for the benefit of our rich high tech economy. If you wish to address the jobs/housing53 imbalance or commercial residential deficit in a meaningful and equitable way then it should be obvious54 that every new commercial project needs to be a mixed-use development and spread throughout the City55 or have a nexus to economically diverse multi-family housing. Otherwise we will continue to see56 3 commuters coming to Palo Alto. The Palo Alto Municipal Code currently allows for bonus density and1 parking reduction in most commercial zones that are mixed-use and include both commercial and2 residential uses. Most of these projects need to be encouraged and incentivized.3 4 Lastly, I wish to address the architectural component. As I mentioned previously this is architecture with5 a small A, building technology. Eighty percent of every building’s lifecycle cost goes into maintenance6 and operating costs. That means construction and land costs represent a minority portion of a building’s7 overall lifecycle costs and financing and utilities including electricity, gas, water, and sanitary waste, daily8 operations and wear and tear or maintenance on buildings become when buildings become outmoded9 become in the majority of a building’s lifecycle cost. Stand-alone single-story buildings proportionately10 have a much greater energy consumption and demand per square foot than today’s smart buildings and11 technology advanced developments. The new green building requirements leading to carbon reduction12 and net zero energy consumption by the second quarter of this century heralds in a highly, a high13 efficiency technology including energy reduced consuming artificial lighting, heating, and cooling systems,14 water reducing plumbing fixtures, and recycled wastewater, enhanced performance building components15 and recycled building materials, and decentralized renewable energy systems are just a few of the16 building technology advances. These newer buildings are structurally more delicate taking advantage of17 daylight, natural ventilation thereby further reducing energy consumption.18 19 I have a little bit more, can I finish? Further, there is much less energy waste in heat lost or cooling and20 greater efficiency in zero lot line multi-story development. Older stand-alone single-story buildings will21 always have the, be the energy, will always be the greater energy wasters. With the moral imperative of22 reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing or reversing climate change we all have an obligation to23 reduce our carbon footprint by any means necessary. We all have the right to use energy, but we don’t24 have the right to waste energy.25 26 Commercial office tenants pay triple net leases. The tenant pays for all utilities, building improvements,27 and property taxes in [unintelligible] to monthly rent. There are no incentives for a property owner to28 upgrade and reduce a building’s carbon footprint and energy consumption without an increase in floor29 area. By eliminating a 50,000 sf annual commercial cap we will slow and hamper conversion of outdated30 buildings to new energy efficient technology. Please consider replacing outmoded commercial buildings.31 We are extending a valuable energy resource to higher density development by nearly three times in32 doing this. What I’ve previously described sound a, sounds like a bit like an oxymoron. Building our way33 out of carbon reduction, but I suggest you Google Ed, Edward Mazria, the American Institute of34 Architects (AIA) 2030 Imperative, and the AIA 2050 Challenge. Architects are working very hard to solve35 the challenges of greenhouse gas emissions and Global Warming through energy efficiency and green36 building practices. Thank you very much.37 38 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you. Next up is Bob Moss.39 40 Bob Moss: Well thank you, Chairman Fine [note-Vice-Chair] and Commissioners. I agree that we need to41 have some kind of a limit on office and R&D growth. I think 50,000 sf per year is probably more than we42 can accommodate. That would equate to between 3,000 and 3,500 new jobs per year. That doesn’t43 take into account the fact that existing office space is going to get, be crammed with more workers as44 the density per 1,000 sf increases. I think I’ve given you references several times before about studies45 that have been done that show that by next year the average space used per office worker will go down46 to 100 sf instead of the 250 which is used for years as an estimate that now has been reduced to47 approximately 175 to 200 sf. So we’ll be cramming more workers in. That’s more traffic, more parking,48 greater jobs/housing imbalance, which is going to create pressure to develop more housing in Palo Alto,49 a city where the residential zones are almost entirely already built out at the existing densities that it’s50 allowed. So it’s going to create some real problems for future control of overdevelopment in the City.51 52 As we build more housing it hurts our budget. You may recall about a year, year and a half ago the City53 Manager reported to the Council that every housing unit cost the City more than it contributes in taxes,54 about $2,500 a year more. That’s not new. When I did the initial evaluation for incorporating Rancho55 Palos Verdes I found that at that time in 1971 the net cost for housing was about $750 per housing unit56 4 per year, so including the increase in value of the dollar and the higher cost because of Proposition 13 1 housing costs even more. 2 3 So when we talk about limiting offices I think what we should be doing is not limiting ourselves to the 4 three areas that is suggested. If you look at Page 9, Figure 1 on the right-hand side there’s an orange 5 area at Fabian, San Antonio, and Bayshore. That area should be included also because it’s heavily used 6 for offices. Space [unintelligible] in that area alone has at least 2,500 office workers there and there are 7 a number of other office facilities. If offices are limited Downtown and California Avenue and El Camino 8 they will move over to the Fabian/Charleston area and San Antonio. So if you don’t add that as an area 9 that’s included in the 50,000 sf you will not be limiting office development in Palo Alto anywhere near 10 what you think you are limiting it to. 11 12 One of the other things that is interesting, I don’t know how you cure this is if you get requests by March 13 31st for more than 50,000 sf of development you have to have an evaluation process that says well, I like 14 this project more than that project. And a lot of the likes and dislikes are not quantitative, they’re 15 qualitative. So it will be very helpful if identifying useful versus not as desirable projects could be 16 identified in advance. One way of doing that would be to say development projects which can guarantee 17 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is going to significantly reduce traffic and parking. This is 18 how I’m going to do it. These are the buses I’m going to have running from where our workers live. 19 That project would get a higher value than a project that doesn’t do that. So I’d like to see something 20 added to the evaluation set that includes reducing traffic and reducing parking. Snd you can use your 21 imagination how you want to do that, but introducing TDM is one way of doing it. Another way which 22 some projects actually have tried is having housing onsite, but add that reducing traffic and parking as a 23 criteria for selecting which of the office projects would be approved. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think before we begin I saw a whole bunch of people have comments or lights hit 26 so, but before I do that I just wanted to ask the Planning Director about kind of our scope. So this is 27 kind of like our second go around here. And I think City Council actually had some specific things they 28 wanted us to address. So one of them you mentioned was the boundaries, right? Was there anything 29 else in particular that we should really hit first and really try to nail per Council’s direction before we go 30 off to other areas? 31 32 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Chair Tanaka. Really the Council’s request was for you to look specifically at 33 this boundary issue and whether coordinated area plans should be included or exempted. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 36 37 Ms. Gitelman: And that’s the recommendation we have on the screen is that you focus on that and 38 ultimately recommend the ordinance to the Council. 39 40 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So then would your recommendation be that for tonight’s discussion that we focus 41 just on that and don’t talk about the merits of the overall ordinance? 42 43 Ms. Gitelman: Well, as indicated on the screen we do need you to make a Motion to recommend the 44 ordinance or not to the City Council, but what they’ve specifically asked for your input on is this issue of 45 boundaries. So it would be great if you could focus on that first, but ultimately we would like a Motion 46 from you addressing the whole package. 47 48 Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So then I think what we’ll do for this meeting is we’ll focus first on what we’ve 49 been asked to focus on, which is the boundaries. And so I think well I guess some folks didn’t have a 50 chance to ask questions. So maybe we’ll start off with that then what I’d like to do is I’d like us to focus 51 on the boundary issue and I think what would be good is for everyone to kind of state what their opinion 52 is about the boundaries in terms of where the boundaries should be, the merits of why they think that is, 53 and then we could have some deliberation around this and hopefully come to some sort of understanding 54 as to what is the right decision. So, so I guess what we’re doing right now is I’ll go through the lights 55 5 and what we’ll do is you can ask questions, but also I’d like you to state an opinion about what you guys 1 think about the boundaries. So let’s start with Commissioner Michael. 2 3 Commissioner Michael: So I wonder [unintelligible] to clarify Director Gitelman what, what Council’s 4 expectation is because I know that Council met on March 23rd and they approved the notion of an interim 5 ordinance by a unanimous 9-0 vote. Then on June 15 it came back to the Council and they had 6 deliberations that went well over three hours according to the minutes that we have and they extensively 7 deliberated all these issues. And it seems out of all of that they’re really not wanting us to second guess 8 them except as to this one point on which they had a 4-4 deadlock. And I wonder if maybe it disserves 9 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to review the proposed ordinance in its entirety 10 because that’s actually quite a lot of work and we may actually have substantive questions regarding the 11 wisdom of policy that’s actually set by Council if we were to adopt, recommend the adoption of the entire 12 ordinance whereas if we were to give a response to the I think the rather focused question that they’re 13 curious about on the boundaries then I think we can help them without creating a false conflict between 14 our role and that of the Council. 15 16 But on the boundary issue I think that the staff proposal (interrupted) 17 18 Chair Tanaka: Actually Commissioner Michael do you want to let staff answer that first? 19 20 Commissioner Michael: Sure, ok. 21 22 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Commissioner Michael. And maybe the City Attorney can help me here, but I 23 think you’re absolutely correct. The City Council’s discussion and their action was very prescriptive. They 24 were very specific about the ordinance they wanted us to write and we’ve tried to live up to those 25 directions and bring forward an ordinance that conforms in every way to what their direction was. So I 26 don’t think they’re expecting or looking for a lot of deviation from that from the Council except on this 27 one issue where they wanted your input. 28 29 With that being said, the Municipal Code does require that ordinances be heard at a public hearing by the 30 Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Council. That 31 recommendation could be for or against, but the Code requires that you take some action with regard to 32 the ordinance as a whole. I think the Chair’s suggestion that the Commission focus on the boundary 33 issue and resolve what your opinion is going to be on that and then take some action on the whole of the 34 ordinance that that was, that was a good suggestion. I don’t know Cara whether you have anything to 35 add? 36 37 Commissioner Michael: Ok, so then on the boundary issue I think that the proposal that you introduced 38 to Council on June 15th regarding using the map on Page 9 of the staff report which is identified as 39 Attachment C to me seems to be the optimal solution. I think that the reference to the Comprehensive 40 Plan commercial districts is less useful in part because the Comprehensive Plan update process is ongoing 41 and there’s no end in sight. And I think also the request to clarify whether or not coordinated area plan 42 areas would be within or without the cap area is a little bit theoretical insofar as we have some SOFA 2 43 coordinated plan from the past, but there’s no new coordinated area plans that are pending and I don’t 44 think this will be feasible for the staff or the Council to address until well after the Comprehensive Plan is 45 updated many years into the future. So that’s a wonderful concept, but somewhat inapplicable and I 46 thought that the staff recommendation was perfect and makes perfect sense. And I think going to the 47 question of Bob Moss raises [is] adverse impacts of growth I think if you’re really concerned about 48 adverse impacts of growth you’d want to have the cap be more broadly applicable, but I think the staff 49 proposal is perfect in that regard. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Let’s see, Commissioner Alcheck. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I’ll try to be concise. On the topic of boundaries I think the ordinance should 54 exclude the coordinated areas and not apply to those areas. With all due respect to what the City 55 Council asked us to do and Chair, I don’t know if you happened to watch the segment, but in case others 56 6 didn’t I want to just highlight that while I would like to acknowledge that to some extent that was an 1 incoherent session one of the components that I was attempting to get across was the notion that when 2 staff goes before them there is an opportunity to potentially advise Council on a few items related to this 3 ordinance that could make for a better ordinance. And one of the comments I made last meeting was 4 that I think the writing’s on the wall and I think as a local community we can even if there are individuals 5 who are not necessarily supportive of this idea, we have an opportunity here to test something out and 6 it’s a two year ordinance, but we owe it to ourselves to suggest components that could potentially 7 improve this two year ordinance. And there were four items that I mentioned last time. 8 9 The first is the one I already touched upon, which was the boundaries. The second was that I suggested 10 that staff relay to City Council our preference for a noncompetitive process. I think it should be a first 11 come, first serve process. We had a little bit of a discussion about that. I think having a, I’m going to 12 use the term beauty pageant, is a mistake. I know that’s, we’re not supposed to review that, but I think 13 it would help if when staff goes to City Council if they, if we came to consensus on this, if they could 14 coherently articulate our suggestion on that it might lead to an interesting dialogue when this ordinance 15 gets reviewed. The third element was the idea to follow San Francisco’s guideline or San Francisco’s 16 current ordinance, which is using a rollover square footage meaning if 50,000 sf doesn’t get used in a 17 given year because let’s say the economy isn’t strong enough to support development those square feet 18 could get rolled over to the next year and so forth, which is the way San Francisco’s ordinance operates. 19 And finally the fourth one was a discussion we had about projects that were already in the pipeline, 20 projects that had spent a significant amount of money developing their plans before this discussion even 21 took place which are potentially subject. 22 23 Now again, I know those aren’t areas that we are specifically agendized to discuss or directed to discuss, 24 but I do think that if we’re going to… I’m prepared to make a Motion that would suggest that we 25 recommend approval of this ordinance (interrupted) 26 27 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 28 29 Commissioner Alcheck: But I’d also like to suggest that they review some of these items in a coherent 30 way so that that discussion could take place at City Council with some of our input. 31 32 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 33 34 Commissioner Alcheck: And I just think that’s important. 35 36 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Well I think we’ll get to those later, but let’s first try to nail the boundaries topic. So 37 I’d like to just try to stay on that topic if we can. Let’s go to Commissioner Gardias. 38 39 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. I just [unintelligible] a couple of questions before I get to this to the 40 essence of this. So my first question is about 27 University. Is it a subject of the coordinated areas or 41 not? Because it’s not part of this, this cap. 42 43 Ms. Gitelman: That’s correct, the 27 University site is not a coordinated area plan and it is also not 44 included in the suggested boundaries which have been drawn based on the current zoning designations 45 that allow office space. 46 47 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. So based on this, right, and also I believe that we should include 27 48 University because it’s a significant, significant project and we can talk about this earlier, but this would 49 be my observation. But before we get to the concrete resolutions with my colleagues there was also 50 somewhere in the text that staff was going to prepare to do the research on inclusion of SOFA 2 in the 51 boundaries and present it to the Council. And I wasn’t present at the prior meeting if there was some 52 overview of this research that staff did I would like to just ask about the quick summary. What would be 53 the impact of inclusion or exclusion of this area? 54 55 7 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you for your question. I’m not sure that I understand the reference to researching 1 the issue. This was the really the question that the Council posed. SOFA 2 does allow office space. It’s 2 a pretty built out area so it’s they’re not going to be huge office projects there, but the question was 3 whether that district which has gone through an extensive neighborhood planning process should be 4 included within the boundaries where this ordinance applies or whether it should be left out. 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so there was no specific (interrupted) 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: We haven’t done any further analysis. 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. Were there any analysis because that in terms of that of the issue that Mr. 11 Moss raised so my question would be were there any analysis official or unofficial or maybe you have 12 some observations if by limiting this red areas if by limiting the growth in this red bounded areas, 13 boundary areas to 50,000 a year what would be the perspective areas that office and R&D development 14 would move into? With the normal understanding that if you push somewhere in one area it’s going to 15 pop up somewhere else, right? Because those are just a connected, connected events. So are there 16 areas that from your perspective or from the staff’s perspective are at risk of overdevelopment or the 17 areas where the potential growth move over once we restrict those areas to 50,000 a year? 18 19 Ms. Gitelman: Well thank you for that question. I’m grateful for the opportunity to clarify this. First of all 20 let me say that the City does already have a growth management strategy in place in the Comprehensive 21 Plan. It’s this cumulative cap on development and that is not proposed to change. Second, let me say 22 that we have considered this issue and have raised it as a concern for a long term program like this. So 23 if this were more than a two year program I think we would share Mr. Moss’ concerns that tinkering with 24 the rules in some office, some districts that permit office might cause more development, stimulate more 25 development in another area. But our analysis of the current proposal which would be in place for two 26 years or until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted is that it’s a temporary measure. It would not be 27 around for that long and our feeling is that its primary impact would be to basically slow the pace of 28 growth rather than to stimulate it anywhere in Palo Alto and so we don’t, we don’t see that as a big issue 29 unless this were to become something that is permanent or long term, which we will analyze in the 30 program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan update. So I hope I 31 addressed that question. 32 33 Commissioner Gardias: Yes you did. Thank you very much. Thanks. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 36 37 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you for the report; just a comment on the geographic boundary issues. Like 38 Commissioner Alcheck I also would be in favor of excluding coordinated area plans. We’ve only done one 39 recently, but it has a lot and pretty deep community buy in. I think that process itself kind of negotiates 40 the rate of development for those areas. With regards to the boundaries I completely agree with 41 Commissioner Gardias that this will push and Mr. Bob Moss that this ordinance will push development to 42 other areas: San Antonio, perhaps 27 University. That being said, in my opinion these boundaries could 43 be improved a little bit to the areas that are most likely to receive that development pressure are those 44 actually closest to the zone that we’re restricting it in. So the few areas along El Camino just across from 45 California Avenue kind of up Cambridge, California and Page Mill, there’s three or four parcels along there 46 on the south side of El Camino which may want to be included in that area. Those are in my opinion the 47 most likely to receive development pressure before you go to San Antonio or some of the other areas in 48 the City. 49 50 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I see no other lights, but I don’t know if I know everyone’s opinion. I don’t know if 51 Commissioner Downing you have a, Commissioner Downing. 52 53 Commissioner Downing: Sure, so I spoke about this fairly extensively at our last meeting so I’m just 54 trying to keep these comments short. As others have said coordinated area plans involve a lot of 55 community buy in. These are usually, these are usually plans that are created over the course of more 56 8 than a year with a large number of community stakeholders. They are in fact the plans that receive the 1 most community input and scrutiny in this entire City; therefore, of all the, what’s in those plans should 2 be respected and those communities had opportunities to zone for what they wanted and anyone who 3 creates coordinated plans in the future will have an opportunity to do so as well. And there’s no reason a 4 coordinated area plan in the future couldn’t set its own growth meter for example or tie in their 5 commercial development with their residential development based on whatever ratios they come up with. 6 So I think that these area plans should be excluded. I think not doing so would actually be I think a lot 7 of people who participated in that plan would really question their participation if after the fact the City 8 redrew those coordinated area plans and all that work was pretty much ignored. 9 10 The last point I’ll make about that is… what was I going to say? I’ll just stop there. 11 12 Chair Tanaka: Ok. So I just did a kind of like an informal tally. So Commissioner Michael likes the plan 13 as it is, I think Alcheck, Fine, Downing, I’m actually sure about where Gardias stands on this, but and 14 myself. I think the four of us think that we should exclude it. Gardias, Commissioner Gardias I don’t 15 know if you want to clarify your thoughts on the boundaries? 16 17 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, so I mean Director Gitelman just answered my question. I’m just I’m not 18 sure really that probably would require just farther understanding if affecting one area is not going to 19 affect the others like for example south of we talk about that SOFA 2, but also there’s a development 20 there was recent building that was approved I believe by [unintelligible] in the SOFA 1 that replaces 21 American Automobile office I believe that’s going to be replaced with the offices, right? So I think that 22 there could be risk in that area that and that could skew the natural boundaries of the Downtown and 23 that’s my concern. So for this reason I could eventually consider inclusion of the SOFA 1 because 24 otherwise the Downtown that’s, that gravitates in the various directions may pretty much be affected. 25 But I’m still on the fence in this, on this issue. But definitely I would include 27 University in the 26 boundaries. Thank you. 27 28 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 29 30 Commissioner Michael: So I’m learning a lot from the questions asked by my colleagues on the 31 Commission and I want to come back to how the question of boundaries may relate to the purpose of the 32 interim ordinance and I think that to me if the concern that Council is responding to about the pressures 33 of growth are such that you want to limit the growth of office and R&D space one would think that you’d 34 want to have the limit be as broadly applicable as possible. And the places where it’s been pointed out 35 might be inadvertently sort of stimulated for growth and its impacts might be 27 University, might be sort 36 of the areas close to California Avenue but across El Camino, and might be the Research Park, might be 37 San Antonio, might even be sort of the Arastradero East area where there’s office development. And I 38 think if the various details and mechanics of the cap are difficult to administer they may not have their 39 desired effect. And I think particularly because of my concern about the design of the proposed interim 40 ordinance the likelihood in my view that it won’t achieve the desired protection of the public interest and 41 also the fact that the tremendous amount of time and energy focused on interim ordinances rather than 42 long term planning in the form of updating the Comprehensive Plan more urgently I think this is, this is a 43 distraction and not likely to help the cause of quality of life in Palo Alto. But I would think that the 44 boundaries should be as broad as possible and exceptions be limited so as to achieve the desired 45 objective of growth limitation or management if that is in fact the Council’s policy. 46 47 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Downing. 48 49 Commissioner Downing: I remembered the last thing I wanted to say about coordinated area plans, 50 which is this: which is that in a list of priorities for choosing projects to be under that 50,000 sf limit I 51 would actually prioritize projects that are actually in coordinated area plans because again that zoning 52 designation, those plans have had more overview than anything else in this City. So I would actually 53 prioritize building in those specific areas over others. 54 55 9 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think in terms of boundaries we have kind of a range of opinions. I think a 1 majority think that we should exclude. I think Commissioner Michael actually thinks we should go the 2 other way, which is we should make it broader if the Commission, if the Council thinks that these 3 restrictions is the right thing to do. And I think Commissioner Gardias is somewhat closer to that in that 4 he also thinks that 27 University and SOFA 1 should also be part of this. So I think if we were to take a 5 vote on the boundaries the majority would say that we should exclude the coordinated areas. So I think 6 is there any other discussion we want to have on boundaries? But I think we have a pretty clear view of 7 what the Commission thinks at this point on boundaries. 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Tanaka if I can just clarify one thing? 10 11 Chair Tanaka: Sure. 12 13 Ms. Gitelman: SOFA 1 does not permit office uses. So the project that Commissioner Gardias 14 (interrupted) 15 16 Chair Tanaka: Oh, doesn’t even matter. 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: Was referring to was a conversion from office to residential. So we’re really just talking 19 about SOFA 2 here. 20 21 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so SOFA 1 wouldn’t even apply. 22 23 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Yeah, so in some ways we’re not that far apart. Vice-Chair. 26 27 Vice-Chair Fine: So just one comment. I think there’s kind of three ways of thinking of this. We could 28 stick with the boundary as proposed here, which may work. We could go to the other end, which is just 29 make this whole thing citywide or there’s kind of a middle ground where you include a few more spot 30 parcels within such as 27 University and I believe two of us had mentioned those areas directly south of 31 El Camino by California Avenue. In my opinion I think those will get the most development pressure if 32 you implement this ordinance. 33 34 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so on the boundaries I think we all know where we stand and so if this came to a vote 35 I think we would know how it would go down. Now there are some other topics that we could talk about 36 although we’re not directed by Council to do so. And one thing I want to just mention to the Commission 37 is it’s 8:46 p.m. right now and this is the second item and we have two other items after this. We got a 38 late start today [unintelligible] 7:30, so the question is does it make sense for us at this point since I 39 think we know where we stand on the boundary issue I’m not sure we’re going to get more clarity on 40 that to talk about some of these other items, which we were actually not directed to do. Right, we were 41 directed to do, directed to discuss boundary, which I think we’ve done. So Commissioner Alcheck had 42 three recommendations. We could comment on those perhaps or comment on others, but I guess I 43 given the assignment at hand we could consider ourselves, we could make the Motion and consider it 44 done or we could try to push this further, but it is at the expense of some of the other items that we 45 have on our docket tonight. So does anyone have any opinions about this? Commissioner Alcheck. 46 47 Commissioner Alcheck: I absolutely appreciate the interest in having a short meeting tonight. I don’t 48 necessarily think we have to rehash this. My motivation for raising those again tonight and actually for 49 raising them the first time was I consistently sort of suggest that we look to our neighbors, we look to 50 our colleague cites to sort of take direction and understand. And this is a significant ordinance and some 51 of our neighbors do different things like San Francisco’s rollover and then I think there was sort of a 52 question we did hear from a speaker last time who had an application and I think he made a really 53 compelling argument to a majority of us and I would be comfortable moving forward I just would like to 54 know if staff will be able to… I’d like to have Council sort of hear that there were these concerns from 55 their appointed but not necessarily I don’t necessarily think we have to rehash everything. 56 10 1 But when I was preparing for tonight I was rereading again the dollar per square foot value per month 2 that sort of starts the ordinance that’s the first page of the ordinance and I wondered if anybody had 3 considered potentially the long term economic implications of basically decreasing supply of extra office? 4 Obviously there’s a lot of reasons for doing that. And I think Director Gitelman made a really good point 5 tonight, which is that this is a two year ordinance, interim ordinance and so they’re not really focused on 6 long term impacts. 7 8 That said I don’t think we need to spend a long time talking about it, but I do think that as a appointed 9 body if Planning staff when to the City Council meeting and said hypothetically your Planning Commission 10 reviewed it again and they are now supporting this ordinance, but that said they had real concerns about 11 applying it to projects that had already applied before this ordinance discussion had ever taken place. 12 They also had concerns about the competitive process that has been suggested because they are 13 concerned that the staff will be overwhelmed with a tremendous amount of work to deal with that 14 process and they don’t want staff to have that sense of overwhelming. I’m just saying it would make me 15 very comfortable if I know that they communicated some of those concerns so that this ordinance is 16 improved upon. And that’s the gist of this. If you feel comfortable with that, I’m comfortable with that 17 and I don’t think we need to create some very complicated amended Motion that tries to amend what I 18 think is going to take place no matter what in the next couple of weeks. 19 20 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 21 22 Vice-Chair Fine: So I want to thank our Chair for having us focus on the issues that Council has asked us 23 to focus on. I think that he’s important and for those of you who haven’t viewed it you probably should 24 review the Monday night Council meeting where frankly we got kind of chewed out for going off on our 25 own track in terms of Planned Community (PC) zoning, which we debated back in February or March. 26 27 I think it is important for this Commission to follow the lead of Council, but I agree also with 28 Commissioner Alcheck that there are some issues with this ordinance that could be improved. I also 29 agree about the noncompetitive process and although I agree we don’t have to hash it out tonight I 30 would encourage Council Members to either watch the video from our last meeting on this issue or 31 review the minutes to see that there really are there’s some worry on this Commission about this 32 ordinance outside of the boundary issues. That being said I would be willing to support a Motion moving 33 forward with this as it is with just the boundary. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Downing. 36 37 Commissioner Downing: Yeah, I wonder if maybe a good approach would be for us to write a summary 38 like we’ve done in the past and perhaps the Chair and the Vice-Chair could do that with the members of 39 the Commission that were not present last time so that you make sure to also include their thoughts 40 since you already know everyone else’s. And that way we could end this right now and still have a very 41 short coherent summary for the Council. 42 43 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 44 45 Commissioner Michael: So if the [formula] of the Motion that we ultimately consider is to recommend 46 adoption of the interim ordinance my intention is to vote against that Motion. Not because of any 47 position one way or the other on growth, but because I’m convinced that however well-intentioned this 48 interim ordinance is it’s the wrong approach to achieve the objectives of such, of such good intentions. 49 And I think that we had a lengthy and lively debate with four Commissioners last time. Council went for 50 over three hours themselves. And I think that this huge energy on addressing the concerns of the City 51 about the impacts of growth and how to manage it would be much better spent actually developing 52 coordinated area plans which are not being worked on, updating the Comprehensive Plan which may be 53 years in coming, updating the Zoning Map which would follow on that. And I think this is just a 54 distraction in doing something temporary or interim rather than something which is lasting and 55 permanent and would achieve the objectives of the residents. 56 11 1 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I see no other lights for comments so I think we’re at the time in the meeting to 2 make a Motion one way or another. I think that I agree with all the comments said earlier that this 3 ordinance is a bit flawed, but I don’t think that was our assignment to judge it or to tinker much with it. 4 I think our assignment was the boundaries, which I think we have an idea of where we stand on that. I 5 think Commissioner Alcheck made a lot of good points of fairness and looking at best practice of other 6 cities and I think the idea of having a summary is actually not a bad idea so I don’t know if the Vice-Chair 7 can help craft that so that we can capture some of it. This is a little bit kind of like extra credit work 8 because it wasn’t the assignment from the City Council and if the City Council wants to entertain it they 9 can. And I agree with Commissioner Michael which is yes, getting a more permanent well thought out 10 ordinance or Comprehensive Plan is probably the right thing to do first, but that’s not our assignment 11 right now. Our assignment is the boundary issue. Commissioner Alcheck. 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: Do you anticipate that when this goes before Council that they’re going to want 14 to hear from a representative and I ask that question because I think that the summary that Vice-Chair 15 Fine prepares will be a useful tool when that happens and I would encourage you to consider having the 16 author also show up that night and be available to sort of just discuss some of those concerns. I think 17 that would be sufficient for me to support a Motion or to make a Motion that would be a lot more 18 concise. 19 20 Chair Tanaka: Yeah, I think in general we should always attend items before Council that we had to 21 make a recommendation on so we can give them context and we can answer questions. So I think in 22 general we want to do that and I think especially for this one. So with that said does any Commissioner 23 want to make a Motion? If so, hit your lights. 24 25 MOTION #1 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll make a Motion that we recommend adoption of the recommendation to adopt 28 the ordinance and that our and that that ordinance exclude the coordinated area plans. And that’s it. 29 30 MOTION #1 FAILED 31 32 Chair Tanaka: Does anyone want to second it? Commissioner Gardias. 33 34 MOTION #2 35 36 Commissioner Gardias: I would like to make a Substitute Motion that’s going to be pretty much the 37 Motion that my colleague raised, it’s identical Motion, but with the inclusion of 27 University. 38 39 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so we have a little procedural issue. So we had a Motion. I think nobody has 40 seconded it. We have a Substitute Motion. Does anyone want to second that? 41 42 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So just for clarification, the first Motion failed. So it’s you can, it’s just a 43 Motion. 44 45 Chair Tanaka: [Unintelligible]. 46 47 SECOND 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll second that Motion. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Vice-Chair. 52 53 Vice-Chair Fine: Just a question to my colleagues here, why just 27 University? If the impetus there is 54 that the development pressure will go across the train tracks right there should we not include other 55 areas like those I mentioned a few times just across from California Avenue? 56 12 1 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Tanaka if I can just weigh in for a second? Just as a point of information the City 2 Council heard from a lot of stakeholders and interested parties as they were discussing this ordinance. 3 Among them was a Stanford University and businesses that are located in the Research Park and I would 4 just note that that area that you’re referring to across El Camino Real from the California Avenue Area is 5 within the Research Park or at least some of it is I think. And that’s part of the reason why it wasn’t 6 (interrupted) 7 8 Vice-Chair Fine: So I’m actually specifically referring to those parcels not in the Research Park. There’s 9 just a few of them. 10 11 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. 12 13 Vice-Chair Fine: I don’t know the exact it’s like by Ramos just below Yale. It doesn’t? I was just 14 checking out the zoning on the map. They’re not manufacturing, but is it Stanford’s? 15 16 Ms. Gitelman; You know what I’m going to have to research that. I really thought that all of those areas 17 if you look on the large format map we provided (interrupted) 18 19 Vice-Chair Fine: All of it. 20 21 Ms. Gitelman: I thought that all of those areas were within the Research Park, but (interrupted) 22 23 Vice-Chair Fine: Ok. Just [unintelligible]. 24 25 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: The reason I’m supporting the Motion is because I believe that the writing is on 28 the wall here. And I don’t think it’s particularly useful if the takeaway tonight is that we didn’t support 29 any even temporary limit on office development in our City. I think that would be a mistake. I think it 30 would be a much better result if the takeaway tonight was Commission supports temporary office cap 31 development, but recommends the following elements be addressed by City Council so that the office cap 32 is implemented in a way that doesn’t cause havoc. And I know that sounds tremendously political, but I 33 just want to see us be effective and so I’m willing to create any consensus here that’s necessary to us 34 having opportunity to sort of move this off our desk and make a make the debate that will take place at 35 City Council as informed as possible. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so appreciate your comments. So let me give you, give some of my comments. So I 38 think first of all as a Commission it’s our job to do the right thing, what we believe is the right thing. And 39 I think that’s why we just try to make considered decisions, try to be informative, and try to make useful 40 recommendations. So I don’t think necessarily politically decisions we should try to make the right 41 decision. 42 43 With that said I actually I don’t support the Motion on the floor right now, which is to include 27 44 University mainly because I think there’s also some other implications of that which it’s kind of a different 45 topic, but I think right now we have just based on the informal discussion we’ve had so far on the 46 boundaries I think we have a consensus around excluding the coordinated area plans. We do not have a 47 consensus around, well not I guess we don’t have a consensus, but we have a majority, a strong majority 48 for excluding that area, but I don’t think we have a strong majority for 27 University. And so I don’t 49 support that Motion. I support actually more the Motion that Commissioner Alcheck made before. So 50 (interrupted) 51 52 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible- off mike]. Sorry, that being the case I’m just trying to get clarity 53 why when we were looking for a second you remained silent. 54 55 13 Chair Tanaka: Oh, the reason why is because I actually wasn’t here for the first meeting. And so I felt 1 that it would be better for someone who was actually here for both meetings to do that. I was hoping 2 someone else would do that, but nobody else did. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: If it’s, I’m very willing to make my Motion again if you feel like this is an 5 opportunity to… 6 7 Chair Tanaka: I think maybe the one point of contention is 27 University, right? I personally don’t think 8 that’s the right thing to include at this point, but maybe we could talk about that topic in particular since 9 Commissioner Gardias brought that up and we can see where people actually stand on it. So I know 10 Commissioner Gardias’ point of view. Maybe we can hear from other members in terms of should 27 11 University be included or not included? 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: I guess before you do that my comment really is is that if the only reason why 14 you didn’t second that Motion was because you wanted to see if someone else would and nobody else 15 would and that demonstrates a lack of support of Motions [unintelligible] in general then I think we’re 16 just headed towards essentially a dead heat here and it may be the I think it might be a good idea to 17 maybe ask the fellow Commissioners to just comment on where they stand on both including or 18 excluding 27 University and the Motion in general because I just want to eliminate some lack of clarity. 19 20 Chair Tanaka: I agree. So I think we should do that. We should comment on what Commissioner 21 Alcheck recommended in terms of should 27 University be in there or not and also the various Motions 22 that have been made so far. Commissioner Michael. 23 24 Commissioner Michael: Yeah, I think our procedure is breaking down here. So if you’ve got a Motion 25 that’s seconded there can be a Substitute Motion proposed, you can have a Friendly Amendment 26 proposed, you can have an Unfriendly Amendment proposed, or you can vote on the Motion. Or the 27 (interrupted) 28 29 Chair Tanaka: Or you could deliberate too. 30 31 Commissioner Michael: Or the Motion can be withdrawn. So if the maker of the Motion wants to 32 withdraw the Motion then we can maybe consider a different Motion, but I think you’re, you ought to 33 follow the procedural rules and so. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: So what we’re doing right now is we’re deliberating. So as it stands I would not support 36 inclusion of 27 University. So I stated my opinion. I’m not changing the Motion. I’m just stating my 37 opinion. So and I was listening to other people’s opinion for the Motion on the floor, which is the Motion 38 that Commissioner Gardias made. 39 40 Commissioner Michael: Ok, so in terms of the deliberations on the Motion on the floor I would support 41 including 27 University. The reason I would support even notwithstanding the fact that the interested 42 parties appeared at the Council meeting and had apparently very weighty comments that Council took 43 into consideration those comments really haven’t been articulated here. And I know that in the work 44 done in the looking at the Comprehensive Plan update we had extensive discussion at numerous 45 meetings on how the development cap was operating and the question of whether or not 27 University 46 was in or out of the Downtown Cap and throughout all those discussions I felt I came to the belief that 47 27 University is logically within the Downtown area with respect to any and all of its potential impacts 48 positive, negative, or what have you. So if you’re concerned about development, you’re concerned about 49 managing development, if the Downtown area is in I think the 27 University is very much the question 50 and it should be in. 51 52 Commissioner Alcheck: Do you mind if I ask a quick question? 53 54 Chair Tanaka: Well actually, hold on. 55 56 14 Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to ask him a question about what he just said. 1 2 Chair Tanaka: Sure. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: Just to be clear you would support inclusion of 27 University, but you won’t 5 actually vote to support either ordinance or either, I mean either Motion. Because if at the end what I’m 6 trying to understand is that if for example we built consensus on this Motion that’s on the table would 7 you… you support its inclusion, but you would ultimately vote no? Is that? 8 9 Commissioner Michael: Well, so perhaps we had straw votes or just discrete Motions. If we had a Motion 10 with respect to the boundaries I would vote in favor of including 27 University and actually Vice-Chair 11 Fine has some commercial lots adjacent to California Avenue I would also support including those if that 12 were part of the Motion. But if we were just to have an overall vote on adoption of the entire ordinance 13 not with any of you relative to managing growth or not I think that this approach is the wrong 14 mechanism for managing growth. 15 16 Chair Tanaka: Ok, let’s see, Commissioner Downing. 17 18 Commissioner Downing: I agree with what the Commissioner just said. I’m not going to be voting to 19 support the ordinance tonight. 20 21 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 22 23 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 24 25 Vice-Chair Fine: So I would be willing to support it as the Motion stands excluding the cap, including 27 26 University. I guess I’m going to make a Friendly Motion [Note-Amendment] to include a couple of those 27 parcels I’ve been hammering on right just south of El Camino and California. 28 29 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I think you can make that Motion [Note-Amendment]. If I’m looking at the map you 30 showed me and the map that we have here I think the only parcels that are excluded are those PC 31 parcels on this map, but it doesn’t hurt to tell us to include the south side of El Camino between Stanford 32 Avenue and the Research Park. 33 34 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED [Note-what about seconder?] 35 36 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, I accept this addition. 37 38 Vice-Chair Fine: Ok. 39 40 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 41 42 Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to, he’s not here anymore, but I want to personally thank Lee Lippert 43 for showing up. We don’t often hear from citizen experts and I think that’s because it’s hard to sort of 44 stick your neck out on very political divisive issues. He made some really excellent points about what I’ll 45 call redevelopment and I hope and encourage him to attend the City Council hearing to make those 46 points as a citizen expert because there’s some serious value there. Thank you. 47 48 VOTE 49 50 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think everyone’s stated their mind. So I’ll state mine on this one, which is for the 51 Motion on the floor including 27 University I do not support that so I will not be voting for it. With that 52 said we can take a vote. So all in favor of the Motion on the floor, which is essentially the approval of 53 this including excluding the coordinated area plans and including 27 University, raise your hand. Oh, and 54 El Camino, sorry. So we have three Commissioners in favor. Those not in favor, raise your hand. Ok, so 55 we have a 3-3 tie here. 56 15 1 MOTION #2 FAILED (3-3-0-1, Commissioner Rosenblum recused) 2 3 Chair Tanaka: Does anyone else want to make a Motion? Vice-Chair. 4 5 MOTION #3 6 7 Vice-Chair Fine: Alright, maybe we should just stick to the issue. I’d like to make a Motion that we adopt 8 the ordinance and exclude the coordinated area plans. 9 10 SECOND 11 12 Chair Tanaka: So we have Vice-Chair has made a Motion and then it was seconded by who? 13 Commissioner Alcheck. Does the maker want to make a statement? 14 15 Vice-Chair Fine: So we’ve been back and forth on this a whole number of times. I don’t really want to 16 hold this up anymore in terms of getting to the other issues or in terms of holding the City and Council up 17 in dealing with this. They’ve asked for the issue for us to look into the boundary issue. I think we have 18 some agreement on that and I think it will be clear to them that 27 University, a couple of these parcels 19 south of El Camino may be important, that some of the Commission feels that this entire ordinance is not 20 the right way to go, but I think we should move it forward at least with a discussion or some decision on 21 the coordinated area plans, which I believe we have consensus on. 22 23 Chair Tanaka: Does the seconder of the Motion want to make a statement. 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: I’ll just say one other thing, ok? I’m a strong believe in de Tocqueville approach 26 to local politics, which is to say that the reason why some of the most relevant decisions are made locally 27 is because we have local control and we can change and we can adapt and we can be flexible for the 28 results of those decisions. And while I think I don’t want for one minute anyone to walk away from 29 tonight thinking that we supported something simply because the City Council has basically yelled at us 30 and said we need to do that. I think and what I tried to convey last week which is that there’s a 31 significant population in our community that feels that even one extra square foot of office is too much 32 and we can create goodwill and potentially attempt to demonstrate one solution and it’s temporary and if 33 it works it works and if it doesn’t and creates all sorts of havoc then we’ll we have another opportunity in 34 two very short years, actually less than two years if it goes into effect as of March. And I would 35 encourage us to not look at this as simply getting it off our plate, but we’re giving a one solution a 36 chance and if it doesn’t work we can always adapt. And I think that that’s sort of the beauty of the local 37 process. And that’s it. 38 39 Chair Tanaka: Does anyone else want to deliberate this Motion? Ok. So then we’ll take a vote then. All 40 in favor of the Motion on the floor raise your hand. All not in favor raise your hand. So we have I think 41 was that four? Ok, four in favor, two not in favor. So the Motion passes. 42 43 MOTION #3 PASSED (4-2-0-1, Commissioners Michael and Downing opposed, Commissioner Rosenblum 44 recused) 45 46 Chair Tanaka: Ok, this item’s closed and let’s take a quick five minute [unintelligible] break. So 9:17. 47 48 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Commissioners. 49 50 Commission Action: Vice-chair Fine moved to adopt the staff recommendation, but exclude the 51 coordinated area plans. Commissioner Alcheck seconded the Motion. Vote was 4 – 2, Commissioners 52 Fine, Alcheck, Gardias and Tanaka for and Commissioners Downing and Michael against. Commissioner 53 Rosenblum recused himself from this item. 54 CJL Stanford Shopping Center Downtown/Unniversity Area UniversityStation PAMF Town & Country California AvenueArea Fry's Site Stanford Research Park El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor Alma Plaza Stanford MedicalCenter CharlestonCenter R-1 San AntonioArea San AntonioArea Midtown West BayshoreArea EdgewoodPlaza East BayshoreArea MSC Embarcadero EastArea SOFA I SOFA II R-1 R-1 (7000) East MeadowCircle l a s P u l g a s H i l l R o a d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d P a g e M i l l R o ad R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R o a d O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University A venue y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real n e R o a d F o o t h i l l E x p r e s Hi l l vi e w E a st B a y s h or e W e st B a y s h o r e Fabian S a n d Hill R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona AvenueArastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Los Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct McKellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive HemlockCourt Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Capitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley StreetSouth CourtBryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado AvenueByron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley StreetEl Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael DriveSt Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina Way Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive Driftwood Drive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia StreetBowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Arastradero Road Miranda Avenue Avenue uela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRoblesAvenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Exp La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley StreetPrinceton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan AvenueJacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road Morton Street Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar LaneAlannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon AvenueBlair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara DriveColorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado AvenueSimkins Court Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way Emb Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison AvenueScott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer Avenue Guinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenueChaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlowe Stree Maple Street Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton StreetCowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wils o n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive WestCrescentDrive Cre University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson AvenuePine Street Mark Twain Street Louis RoadBarbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays DriveLois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Edgewood Drive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion AvenueWelch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Hi Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 WLane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenue Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Ch Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail DrQuail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolu mne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryessa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado CtAlvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cooksey Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court JenkinsCourt Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L L ane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomitaCourt Lomita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears CourtMears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mira da Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hi ll Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way R a i mundo Wa y Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra Walk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco CourtSan Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm Road Thoburn Court Tolman DriveValdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Road Loop Road North Yard Road Pep Ring Road Pep Ring Road Pep Ring Road Alpine Access Road Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r voir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch RoadPasteur Drive Pasteur Drive This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Commercial & RT Zoning Districts - Office is a Permitted Use w/ Possible GF & Size Limitations ROLM & RP Zoning Districts - Office and R & D is a Permitted Use MOR Zoning District - Medical Office is a Permitted Use PF Zoning District - Office is a Conditional Use GM Zoning District - R & D is a Permitted Use & Office is a Conditional Use Stanford Research Park SOFA I CAP SOFA II CAP Proposed Annual Office and R&D Cap Areas City Jurisdictional Limits 0'2200' Of f i c e a n d R & D Zo n i n g D i s t r i c t s wi t h Pr o p o s e d O f f i c e a n d R & D C a p ex c l u d i n g Co o r d i n a t e d A r e a P l a n s CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2015-09-03 15:34:34 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) Attachment G