Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-11-09 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL November 9, 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 November 9, 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 Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:15 PM 1. United States Military Veterans Proclamation 2. Presentation of Award of Accreditation by the American Public Works Association (APWA) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:15-6:25 PM Oral Communications 6:25-6:40 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:40-6:45 PM 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the August 31, September 9, 15, 21, and 28, 2015 Council Meetings 2 November 9, 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. Consent Calendar 6:45-6:50 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4. Approval of the Renewal of a Public-Private Partnership Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera for the Use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre 5. Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve the Release of a Request for Proposal to Explore Options for the Delivery of the Aquatics Programs and Services for the City of Palo Alto Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:50-7:50 PM 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 83 Homes Within the Los Arboles Tract by Amending the Zoning Map to Rezone the Area From R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1 (7,000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7,000)(S) Single Family Residential With Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15305 7:50-9:15 PM 7. Discussion and Direction Regarding the Midtown Connector Project (Formerly Known as the Matadero Creek Trail Project) 9:15-10:15 PM 8. Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto's Plastic Foam Ordinance (Ordinance 5039) 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 November 9, 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 Sp. City Council Meeting-Closed Session November 10, 2015 Policy and Services Committee Meeting November 10, 2015 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6303) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 11/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: United States Military Veterans Proclamation Title: United States Military Veterans Proclamation From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Attachments: Veterans Day (DOC) CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION UNITED STATES MILITARY VETERANS WHEREAS, veterans who fought to protect our democracy around the globe are strengthening it here at home and once leaders in the Armed Forces, they are now pioneers of industry, pillars of the community and valued members of our City whose character reflects our enduring American spirit; and WHEREAS, we recognize the sacrifice of those who have been part of the finest fighting force the world has ever known, including the families who stand beside them; and WHEREAS, we will never forget the heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice and all those who have not yet returned home, and we honor individuals working to ensure the promise of America is within the reach of all who have protected it; and WHEREAS, homelessness, unemployment and education among our veterans are critical concerns that impact the lives of the men and women who have proudly served our country; to address these issues, the City of Palo Alto, in collaboration with the Palo Alto Veteran’s Administration, provides ongoing leadership to combat homelessness and assist with unemployment among veterans; and WHEREAS, the City supports the transition of our military returning to civilian life by ensuring access to the resources and benefits they have earned; the City is committed to providing the tools they need to find a rewarding career and to share in the opportunity they helped defend; the City recognizes those who have served in our Armed Forces have the experience, skills and dedication needed to achieve success in the civilian workforce, and it is critical that we harness their talent; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the teamwork, sense of duty and reliability of employees who have served in the Armed Forces, especially those in Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department and Utilities Department; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the contributions our veterans and active duty service members have made to the cause of peace and freedom around the world, Congress has decreed that November 11 shall be a legal public holiday, a day that honors our nation's veterans. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Holman, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim appreciation to the veterans and active duty military service members in the United States for their outstanding contributions to the City of Palo Alto and extend sincere best wishes for continued success in the years to come. Presented: November 9, 2015 ______________________________ Karen Holman Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 6261) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 11/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: APWA Title: APWA Accreditation From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Summary Title: Presentation of Award of Accreditation by APWA Title: Presentation of the Award of Accreditation by the American Public Works Association (APWA) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works On May 11, staff reported to City Council on efforts being made by Public Works Department to obtain accreditation from the American Public Works Association (APWA). In the week of September 14, 2015, a four person evaluation team consisting of the Director of Accreditation for APWA and three Public Works officials from other accredited agencies visited the city to perform an on-site peer review of the department and the accreditation compliance documentation assembled in the process.At the conclusion of the review, staff was informed the team would be recommending the APWA Accreditation Council award Palo Alto’s Public Works Department full accreditation. On October 1, the accreditation council voted unanimously to grant full accreditation status to the city for a 4-year period. This was confirmed in a letter from APWA dated October 6, 2015 (Attachment A). Out of more than 15,000 agencies in North America, Palo Alto’s Public Works Department is the 103rd agency to earn this distinction and the 1st in Silicon City of Palo Alto Page 2 Valley. This is a significant achievement for which the staff worked very hard and is very proud. A representative from APWA will attend the November 9, 2015 Council meeting to recognize the city for the accomplishment and to present a formal award of accreditation to the city. Attachments: ·Attachment A -Letter of Accreditation (PDF) ·-- AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION October 6, 20 15 Mr. Michael arlor, Director Department of Public Works City of Palo Alto P.O. Box I 0250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Michael. It is with great pleasure that 1 infom1 your agency of the action or the APWA Accreditation Council on October I. 2015 to award 17ull Accreditation to your agenc) for the ensuing four-year period. The City or Palo Alto Publi c Works Department becomes the I 03r<1 agency to achieve Accreditation. You and Larry Perlin, as we ll as each member or your agency arc to be congratulated for expending the time, effort and resources to complete the Accreditation process. We trust you have found great benefits from work ing through the Management Practices and that each member of you r department will continue to feel a sense of pride al having compl eted a job wel l done. Enclosed you wi ll find your site visit results. Also enclosed is a CD with the A PWA Accreditation logo for) our use in promoting your Accreditation. Once again, congratulations on a job well done. Sincerely, ~"""' ~~\~ Ann Daniels Director of Accreditation Encl. Site Visit Results CD with APWA Accreditation logo CC: Larry Perlin, Accreditation Manager WWW I ) ' CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 9, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the August 31, September 9, 15, 21, and 28, 2015 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 08-31-15 DRAFT ACTION Minutes (DOC) Attachment B: 09-09-15 DRAFT ACTION Minutes (DOC) Attachment C: 09-15-15 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Attachment D: 09-21-15 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Attachment E: 09-28-15 DRAFT ACTION Minutes (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 12 Special Meeting August 31, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Scharff arrived at 7:02 P.M., Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Kniss Study Session 1. Presentation of Palo Alto City Library Strategic Plan, 2015-2017. 2. Study Session Updating the Current Status of the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Planning Process. Special Orders of the Day 3. Appointment of One Candidate to the Utilities Advisory Commission for One Unexpired Term Ending April 30, 2018. First Round of voting for one position on the Utilities Advisory Commission with a term ending April 30, 2018: Voting For James Baer: Burt, Filseth, Scharff Voting For Arne Ballantine: Voting For Louis “Lou” Borrego: Voting For Ramarao Digumarthi: Schmid Voting For Hilary Gans: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 Voting For Timothy Gray: Voting For Yidyabhusan “Bhusan” Gupta: Voting For Mark Harris: Berman, DuBois Voting For Natalia Kachenko: Voting For Walter Loewenstein: Voting For Marianne Wu: Holman, Wolbach Beth Minor, City Clerk announced on the First Round of voting no candidate received the required five votes. Second Round of voting for one position on the Utilities Advisory Commission with a term ending April 30, 2018: Voting For Arne Ballantine: Burt, Filseth, Scharff, Schmid Voting For Mark Harris: Berman, DuBois, Holman Voting For Marianne Wu: Wolbach Ms. Minor announced on the Second Round of voting no candidate received the required five votes. Third Round of voting for one position on the Utilities Advisory Commission with a term ending April 30, 2018: Voting For Arne Ballantine: Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Voting For Marianne Wu: Berman Ms. Minor announced that Arne Ballantine with seven votes was appointed to the Utilities Advisory Commission for one unexpired term ending April 30, 2018. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to move Agenda Item Number 15- Appointment of Five Additional Members… forward to be heard concurrently with Agenda Item Number 14- Comprehensive Plan Update: Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals/Vision Statements for Each Element… MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-12 with modifications to Agenda Item Number 11- Adoption of a Revised Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council Minutes)… as outlined in the At Place Memorandum, replacing “digitally” with “on the website.” 4. Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C14153012 With Metropolitan Planning Group for Support of Planning Review of Individual Review and Architectural Review Applications Due to Increased Workload and Unanticipated Staff Vacancies, Increasing the Contract by $350,000 for a Not to Exceed Amount of $500,000 Over a Three Year Period. 5. Review and Approval of Concept Plan Line Alignments for Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Park Boulevard and Wilkie Way. 6. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement With the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Administration to Extend the Term for One Year and Add $81,670 to Provide Community Shuttle Service on the Existing Embarcadero Shuttle Route from July 2015 Until June 2016. 7. Resolution 9544 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Incorporate a Side Letter With the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to Allow a Change in the Police Dispatcher Schedule from a 4/11 Schedule to a 4/12 Flex Schedule.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 8. Park Improvement Ordinance 5342 Entitled, “Park Improvement Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for the Pilot Batting Cages Project at Former PASCO Site at the Baylands Athletic Center (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent).” 9. Park Improvement Ordinance 5343 Entitled, “Park Improvement Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for Improvements at Monroe Park (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent).” 10. Park Improvement Ordinance 5344 Entitled, “Park Improvement Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto for the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent).” 11. Adoption of a Revised Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council Minutes) of Chapter 2.04 (Council Organization and Procedure) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Action Minutes and a Verbatim Transcript of all Council and Council Standing Committee Meetings, and Delete the Requirement for Sense Minutes. 12. Ordinance 5345 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Energy Code” modifying Ordinance 5326 (FIRST READING: August 17, 2015 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent). MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Action Items 13. Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation Regarding Possible Uses for the 7.7 Acre Area at Foothills Park. MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study before making any specific recommendations for possible future use of the newly dedicated parkland; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 B. Direct Staff to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission to finalize a recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre parcel after the hydrology study is complete; and C. Direct Staff to evaluate the impacts of the recommendation to Council on the Acterra Nursery lease, which includes a provision allowing for termination of the lease with a 90-day notification. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to add to the Motion: Alternative option: A. Install the necessary fencing and gates to ensure that the 7.7 acre site, including the Acterra Nursery, is safe and secure; and B. Install a simple loop trail and two park benches; and C. Open the site to the public. AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-6 Scharff, Schmid yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Direct Staff to return within three months after the completion of the hydrology study for options to make the parkland open to the public.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent 14. Comprehensive Plan Update: Comprehensive Plan Structure and Goals/Vision Statements for Each Element (Part I: Community Services & Facilities and Transportation Elements). 15. Appointment of Five Additional Members to the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to vote for five members for appointment to the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and then vote for one additional member for future appointment. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to vote for six appointments, with five appointed, followed by the future appointment of one additional member. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent First Round of voting for six positions on the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee: Voting For Stacey Ashlund: Filseth Voting For Joyce Beattie: Voting For Sharlene Carlson: Voting For Tony Carrasco: Voting For Christy Dennison: Voting For Drew Dennison: Scharff Voting For Len Filppu: Burt, DuBois, Holman, Schmid Voting For Marc Fleischmann: Voting For James “Jim” Fox: Voting For Annette Glanckopf: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Holman, Scharff Schmid Voting For Timothy Gray: Voting For Vered Hermannoff-Kranz: Voting For Jennifer Hetterly: Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Schmid Voting For Terry Holzemer: DuBois Voting For John Hoston: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 Voting For Jane Huang: Voting For Kathy Johnson: Voting For Edie Keating: Wolbach Voting For Shani Kleinaus: Burt, Filseth, Holman, Schmid, Wolbach Voting For Michelle Kraus: Scharff Voting For Elizabeth Lasky: Voting For Helen Li: Berman, Filseth, Wolbach Voting For Michael Lipman: Voting For Victoria Liu: Wolbach Voting For Drew Maran: Voting For Karen Marincovich: Voting For Stephanie Martinson: Berman, Scharff Voting For Jeffrey Miller: Voting For Julia Moran: Berman, Scharff, Wolbach Voting For William Morrison: Voting For Bob Moss: DuBois, Scharff, Schmid Voting For Mark Nadim: Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Schmid Voting For Amanda Ross: Berman Voting For Jackie Schoelerman: Voting For Iqbal Serang: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 Voting For Kaloma Smith: Voting For Kevin Stern: Berman, Wolbach Voting For Peter Taskovich: Burt, Filseth, Holman Voting For Emil Thomas: Voting For Victoria Velkoff: Voting For Judith Wasserman: Voting For Elizabeth Wong: Voting For Kerry Yarkin: Voting For Dan R. Zalles: Voting For Jon Zweig: Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Annette Glanckopf with six votes, Jennifer Hetterly with five votes, Shani Kleinaus with five votes, and Mark Nadim with five votes were appointed to the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Second Round of voting for two positions on the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee: Voting For Len Filppu: Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Schmid Voting For Julia Moran: Berman, Burt, Holman, Scharff, Wolbach Voting For Bob Moss: Scharff, Schmid Voting For Kevin Stern: Berman, Wolbach Voting For Peter Taskovich: DuBois, Filseth Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Len Filppu with five votes and four votes in the First Round, for a total of nine cumulative votes was appointed DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 to the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Julia Moran with five votes and three votes in the First Round, for a total of eight cumulative votes will be scheduled for appointment to the CAC at a future Council Meeting. MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Appoint Annette Glanckopf, Jennifer Hetterly, Shani Kleinaus, Mark Nadim, and Len Filppu to the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) based on the established criteria and applications received by the close of business on August 25, 2015; and B. Affirm that the resulting CAC is well equipped to fulfill its role, with 21 voting members and 3 non-voting members appointed to review all relevant materials, accept and analyze community input, and provide recommendations on desired updates to the Plan’s policies and programs, recognizing the City Council will provide direction on the Plan structure, Vision Statements, and Goals, and will be the ultimate decision makers on the Plan that is adopted; and C. Direct Staff to return with a Consent Calendar Item appointing Julia Moran to the CAC, which will fill out the 22 voting-member CAC. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to organize the Comprehensive Plan Update with the Elements recommended by Staff with the addition of Governance. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “and include noise under Urban Environment.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to direct Staff to develop with Council, new Goals in the Comprehensive Plan introduction that will introduce a priority framework and high-level quantitative framework that will be used to discuss impacts during the life of the Comprehensive Plan. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 10 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion, “Introduction” with “Implementation Section.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion, “discuss” with “guide.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “and direct Staff to return to Council with an agenized item within three to six months to discuss these Elements.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion, “guide” with “guide decisions concerning.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Berman no, Kniss absent MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member XX to incorporate the Planning and Transportation Commissions (PTC) Transportation Element Vision Statement including a focus on reducing congestion. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to adopt as the Transportation Element Vision Statement: A. Build and maintain a sustainable network of safe, accessible and efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes, while protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods. Programs will include alternative and innovative transportation processes; and B. The adverse impacts of automobile traffic on the environment in general and residential streets in particular, will be reduced; and C. Streets will be safe and attractive, and designed to enhance the quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 11 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 D. Palo Alto recognizes the regional nature of our transportation system, and will be a leader in seeking regional transportation solutions through long-term planning. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Section D, “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” after “transportation solutions.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Section B, “traffic flow will be enhanced and traffic congestion will be reduced where possible.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to adopt Proposed Planning and Transportation Commission Organization for the Transportation Element Goals with the following modifications: A. Add Goal T-9: Decrease congestion and improve transportation efficiency with a priority on our worst intersections, our business centers, and our peak commute times including school traffic; and B. Change Goal T-3 to “Neighborhood Impacts.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Incorporate existing Council policy on single occupancy vehicle reduction.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add to Goal T-6, ‘Mobility for seniors and people with special needs.’” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to add to Goal T-4, ‘Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient, and innovative parking solutions.’” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to add to Goal T-7, 'and technologies’ after ‘transportation policies.’” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 12 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/31/15 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to direct Staff to add additional language to Goal T-8.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to add to Goal T-1, ‘a mix of uses’ after ‘public transportation.’” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to continue the Community Services Element Goals and Vision Statement to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent 15. Appointment of Five Additional Members to the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Burt reported his attendance at Project Anybody event at Mitchell Park led by teenagers supporting various environmental initiatives. He also reported the California High-Speed Rail Authority authorized a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Modesto to San Francisco section of the planned High-Speed Rail System. Council Member Berman raised some concerns over the length of recent City Council meetings. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:16 A.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 2 Special Meeting September 9, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Schmid, Wolbach arrived at 6:20 P.M. Absent: Scharff 1. Pension Liability Issues: Status and Options for the Future. Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Council went into Closed Session at 7:35 P.M. 2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Suzanne Mason, Kathy Shen, Dania Torres Wong, Alison Hauk, Molly Stump) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA): Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA); International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319; Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521; Management, Professional and Confidential Employees; Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a). DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/9/15 3. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Buena Vista MHP Residents Association v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 115-CV-284763 Subject Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). Council Member Kniss left the meeting at 10:05 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 10:13 P.M. Mayor Holman announced no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 6 Special Meeting September 15, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:31 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss arrived at 5:37 P.M., Scharff, Schmid arrived at 5:34 P.M., Wolbach Absent: Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Schmid absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:32 P.M. 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-Existing Litigation Joanne Jacobs v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 1-15-CV-275467 Subject Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). Council returned from Closed Session at 6:03 P.M. Mayor Holman advised that the Council voted unanimously to authorize a settlement in the matter of Joanne Jacobs v. City of Palo Alto, Case No. 1- 15-CV-275467, pending in Santa Clara Superior Court. The matter settled for $40,000. Special Orders of the Day 2. Presentation of Proclamation to Midpen Media Center Honoring the Center's 25th Anniversary. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 9/15/15 3. Selection of Applicants to Interview on September 29, 2015 for the Architectural Review Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Planning and Transportation Commission. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to reopen the recruitment for the Parks and Recreation Commission for one month. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to interview all candidates for the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 16. Update to Council on Business Registry and Council Discussion and Direction Regarding Phase 2. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to direct Staff to begin Phase 2 of the Business Registry with the following modifications: A. Staff to define an enforcement Ordinance with proposed mechanisms for citation and overdue bill collection. Send proposal to Policy and Services Committee along with potential updates that address very small businesses, very small non-profits and religious organizations with no ancillary business on site, and changes to the Registration Survey. Policy and Services Committee should meet in a timely manner in order to ensure suggested changes will be ready by renewal date in Year Two; and B. Continue to enhance reporting capabilities, improve user functionality, data quality, and user experience and return to Council with any contract amendments, and/or resource requests as appropriate; and C. Explore integration with other permits and return to Policy and Services Committee with a plan for implementation to execute as Phase 3 of the Business Registry Certificate (BRC). DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 9/15/15 AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to add to the Motion, “Use the National Establishment Time Series Database as a point of comparison for number of employees.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment “not as a control point” after “point of comparison.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-2 Kniss, Scharff no AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to replace in Motion Part A, “Send proposal to Policy and Services Committee along with potential updates that address very small businesses, very small non-profits and religious organizations with no ancillary business on site, and changes to the Registration Survey” with “exempt very small businesses, very small non-profits and religious organizations with no ancillary business on site.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Burt, DuBois, Kniss, Schmid no INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Policy and Services Committee to review the possibility of including short term rental businesses in the Business Registry Certificate.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion in Part A, “discuss changes to the Registration Survey” after “Policy and Services Committee should.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Council took a break from 8:09 P.M. to 8:15 P.M. Study Session 4. Finance Committee Recommends the City Council Review the Assessment Results of the Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERP) Needs; Review Recommendation to Plan for the Acquisition of a New Integrated Government-oriented ERP System and Separate Provisioning of Utilities Billing Systems (Continued to a date uncertain). DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 9/15/15 Agenda Item Number 4- Finance Committee Recommends the City Council Review the Assessment Results… was removed from the Agenda at the request of Staff. 5. Prescreening of a Proposal to Re-zone the Former VTA Park and Ride Lot at 2755 El Camino Real From Public Facility (PF) to Community Commercial (CC(2)) With a Concurrent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment From Major Institution/Special Facilities to Regional Community Commercial, Allowing Development of a Four Story Mixed-use Building With Below Grade Parking. 6. Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Presentation and Council Discussion Regarding Potential 2016 Santa Clara County Transportation Funding Measure. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 7-15. 7. Approval of Amendment Number 4 to Contract C08125506 With the Planning Center ¦ DCE, Now Known as Placeworks, to Increase the Contract by $482,612 to an Amount Not to Exceed $2,377,343 and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 5346. 8. Approval of a Five-Year Contract Number C16159540 With Palo Alto Community Child Care, Inc. (PACCC) for Management of the City's Child Care Subsidy Program in the Amount of $459,841 Per Fiscal Year. 9. Approval of a Five-Year Contract Number C16159539 With Avenidas, Inc. for Provision of Comprehensive Services to Older Adults in the Amount of $453,897 Per Fiscal Year. 10. Approval of an Agreement for Professional Services With EES Consulting, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000 for the Performance of Electric Utility Financial Planning and Rate Consulting DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 9/15/15 Services on an On-Call Task Order Basis for Fiscal Year 2016 through Fiscal Year 2020. 11. Approval of $43,125 for Expenses Associated With the Creative Ecology Project at the Palo Alto Art Center and Junior Museum & Zoo for Fiscal Year 2016 and Adoption of the Associated Budget Amendment Ordinance 5347. 12. Finance Committee Recommendation That the City Council Approve Design Guidelines for the 2015 Electric Cost of Service Analysis. 13. Authorize the Mayor to Sign, on Behalf of the City, Letters to the "Compact of Mayors" (Global) and the "Mayor’s National Climate Action Agenda" (Domestic), Committing to Climate-Related Actions the City has Already Undertaken or Set in Motion, and Calling on the President of the United States to Pursue the Strongest Possible Climate Agreement at the Upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris, France. 14. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Initiate Neighborhood Engagement Activities by Conducting Town Hall Meetings, Adopting Changes to the Know Your Neighbors Grant Program, Referring the Co-Sponsorship Agreement and Discussion of Additional Initiatives to Policy and Services Committee, and Transferring $35,000 from City Council Contingency to the City Manager's Office. 15. Appointment of Julia Moran to the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan Update. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 17. League of California Cities Annual Conference Adoption of Resolutions. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote on the four Resolutions aligned with the recommendations presented in the Staff Report to be considered at the Annual League of California Cities (LOCC) conference to be held in San Jose, CA from September 30 to October 2, 2015. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 9/15/15 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Berman attended the Palo Alto Kid’s Carnival on Saturday afternoon. Pastor Kaloma Smith of the University AME Zion Church organized the event to help individuals and children connect from various types of diversity such as ethnicity and religion. He supports a resolution addressing human trafficking. Mayor Holman advised that Council Member Kniss is coordinating a Colleagues Memo addressing this topic. Council Member Scharff is attending an Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meeting Thursday night and requested feedback from colleagues prior to the meeting. Council Member Burt reported concerns regarding the health of trees during the drought and water conservation efforts. He requested that the Utilities Department include an informational flyer in utility billing communications. Mayor Holman reiterated support for communication to utility customers and added the guidance on proper lawn options should be included as well. Council Member Kniss commented on her concerns with the use of artificial turf related to the heat generated by artificial turf. Council Member Burt requested that the City Manager reconsider use of artificial turf at El Camino Park. Council Member Kniss voiced support for Council Member Burt’s comments. Mayor Holman suggested the City Manager also look at options for replacing artificial turf at the Mayfield Soccer Field. Council Member Filseth voiced support for Mayor Holman’s comments. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 6 Regular Meeting September 21, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Study Session 1. Potential Topics of Discussion With Supervisor Joe Simitian. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Consent Calendar MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-4 with changes to Agenda Item Number 3- Adoption of Resolutions and Agreement With State of California… as outlined in the At Places Memorandum. 2. Resolution 9545 Entitled, “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.” 3. Resolutions 9546 and 9547 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/21/15 4. Approval of Contract No. C16159137 With QLM, Inc. in the Amount of $243,356 for Monroe Park Improvements (Capital Improvement Project PG-11002). MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 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. Public Hearing opened at 7:56 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:04 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to adopt the California Avenue Retail Preservation Ordinance incorporating the following to: A. Amend the City’s Zoning Code and Zoning Map to extend the Retail (R) Combining District beyond California Avenue; and B. 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; and C. Replace in Ordinance Section 2 (57.6), “along with ten (10) or more businesses” with “such that ten (10) is the defining number for determining formula businesses”; and D. Include Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD); and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/21/15 E. Include Public Facilities District (PF); and F. Eliminate language in Ordinance Section 6, paragraph 3, sentence 2, “except through the granting of a design enhancement exception”; and G. Direct Staff to return with information on depth of retail requirements. AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to add to the Motion “Direct Staff to draft Ordinance language granting existing formula retail uses legal conforming status.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Schmid no INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “there will be a review of this Ordinance in two years.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion at the end of Part G, “for consideration in a future Ordinance.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “including Staff initiated changes to clarify intention consistent with regards to Palo Alto Central.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “including language clarifications pertaining to Substantial Remodel.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Council took a break from 9:53 P.M. to 9:59 P.M. 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. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/21/15 Council Member DuBois advised he would not be participating in this Agenda Item as it pertains to the outer boundary due to his wife’s employment at Stanford University. He left the meeting at 10:05 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt boundaries as identified in the Staff Report and direct Staff to return within six months with a report on Stanford’s progress on reducing single occupancy vehicle trips generated by Stanford Research Park. Public Hearing opened at 10:17 P.M. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to direct Staff to return within six months with a report with potential action on development of office outside of the boundaries.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to replace in the Motion, “on development of office outside of the boundaries” with “on including Stanford Research Park.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-2 Filseth, Wolbach no, DuBois not participating AMENDMENT: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to add to the Motion, “to direct Staff to return within one year with a report with potential action on Office/R&D development applications outside of the boundaries.” AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to add to the Motion, “to direct Staff to return within one year with an informational report on Office/R&D development applications outside of the boundaries.” AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-2 Holman, Kniss no, DuBois not participating MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating Council Member DuBois returned at 10:47 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 11:09 P.M. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/21/15 MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to not exempt Coordinated Area Plans from the Office/R&D Development Annual Limit. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add at the end of the Motion, “but at the end the completion of a Coordinated Area Plan process it would come to Council for a determination on how the Office/R&D Development Annual Limit would apply.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-3 Holman, Kniss, Schmid no MOTION: Council Member Dubois moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to adopt the Office/R&D Annual Limit Ordinance with the following changes: A. Delete Municipal Code Section 18.85.203(c) – Self Mitigating Buildings; and B. Delete Municipal Code Section 18.85.207(e) – The monetary and/or non-monetary value of public benefits offered; and C. Direct Staff to return with administrative scoring procedure to Council to be used to rank projects. Give projects in the pipeline after March 31, 2015 but deemed completed as of June 15, 2015 more weight in the process; and D. Program to return Council in two years, before it would cease to be in effect, to be either affirmatively continued or modified/replaced. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part B, “Delete Municipal Code Section 18.85.207(e) – The monetary and/or non-monetary value of public benefits offered” with “Change Municipal Code Section 18.85.207(e) – The value to the community of public benefits offered.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Municipal Code Section 18.85.207 – Selection Criteria to be weighted as Sections a-b (Impacts), Section c (Design), Section d (Environmental Quality), Section e (Public Benefits), Sections f-h (Uses), and Section i (Pipeline).” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/21/15 AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to replace in the Motion Part A with, “(1) would provide rental housing for more workers than would be employed in the project; 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.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-2 DuBois, Filseth no SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to direct Staff to adopt a first come, first serve process for selecting projects. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-7 Kniss, Wolbach yes AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to replace in the Motion Part C, “more weight in the process” with “they would be first in line to be chosen under the Office/R&D Development Annual Limit.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Amendment, “first in line to be chosen under the Office/R&D Development Annual Limit” with “selected first and weighted amongst each other.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-4 Burt, DuBois, Holman, Schmid no MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Kniss announced her appreciation of Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes. She and Council Member DuBois are drafting a Colleagues Memo addressing the preparation of City Council Minutes. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:31 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting September 28, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:36 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt arrived at 5:49 P.M., DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Presentation of Cyber Security Proclamation for Participating in the National Cyber Security Awareness Campaign, in October 2015, Which is Designated by the President of the United States as National Cyber Security Awareness Month to Guide the Nation to a Higher Level of Internet Safety and Security. 2. Proclamation Celebrating the 80th Anniversary of the Palo Alto Airport. 3. Proclamation of Appreciation for Ralph Britton. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to hear Agenda Item Numbers 8- Discussion of Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan… and 9- Approval of the Preferred Concept Plan Line… before Agenda Item Number 7- Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That Council Adopt… which is now Agenda Item Number 9a. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/28/15 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-6. 4. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 16.63 to the Municipal Code Relating to Expedited Permitting Procedures for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems. 5. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number S12145610 With Wells Fargo Insurance Services for Benefit Consulting and Broker Services, Increasing the Contract by $68,500 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $304,000 Through June 30, 2016 With an Option to Renew for One Additional Year to June 30, 2017. 6. Vote to Endorse the Slate of Candidates for the Division’s Executive Committee for 2015-16 and Direct the City Clerk to Forward to Jessica Stanfill Mullin, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities the Completed Ballot for the City of Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 7. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That Council Adopt: 1) Resolution to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Recycled Water Distribution Project; 2) Resolution Approving the Recycled Water Distribution Project; and 3) Direct Staff to Proceed With Filing Funding Applications for the Project Consistent With the Project Description. 8. Discussion of Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Direction to Staff on Next Steps for Fiber and City Wireless Services. Council took a break from 6:10 P.M. to 6:19 P.M. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/28/15 MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to: A. Adopt a goal of creating a ubiquitous fiber network in Palo Alto with City ownership of Fiber assets; and B. Reject the consultant’s report “as is” and request: i. In the Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) Master Plan, detailed assumptions, and their impacts, used to forecast the FTTP capital additions are to be reviewed by, and agreed to, by a majority of active citizen advisors; once this is accomplished, a revised forecast is to be provided; and ii. In the Wireless Network Report: a. A 20-year forecast should be provided consistent with the FTTP report; and b. The description of Scenario 1 lacked both a price forecast and fiber backhaul details for the proposed municipal properties to be served; these details should be included in an update prior to a Request for Proposals (RFP). (Scenario 1); and C. Issue an RFP for Public Safety and Utilities Departments (Scenarios 3 and 4); and D. Wireless plans will not use Fiber funds; and E. Direct Staff to bring a dig-once Ordinance as soon as possible; and F. Direct Staff to discuss co-build with AT&T, Google, and Comcast how the City can lay its own conduit to the premise during their buildouts; and G. Move forward with Request for Information (RFI) exploring both Muni- owned model with contractors for build and ongoing operations, and public-private model with City owning fiber and private partner (such as Sonic) operating and owning electronics, considering both Google in the market and without Google in the market. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/28/15 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “reaching nearly all residents” after “Palo Alto.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion at the end of Part D, “at this time.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part B, Subsection (ii)(b), “expanding wireless to retail areas in North and South Palo Alto.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion at the end of Part A, “and that goal will be revisited in the first quarter of 2016.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion at the end of Part B, Subsection (i), “to the Council as an Action Item.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part B, Subsection (i), “and agreed to, by a majority of active citizen advisors” with “Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC); if there is a disagreement between the consultant’s report and the CAC’s recommendation, the Staff Report to Council will highlight the discrepancy.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part B, “Reject the consultant’s report “as is” and request” with “Request an update to the consultant’s report including:” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part A, “goal” with “preferred alternative.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion Part F, “Comcast.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/28/15 AMENDMENT: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to remove from the Motion Part G, “Move forward with Request for Information (RFI) exploring both Muni-owned model with contractors for build and ongoing operations, and Public—private model with City owned fiber and private partner (such as Sonic) operating and owning electronics, considering both Google in the market and without Google in the market.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 Berman, Holman, Kniss, Scharff yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion Part B, Subsection (i) “by the majority of.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion Part E, “as soon as possible.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part C, “to add dedicated wireless communications to increase communication” after “Issue RFP.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion at the end of Part D, “but will be revisited when Council reviews Fiber Goals in the first quarter of 2016.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion at the end of Part B, Subsection (ii)(b), “with an option for expanding Wi-Fi coverage at City facilities and public areas as part of the Request for Proposals (RFP).” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “as a public benefit” after “Fiber assets.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/28/15 9. Approval of the Preferred Concept Plan Line for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Project. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve the proposed Concept Plan Line for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor, leading to final design and implementation of landscaped medians, bulb-outs, and other pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with the existing striping, which was approved for permanent retention in 2008 and 2012. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to test lane merges with striping and look for way to implement low cost changes if necessary in the future. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION PASSED: 9-0 9a. (Former Agenda Item Number 7) Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That Council Adopt: 1) Resolution 9548 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Recycled Water Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”; 2) Resolution 9549 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Accepting a Modification to the City’s Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Wastewater Quality Control Plan which includes the Recycled Water Project and Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to Initiate Preliminary Design and Prepare a Funding Plan for the Project”; and 3) Direct Staff to Proceed With Filing Funding Applications for the Project Consistent With the Project Description. Council Member DuBois advised he would not be participating in this Agenda Item due to his wife’s employment at Stanford University. He left the meeting at 10:43 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Adopt a Resolution that certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Recycled Water Distribution Project; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/28/15 B. Adopt a Resolution accepting a Modification to the City’s Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Wastewater Quality Control Plant which includes the Recycled Water Project with the following modifications: i. Section 1, end of the second sentence add, “Subject to further Council action to consider and approve funding applications, financing, design and construction”; and ii. Section 1, third sentence after “to proceed with” add, “evaluation of funding opportunities and return to Council for further consideration regarding”; and iii. Section 2, remove “to initiate preliminary design and.” C. Direct Staff to develop funding options for the Project and for other water recycling options and return to Council with specific recommendations on funding applications prior to being submitted. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part B, Subsection (iii), ‘Section 2 of the Motion, “initiate preliminary design and”’ with “remove Section 2.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add Part D to the Motion, “Council reaffirms its commitment of setting a maximum threshold of 600 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove Part D of the Motion, “Council reaffirms its commitment of setting a maximum threshold of 600 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)” and add to Part A of the Motion, “and in doing so the Council reaffirms its commitment of setting a maximum threshold of 600 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)” after “Recycled Water Distribution Project.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/28/15 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Wolbach reported his participation in a ride-along with the Fire Department. He was impressed at the level of service and professionalism he observed. He encouraged Council Members to participate in a ride-along either for a full 12-hour shift or a portion of a shift. Council Member Kniss continues to be concerned about artificial turf. She has not heard from Staff whether there is an opportunity to use natural grass at El Camino Park. She reminded Council Members of the League of California Cities Conference this week. Vice Mayor Schmid attended Palo Alto Airport Day. The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) tabled at the event with information on noise complaints received by SFO. These complaints cluster around Palo Alto. Mayor Holman requested additional information regarding the need to water trees, including City owned trees during the drought. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6152) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Community Theatre Partnership Agreements Title: Approval of the Renewal of a Public-Private Partnership Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera for the use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre. From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the renewal of the public-private partnership agreements between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players, and West Bay Opera for cooperative use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre (Attachments B, C, D) for the period July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016. Background The Lucie Stern Community Theatre is used by three local companies: TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players, and West Bay Opera, which produce approximately 15 productions annually. These partnerships provide the companies with an artistic home, an essential component of their ongoing existence, offering stability through the up and downs of the economy, especially during times when cutbacks in government, foundation and corporate funding for the arts are the national norm. In return, the companies collectively provide culturally enriching theatrical experiences for more than 45,000 audience members annually. TheatreWorks was founded by San Francisco Bay Area native Robert Kelley in 1970 as a theatre arts workshop for teenage and college students. Chartered by the City to produce work that would reflect the concerns of the community during an unsettled period in American life, the company produced thirteen wholly original works for the stage in its first three years. Although company actors initially performed in a variety of venues, a tradition was established of staging several shows each season at the Lucie Stern Theatre. When the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts opened in 1991, the company began producing five main stage productions there each season, along with three productions each season at the Lucie Stern Theatre in Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Palo Alto Players became the Peninsula’s first theatre company in 1931 when a group of 100 like-minded citizens gathered together to create a theatre dedicated to its community. Initially, productions were held at a makeshift performance space in the Palo Alto Community House adjacent to the train station (now MacArthur Park Restaurant). Soon after, Lucie Stern invited the Players to be the resident theatre company at the Community Theatre. In 1974, the Community Players dissolved their ties with the Parks and Recreation Department, becoming an independent company. Since that time, the City of Palo Alto has continued to support the Palo Alto Players with performance, rehearsal and shop space. West Bay Opera was founded by Henry Holt in 1955. Originally called the Little Opera Guild, the company began presenting fully staged operatic performances. Under the leadership of Mr. Holt, who was succeeded by his wife, Maria Holt, and then by the present director, Jose Luis Moscovich, West Bay Opera has grown steadily. In 1974, the West Bay Orchestra was established. In 1982, the company acquired space for rehearsals, offices, a costume shop and storage on Lambert Avenue in Palo Alto. Annually, West Bay Opera (WBO) presents three fully staged productions at the Lucie Stern Theatre. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion Theatre Works, Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera’s usage of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre is covered by a public-private partnership agreement. Given the long history of the partnership and the cultural benefits of providing the Palo Alto community with a diverse range of artistic events, staff recommends that the City Council approve the modification of the existing public-private partnership. The partnership agreements for FY16 have been revised to align with standard City template and to create a uniform agreement for the three companies. The key terms of this agreement are discussed below: Term: This agreement is effective July 1, 2015 and terminates on June 30, 2016. Similar agreement extensions are intended for subsequent years. Revenue: In accordance with the Municipal Fee Schedule and in exchange for providing pro- bono facility usage, the companies shall remit to the City a surcharge in the amount of $2.00 for each ticket sold. This fee is effectively passed down to patrons and is applied to all subscription, group, individual, promotional, and other tickets sold. Complimentary tickets are excluded, and the sum of the surcharge revenue for each production is due to the City within 30 calendar days after the closing of the production. In fiscal year 2015, the City received $51,018 from TheatreWorks (25,509 tickets sold), $25,060 from Palo Alto Players (12,785 tickets sold), and $7,664 from West Bay Opera (3,832 tickets sold) from this ticket surcharge. Among other functions, the proposed agreement acts as a revenue contract which governs the application, collection, and accounting of associated revenue. Responsibilities of City: The contract outlines the responsibilities of the City, using the standard terms of public-private and “joint-venture” partnerships (Attachment A, Policy 1-25: Public Private Partnerships), including specifying notice requirements for contract termination, and affirming non-discrimination, insurance, and property guidelines. The City is also responsible for allowing and providing access to the Lucie Stern Community Theatre during designated hours, providing basic maintenance of capital equipment, monitoring production safety, and providing information regarding other scheduled facility uses (such as City-sponsored events or private rentals). Responsibilities of Company: Additionally, the agreement stipulates the responsibilities of the theatre company, including their duty to abide by City and department policies and procedures (specifically including and as related to, without limitation, conduct in community centers, injury and illness prevention, sale of alcoholic beverages, operations, building emergency procedures, zero waste, and facility use). Other responsibilities include timely remittance of fees and surcharges, requirements for sufficient building supervision/staffing, recordkeeping of ticket sales and surcharge remittance for compliance with audits, and adherence to standard practices for facility security. City of Palo Alto Page 4 RESOURCE IMPACT No additional City resources are required and it is anticipated that this partnership will lead to enhanced program over the life of the agreement. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This partnership would be categorized as a public/private partnership under the City’s Public- Private Partnership Policy (Policy 1-25: Public/Private Partnerships). Attachments: Attachment A - Public Private Partnership Policy (PDF) West Bay Opera - Community Theater Agreement (PDF) Palo Alto Players - Community Theater Agreement (PDF) TheatreWorks - Community Theater Agreement (PDF) POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-25/MGR REVISED: AUGUST 2007 1 PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS POLICY STATEMENT The City of Palo Alto encourages the formation of public/private partnerships for the benefits the community receives. For the purposes of this policy, “public/private” also encompasses “public/nonprofit” partnerships. Definitions Public/private partnership:A public/private partnership is an agreement between the City and a nonprofit or private organization to provide services or to assist in funding of public facilities and programs. Such partnerships may take various forms, including: Acceptance of or solicitation of service or facility proposals Facilitation of such proposals through the City's regulatory process Waiver of City General Fund fees to help reduce project costs. Contributions of City matching funds for construction of facilities to be owned and controlled or operated by the City. Provision of facilities to the private partner at no charge or at a subsidized rent. Public/private partnerships typically fall into one of three categories: co-sponsorship, alliances or joint ventures. Co-Sponsorships:This is the most common type of public/private partnership. An organization furthers the mission of the City by supporting a City activity or program in conjunction with pursuit of that organization’s own mission or program. Co-sponsorships can take the form of one-time events or annual agreements. Some examples of co-sponsorships include the Palo Alto Tennis Club use of City courts to provide a youth tennis program and American Youth Soccer Organization’s use of space in a City facility to train referees. Co- sponsorships are entered into by staff and normally have no or minimal financial impact. Alliances:This type of public/private partnership involves organizations that have been created for the sole purpose of supporting a City program or an array of City programs. The organization does not expect to receive any direct financial benefit or to alter City policy and/or operations, but undertakes to work closely and cooperatively with staff to implement City goals. Alliance organizations include the Recreation Foundation, the Art Center Foundation (Project Look or Cultural Kaleidoscope), the Friends of the Children’s Theatre (the Magic Castle), the Library Foundation and the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (financial assistance with the renovation and expansion of the Children’s Library). Alliances are approved by the Council if there are any staffing or budgetary implications to the partnership. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-25/MGR REVISED: AUGUST 2007 2 Joint Ventures: This type of partnership involves organizations which have programs or missions independent of the City and involve the City entering into a contractual relationship with the public or nonprofit organization with both parties contributing to the partnership for their mutual benefit. Each joint venture is uniquely negotiated by the staff and approved by the City Council. Examples of Joint Ventures include TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera’s use of the Community Theatre and use of the former police station by older adult service provider, Avenidas. PROCEDURES Initiation of partnerships:Public/private partnerships may be initiated in one of three ways: By staff: Staff identifies an opportunity for such a partnership and undertakes an informal or formal request for proposal process to identify partners. By Council: The City Council directs staff to work with a private or nonprofit organization to develop such a partnership. By a private or nonprofit organization:An organization makes a partnership proposal to the staff or City. City Manager Review:If the partnership proposal involves more than one City department, the City Manager’s Office will appoint a team with representatives of all City departments who are stakeholders in the partnership proposal. The team will analyze the proposal and inform the City Manager of the resource implications of the proposal, including staffing and monetary commitments. This would include proposed fee waivers. If the proposal will require a re-ordering of department priorities that have already been approved by the Council in setting its annual priorities or in the budget process, Council approval will be required prior to commitment to the partnership. Council approval will also be required if the partnership requires a new or adjusted allocation of operating or capital funding. Note: Co-sponsorships usually only involve a single department and do not necessitate the formation of an interdepartmental committee, the involvement of the City Manager’s Office or the approval of the City Council. City-Initiated Partnerships:Such partnerships will be guided by existing policies and procedures governing purchasing and outsourcing, using “requests for proposals” and/or bid processes as the method of initiating a partnership. A City-initiated partnership may incorporate incentives including naming rights, waiver of non-enterprise fund building and planning fees, reduced lease rates, free use of space, subsidies, and staff resources. All incentives may be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-25/MGR REVISED: AUGUST 2007 3 Evaluation of Viability of Partnering Organization:Staff will provide the City Manager and/or City Council with its assessment of the viability of the proposed partnership, based on the partnering organization’s possession of sound organizational, administrative and fiscal management, and its demonstrated experience to achieve and sustain project tasks, such as fundraising and building community support. For proposed facility improvement or expansion initiatives, the nonprofit or private organization should have the ability and commitment to make a substantial pledge to the project’s cost. Facilities Proposals: If a City facility is to be renovated, expanded or otherwise be directly affected by the partnership, the Infrastructure Management Plan will have to be adjusted appropriately. Long-term staffing, operational and maintenance costs must be identified in the proposal.The project’s applicable costs and funding sources for furnishings, fixtures and equipment will be identified. The parties will negotiate the joint or separate financial responsibility for any project cost overruns on a project-by-project basis. Staff may recommend that any standard City processing or use fee authorized under the Municipal Fee Schedule, excluding fees and charges levied by City of Palo Alto Utilities or other City enterprise fund programs, should be waived as a condition of the City's participation. Waiver of fees may be granted by the Council and limited to those fees associated with a construction or capital improvement project which, upon its completion, results in a new or improved public facility, building or park, or some portion thereof, that will be solely owned or controlled by the City. In the event that only a portion of a construction or capital improvement project will result in a new or improved City facility, building or park, or portion thereof, then the Council may waive only that portion of any associated fee directly relating to the construction, improvement or enhancement of the City facility, building or park.As appropriate, the summary and recommendation in the report to the Council will include a staff recommendation on waiving fees which the Council can approve or reject. The City will determine whether the nonprofit or private organization shall use or may forego a formal or informal competitive selection process in the hiring of professionals who will perform the management, design and/or construction phases of the project. The City shall review and approve the requirements for and the performance of all phases of design, planning and construction work for the project. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6296) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: From Finance: Aquatics RFP Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve the Release of a Request for Proposal to Explore Options for the Delivery of the Aquatics Programs and Services for the City of Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation The Finance Committee recommends that Council approve the Community Services Department recommendation to release a Request for Proposal to explore options for the delivery of the Aquatics Programs and Services for the City of Palo Alto. Background In the summer 2015, the City of Palo Alto’s Aquatics program was severley understaffed and was in jeapordy of cancelling approximately 40% of the summer swim lessons. The Community Services Department enterered into an emergency contract with Team Sheeper, LLC to provide qualified, professional swim instructors and lifeguards at the JLS Middle School pool. The fall 2015 Aquatics program is underway and the program continues to experience staffing shortages and staff predict to have continuing staffing shortages in the winter 2015 season. The Community Services Department requests to explore alternative approaches to providing Aquatics services and programs to the community by releasing an Request For Proposal (RFP). This matter was discussed at the October 20, 2015 Finance Committee meeting. Discussion At the October 20, 2015 Finance Committee, staff presented the rationale for releasing an RFP to explore alternatives for the delivery of Aquatics Services. The Finance Committee unanimously approved the recommendation and the recommendation is now before Council for approval. For more details on the rationale to release an RFP for Aquatics services please see Attachment A - Finance Committee Report October 20, 2015. Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 2 October 20, 2015 – Finance Committee presentation and discussion of the RFP November, 2015 –RFP released March, 2016 – Potential Council action on the scope of aquatics services to be contracted out Resource Impact The City cost recovery for aquatics programs and services, as described in recent Cost of Services Study, is below: Total Direct Expenses Total Indirect Expenses Total Full Costs Total Fee Revenue Total General Fund Subsidy Direct Cost % Recovery Full Cost % Recovery $623,895 $259,043 $882,938 $507,150 $375,788 81% 57% The intent of the RFP is to provide an enhanced level of service at or below current cost. Should alternative proposals require additional funding, staff will evaluate fees for that service to ensure cost recovery goals are met while being competitive in the marketplace. Policy Implications This proposal is aligned with Comprehensive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of Community Services Attachments: Finance Committee Staff Report (PDF) Recommendation Staff recommends that Council direct the Community Services Department to release a Request for Proposal to explore options for the delivery of aquatic programs and services for the City of Palo Alto. Background During the summer season which runs from mid-June through mid-August, the City of Palo Alto Aquatics program offers a variety of activities for the community including family recreation swim, adult lap swim, youth swim lessons for ages birth to 13 years, facility rentals for private pool parties, a youth competitive swim (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and an adult competitive swim team (Rinconada Masters). Once the Palo Alto Unified School District begins their academic year typically in mid-August which we call “late summer,” the Aquatics program continues to offer the same activities excluding swim lessons. During this time, family recreation swim and facility rentals are only available on weekends since a majority of our staff are back in school and have limited work availability. The Aquatics off-season program runs from mid-September through mid-May, and includes limited activities offered daily such as adult lap swim, the youth competitive swim (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and the adult competitive swim team (Rinconada Masters). In years past, the Aquatics program has attempted to offer youth swim lessons during the fall and spring seasons but due to the difficulty hiring and retaining staff, youth lessons are only offered during the summer season. Discussion The Community Services Department (CSD) would like to explore contracting out additional aquatics services provided at Rinconada Pool, and potentially other satellite pools in the community that the City rents during the summer. Currently, the City has existing contracts to provide the Masters Swim Program and the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program PASA, while City staff provides the year round Lap Swim Program, Learn-to-Swim Program and Summer Recreation Swim. This past summer the City managed programs (Lap Swim, Learn-to-Swim and Summer Recreation Swim), struggled to hire and retain adequate pool staff to meet community demand. This has been a growing challenge for several years and this summer it reached its tipping point. In order to meet the demand for the 2015 summer swim lessons and the recreation swim program, CSD had to enter into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to mitigate the staffing shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write and approve a contract with Team Sheeper LLC, a professional third party aquatics service provider, who was able to mobilize quickly and provide qualified professional swim instructors and lifeguards to support the Palo Alto aquatics programs. As a result CSD narrowly met its commitments to the parents that enrolled their children in swim lessons in the spring. Currently CSD staff is managing the fall aquatics Lap Swim Program and we continue to face difficulties with pool staff shortages, which is also compromising the program and limiting community access to Rinconada Pool. There are several reasons the City aquatics program is experiencing difficulty hiring and retaining staff. The pay rates for lifeguards and swim instructors are not as competitive compared to other employment opportunities for high school and college students. The City offers mostly seasonal work opportunities and not year round part time employment. The majority of the pool staff are students and after summer they are no longer available to work. Those that live and go to school in the area often continue working at the pool but this only represents a small number of the aquatics staff. Provision of aquatics services for cities in the region is delivered in a number of ways. For example the City of Menlo Park contracted out their entire Aquatics program to Team Sheeper, Inc. and it now operates in a private public partnership as Menlo Swim & Sport. While contracting out is gaining interest from cities most cities within the area operate their aquatics program in-house or through a hybrid model like the City of Palo Alto, whereby a portion of the program is contracted out, typically their swim teams or clubs, while swim lessons and recreation swim remain in-house. The City of Morgan Hill has a unique partnership with the YMCA to run their recreation programs. As partners, the City of Morgan Hill and YMCA partner to provide high quality health and fitness, youth, teen, family, and senior programs including aquatics for residents and the surrounding community to enjoy. Currently, the City of Palo Alto provides a hybrid program where the Aquatics program is predominantly run in- house with the exception of our Master’s and PASA program which is provided by contractors. To address the issue of ongoing challenges to hire and retain aquatics staff CSD is drafting a Request for Proposals (RFP) for aquatics services for summer 2016. If agreeable to the Finance Committee and City Manager’s Office, CSD will release the RFP in late October 2015, evaluate proposals in December/January and bring a recommendation to Council in early Spring 2016 for possible contracting out of additional aquatics services. Contractor(s) responding to the RFP would be able to submit proposals to manage the Learn-to-Swim program, the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program, Masters Swim Program, Lap Swim and Recreation Swim. Proposals would be accepted for one, some, or all of these services depending on the applicant’s area of expertise, capacity and interest. An internal meeting between Administrative Services (ASD), People Strategies and Operations (PSO) Departments and the City Manager’s Office was held on September 22 to discuss the CSD proposal to issue an RFP for aquatics services. Staff are in agreement with the approach outlined above, that would allow CSD to explore alternative options for the delivery of aquatics programs service through an RFP process. Recognizing that an RFP for aquatics services could impact an SEIU regular staff member, and several SEIU hourly staff, a Meet and Confer process is necessary. As such PSO intends to notify SEIU at their monthly regularly scheduled meeting on October 15 about the possibility of an RFP for aquatics services. Rinconada pool is a magnificent community asset. Exploring options for how we might better deliver aquatics programs and services to maximize community benefit is a prudent course of action in CSD’s view. By issuing an RFP to explore options the City may be able to improve the overall aquatics program with additional services and increased access to Rinconada pool for the Palo Alto community. Timeline October 15, 2015 – PSO meets with SEIU to notify them of the possible RFP October 20, 2015 – Finance Committee presentation and discussion of the RFP November, 2015 – Pending Finance Committee and CMO direction, RFP released March, 2016 – Council action on the to be determined scope of aquatics services to be contracted out Resource Impact The City cost recovery for aquatics programs and services, as decribed in recent Cost of Services Study, is below: Total Direct Expenses Total Indirect Expenses Total Full Costs Total Fee Revenue Total General Fund Subsidy Direct Cost % Recovery Full Cost % Recovery $623,895 $259,043 $882,938 $507,150 $375,788 81% 57% The intent of the RFP is to provide an enhanced level of service at or below current cost. Should alternative proposals require additional funding, staff will evaluate fees for that service to ensure cost recovery goals are met while being competitive in the marketplace. Policy Implications This proposal is aligned with Comprehesive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of Community Services. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6101) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay Rezoning Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 83 Homes Within the Los ArbolesTract by Amending the Zoning Map to Rezone the Area From R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1 (7,000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000)(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A). Executive Summary Los Arboles homeowners have requested rezoning 83 homes from Single Family Residential (R- 1) and a related sub-district referred to as R-1 (7,000) to the Single-Family Residential Single- Story Overlay zone (i.e. R-1-S and R-1(7,000)-S). The Los Arboles proposal meets the eligibility criteria to initiate a standard1 SSO district rezone application. This report forwards the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)’s recommendation and report providing background clarifying the proposal’s eligibility, SSO rezone process, and consequences of single story rezoning. Attachment B is a map showing the Los Arboles tract boundary and the boundary of the requested Los Arboles SSO zone, which includes all but two properties within the 85-lot tract. The omitted properties are two corner lots fronting Ross Road (a one-story Eichler home and a two-story stucco home). The 83 Eichler homes within the proposed SSO boundary include all homes fronting on Holly Oak Drive and Cork Oak Way, 11 homes facing Ames Avenue from 700 to 788 Ames, and eight homes on Middlefield (3287-3333). Currently, 767 and 771 Holly Oak Drive are both zoned R-1, which requires lots to be 6,000 square feet (sf) to meet the minimum lot size. The other properties are zoned R-1(7000), where the minimum lot size is 7,000 sf. 1 A standard SSO district involves no changes to the text of PAMC Chapter 18.12. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The City Council adopted the Single Story Overlay (SS0) zone as a standard zone district in 1992; modifying it once in 2005. On June 29, 2015, Council took related action on the Single Story Overlay process (Agenda item #22 ‘Consideration of Capping the Fee for Establishment of Single Story Overlay Districts and Referral of a Policy Discussion Regarding Single Story Overlay Districts and Alternative Neighborhood Protections.’) After discussion, Council directed staff to continue the past practice of treating Single Story Overlay District (SSO) requests as re-zonings initiated by the Planning & Transportation Commission so that no fee would be required, and to return with an Ordinance updating the Municipal Code to reflect this change. Also, Council decided that, through the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City will explore giving neighborhoods opportunities to institute overlays. To request a SSO, signatures are required from 70% of the included properties2. One signature is permitted for each included property, and a signature evidencing support of an included property must be by an owner of record of that property. Within a SSO district, existing two story homes, homes with lofts or mezzanines, and homes exceeding maximum height of 17 are considered non-complying facilities subject to the regulations of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.70. Single story homes are not subject to the Individual Review application process. At the writing of this report, the City has received and the PTC has reviewed two SSO applications (Los Arboles and Greer Park North), which are shown on the map, Attachment C along with the City’s existing single story overlays. The Council is scheduled to consider the Greer Park North SSO proposal (another one-story Eichler tract of 72 homes) before the end of the year. A third SSO application (Royal Manor) is scheduled to be submitted at the end of October and has not yet been scheduled for consideration by the PTC and the City Council. The City’s zoning regulations related to zoning changes are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80. On September 30, 2015, the PTC determined the proposed application is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The PTC meeting minutes and staff reports of September 9 and 30, 2015 are attached to this report. They can also be viewed on the city’s website at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48869 PAMC Chapter 18.80 states that a property owner can file an SSO request (in accordance with PAMC Section 18.12.100). It also requires mailing of hearing notices to property owners within a radius of 600 feet of the property to be rezoned, as well as the property to be rezoned. The PTC recommended that Council re-classify the zoning within the proposed SSO boundary from 2 Sixty percent (60%) is required where all included properties are subject to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit building height to a single story. City of Palo Alto Page 3 R-1 to R-1-S (and from R-1(7000) to R-1(7000)-S) by adopting the attached draft ordinance. Discussion Existing Conditions Los Arboles neighborhood is comprised primarily of single-story, single-family residences of a similar age (1959-60), design and character (Eichler homes); 95% of the 83 homes within the proposed SSO boundary are original single-story Eichler homes; The four two-story homes within the proposed boundary are original one-story Eichler homes with small second floor additions; One of the one-story homes in the neighborhood has recently been sold. There are no two-story home applications filed with the City within the proposed SSO boundary. The proposed SSO boundary’s original Eichler homes face both sides of the main streets - Holly Oak Drive, Ames Avenue, Cork Oak Way - or they face Middlefield as a large group (of eight homes). The proposed boundary for rezoning is easily identifiable: it is two properties short of an entire, original Eichler homes tract. The exclusion of the two corner properties from the SSO boundary is logical because only one of the two excluded corner properties is developed with a one-story Eichler home (3366 Ross Road, which has its entry facing Ross Road), and the other is 795 Ames Avenue, a non-Eichler, two-story stucco home. These property owners had asked the SSO applicant to exclude their properties from the SSO boundaries. Staff and the PTC concurred with the applicant’s logic for excluding these corner lots from the overlay boundary. Eighty percent (80%) of 83 property owners within the proposed SSO boundary reportedly support the application filed on June 30, 2015. Thus the Los Arboles SSO rezone application meets the established criteria set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.12 for a SSO combining district initiation. The requisite signatures were gathered and the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum qualifications for initiation of a Single Story Overlay Rezoning, more specifically: 80% of property owners (66 of 83 owners) within the proposed boundary (83 of the 85 homes within Tract 2396) support the proposal. This support level is 10% more than the 70% support level required for initiation. The applicants conducted an initial survey in September 2014 ‘to gauge support,’ and distributed a second letter prior to gathering signatures on the attached petition in May and June. These materials were submitted to the City and staff reviewed the petition and outreach materials, to ensure the proposal reflects the requisite level of support. Copies of the applicants’ outreach efforts are included with application materials. 95% of the homes within the proposed SSO boundary are single-story homes, where the requirement to initiate a SSO is 80% of homes as single story within the SSO boundary. The proposed SSO boundary is appropriate, as all are the original Eichler homes - none have been torn down and replaced since 1960; only four homes have second stories, which were constructed as compatible additions in the 1970’s. Two Ross Road fronting City of Palo Alto Page 4 homes within the tract are excluded from the proposed boundary for appropriate reasons noted in the applicant’s letter. The lot sizes within the boundary range from 6,700 square feet (sf) to 10,000 sf, and the home sizes range from 1,650 sf to 2,850 sf. The majority of lots within the proposed SSO boundary are moderately sized (7,000-8,000 sf). A moderate lot size allows for a larger home footprint than a minimum lot size. Lot size is no longer a requirement for SSO initiation as noted earlier in this report. Outreach Efforts The applicants conducted neighborhood outreach in three phases: (1) an initial survey in September 2014, (2) a second outreach letter, and (3) gathering of signatures from the neighbors within the SSO boundary on a petition. There was also a neighborhood annual block party where, according to the applicant, “a lively and overwhelmingly positive discussion” took place regarding the SSO proposal. The 66-signature petition shows 17 addresses have no signatures of support: Owners of property on Ames (716 and 764), Middlefield (3321), Cork Oak Way (3393, 3404, 3412, 3415, 3444, 3452), and Holly Oak Drive (712, 715, 720, 744, 784, 785, 786, 788) did not sign the petition. The percentage of homeowners not providing signatures on the petition is 20% (17 of 83 homes). The applicant states that six of the non-responding homeowners (7%) stated they are not supportive, and that 11 of these homeowners (13%) remain undecided or unreachable. Two of the four two-story homeowners (788 Ames Avenue and 3373 Cork Oak Way) signed the petition in favor of the rezoning proposal. The other two, two-story homeowners (788 and 785 Holly Oak Drive) did not sign the petition. Staff sent individual hearing notices to all affected property owners and residents of the homes within the proposed overlay boundary, as well as to property owners within 600 feet of the proposed overlay boundary. Because the City has not had an SSO request in a number of years, Staff also sent an informational memo to affected property owners to explain the SSO process and how an adopted overlay would affect their properties’ development potential. The memo also invited the property owners to communicate any and all concerns regarding the overlay implications and the process itself, and alerted the owners about the PTC hearing date. Policy Implications The proposed SSO is supportable as a standard SSO, and is in accordance with Council direction regarding rezoning of properties to SSO without requiring application fees to process the applications. Additional SSO applications are on file or pending filing. While the proposed overlay zone would limit future construction to one story and 17 feet in height in the subject neighborhood, it does not ensure the retention of Eichler-designed homes. New homes would not be evaluated for architectural or neighborhood compatibility or potential privacy impacts, as they would not be subject to the Individual Review process or another discretionary review process. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Resource Impact Based on recent Council policy, application for a SSO is not subject to any fees. Other than non- cost recovered staff time used to process these applications and budgeted printing/mailing costs, no additional resources were expended. Environmental Review The proposed rezoning is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5: Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance with SSO boundary map embedded (PDF) Attachment B: Map of Los Arboles Proposed Overlay District (PDF) Attachment C: Existing plus Proposed Single Story Overlays (PDF) Attachment D: Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt Minutes September 30, 2015 (PDF) Attachment E: Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report September 30, 2015 without attachments (DOC) Attachment F: Planning & Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes 9/9/15 (PDF) Attachment G: PTC Staff Report September 9, 2015 without attachments (DOC) NOT YET APPROVED 150922 jb 0131489 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to change the classification of certain properties on Ames Avenue, Holly Oak Drive, Cork Oak Way, and Middlefield Road, a portion of that property known as Los Arboles, Tract #2396, from R-1(7,000) to R-1(7,000)-S, and the properties at 767 and 771 Holly Oak Drive from R-1 to R-1(S) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. A. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed hearing held September 30, 2015, has recommended that section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and B. The City Council, after due consideration of this recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundary) is hereby amended by changing the zoning of a portion of that property known as Los Arboles, Tract #2396 (the “subject property”), from “R-1 Single-Family Residence” and “R-1 (7,000)” to “R-1-S and R-1 (7,000)-S Single-Family Residential, Single-Story Height Combining.” The subject property is shown on the map labeled ‘Exhibit A’ attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The properties within the Single Story Overlay boundary include all homes fronting on Holly Oak Drive and Cork Oak Way, 11 Eichler homes facing Ames Avenue (from 700 to 788 Ames), and eight homes fronting on Middlefield (3287-3333). Two homes on Holly Oak Drive are zoned R-1 (767 and 771); the remainder of homes within the boundary are zoned R-1(7,000). The proposed SSO boundary does not include two corner properties in the original tract fronting Ross Road (795 Ames Avenue and 3366 Ross Road). SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED 150922 jb 0131489 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment NOT YET APPROVED 150824 jb 0131484 EXHIBIT A P&TC Packet Page 13 of 50 R -1 RM-15 R -1(S) R M -1 5 PC-3405 R -1 P C-3 R -1( R -1 R -1(S) sen Ct Avalo n Cou r t Flowers Lane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue Cowper Street Wellsbury Way La Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael Drive St Michael Drive e Cowper Court Ashton Court Murdoch Drive C o w p e r S t r eet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court T yne Cour t al isman Lom Allen Court Ro s s C o u r t Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holl y Oak Driv e Ames Avenue Cork Oak Way Middlefield Road Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way R o r k e Wa y Stone Lane Toyon Place Torreya Court Thornwood Driv Talisman Driv Court Stern Avenue Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue Mu r r a y Way Stelling Driv Stelling Ct Manchester Court Court Middlefield Road Christine Drive Barron Creek Dr y C re e 0466A0222232 242 8427226252 507 02 332 364352 340 322 314 555 543 531 519 3345 3347 3325 3321 3315 3317 3311556 3349 3351 3373 3365 3357 3349 3341 3322 3324 3326 3320 3316 3314 3312 3317 3325 3333 520 500 3310 3396 495 470 3496 3494 3492 3488 507 4813484 3480 3476 461 471 3416 3412 3404 3408 3400 3432 3436 3440 3444 3428 488 476 3420 3424 497 3498 53 525 515 580 568 556 544 532 520 508 490 489 481 480 567 555 543 531 519 3511 3391 3 4 65 3443 3450 3456 3468 3474 3453 3454 3463 3462 3473 3 481 34 8 9 3497 3425 3433 3 441 3449 345 73 448 3434 3424 3417 3409 550 570 590 510 530 3328 3381 3377 3373 3363 3361 3359 3357 3367 3365 3355 3381 3341 3343 3339 3329 3337 525 537 549 5613340 3336 513 3344 3348 3352 585 597 573 3330 3444 3438 3433 3432 3426 3420 3423 610 640 630 620 3414 650 3431 3441 3442 3428 660 670 680 6093360 3364 619 629 639 649 659 669 679 689 699 3396 3388 3368 3374 3376 3370 3372 3484 3471 3530 3510 3500 3498 3491 3501 3519 3537 3555 3481 609 3540 3530 3520 3510 3480 3486 3492 619 3505 728714 710 3505 3475 3475A 723 767 765 727 725 705 707 715 717 719 3470 3456 3451 3461 3549 701 3072 3073 3065 33 29 757 810 818 3078 3081 783 789 777 3024 3030 3090 3112 789 785782 788 776 770 781 777 795 3061 30483114 842 34 826 30933067 3061 3055 3049 3054 3060 3066 3072 3090 31613155 3149 3135 3121 3125 3109 3091 30933087 797 793 3162 794 3152 3084 3094 3098 3102 3106 5 0 869 865 3187 3193 3110 3168 3151 3165 3177 3185 831 8373186 3180 3174 3147 3146 3145 3150 3164 3177 3163 3116 3264 838 850 844 3250 3248 851 3175 3191 53 3152 3158 3175 3125 3129 3135 3103 3128 3126 3124 31443132 3122 3097 3101 3107 3128 3134 3140 3122 164 3060 3080 490 8070 3151 20 130 3094 3191560 570 3171 3181 540 3170 3180 3190 3191 3205 3181 3171 520 3161 580 592 586 3140 3128 3114 3100 3115 3101 3156 559 533 527 521 3141 3131 3121 3111 3146 3136 595 3146 3083 3089 3097 662 652640 654650 622620 626 598 620 622 3045 618 616 635 617 3135 3123 3127 3131 3102 3139 3143 3149 3155 3138 3142 3114 3120 3126 3132 3108 3112 3108 684 621 645 624 628 626 655 634 654 644 674 664 3090 3080 630 3103 3109 3121 3145 3133 681 665 645 3130 3116 3120 674 685 3146 3156 3164 3154 3182 685 675 665 3070 728 739-749 725-735 3085 3101 3065 3069 3073 3077 3064 3109 3121 695 687 671 690 678 666 658663650 3210 3200 688 684680 668 679 667 655 643 631 3300 619 607 591 579 567 3233 3221 3290 710 718 726 3205 715 719 723 711 710702 3389 3391 620 632 608 592 580 568 3353 656 3190 773 758 764 769 765 770 774 778 782 786 762761 766 790 3170 3163 3175 3191 734 737 734 731 727 742 750 759 751 3163-3169 3155-3159 747 775 725-733 3333 3416 724 716 708 700 3373 3 45 2 3391 3444 3387 3385 3380 3372 3316 3324 3332 3340 3348 3356 3364 3378 3380 3384 3386 3388 3390 3392 3308680 714 718 722 726 730 734 738 731 754 750 744 730 720 716 3360 3350 727 723 719 715 711 3301 3305 3297 3291 3287 735 743 739 747 751 707 3321 3311 3385 33933373 3367 771 785788 786 758 712 708 3370 3380 784 782770 335 5 3412 3408 732 3430 3404 3512 3510 756 721 751 750 767 761 7 55 795 787 781 775 762 768 774 780 771 775 779 3 431 3451 3443 3435 3439 3427 3423 3419 3415 3411 764 794 3376 842 839 3475 838 3455 834 830 3441 3427 826822 3413 3401 818814 772 780 3366 788 3370 3374 789 735 7 55 784 780 750 746 3340 3294 3292 3290 787 785 783 779 781 775 742 759 755 763 767 771 3242 3240 3254 3264 3274 3280 3236 815 3178 3190 3196 3211 3195 801 3174 3178 3180 3184 785 3188 3194 3195 788 32303228792 754 828 820 812 80432313261808 814 820 827 821 813 832 826 835 843 3221 758 778 821 809 3232 803 3171- 3175 3187- 3191 3179- 3183 834 840 828 807 811 815 819 810 816 804 3377 806 810 3387 875 879 827 831823 887 883 891 895 817 823 829 811 3345 795 826 820 814 808 3337 890 894 858 852 859 853 847 841 835 3270 3284 3292 836 844 852 845 839 833 827 856 850 844 838 832 772 759 3510 34873479 3495 3507 3511 3530 3520 801 3519 3532 804 82 845 835 3521 3515 3527 829 3502 35203516 787 783 784 780 788 774 821 3508 3575 840 83 855 868 866 859 871 846 850 854 858 862 864 829 841 835 865 863868 856 851 844 838 853 749 751 753755 757 759 761 763765767 769 771 773 3148 3150 3152 315831603162 3166 3168 3170 3172 3174 3520 788 3465 776 3412 3111 3113 3115 3117 3119 730 732 736 740 795 R -1 R -1 (7 0 0 0) R -1 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Existing Single Story Combining District Proposed Single Story Combining District (Los Arboles Tract # 2396) Tract #5371 Adjacent to Proposed Single Story Combining District Existing Two Story Structures on Property Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 0'400' Pr o p o s e d S i n g l e S t o r y Co m b i n i n g D i s t r i c t Lo s A r b o l e s T r a c t # 2 3 9 6 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, 2015-08-25 14:05:12SingleStoryOverlay LosArbolesTract2396 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) ATTACHMENT B E m b a r c a d e r o El C a m in o R e al University Oregon Page Mill Alm a Arastradero E M e a d o w Foothill Middlefield San Antonio R-1(S) R-1 (S) R-1(S)R-1(S) R-1(S) R-1(S) R-1 (S) R-1(8000)(S) R-1(7000)(S) R-1(8000)(S) 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 DriveCherry Oaks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero 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 RoadIrven 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 Cam ino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino CtWest Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston RoadTennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina Lane Tennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem Drive Duluth 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 CtPark Boulevard George Ho od 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 CourtBryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson DriveEl 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 RoadEnsign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Av enue 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 PlaceTorreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus Avenue Ross Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow CircleEast Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth Place San Carlos Court Wintergreen WaySutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling DriveRoss Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreerRoad 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 Deer Creek Road CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway tradero Road 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 Old Arastradero R oad Miranda Avenue MockingbirdLane TraceRoad Mesa AvenueOak Hill Avenue Manuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie CtMatadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos CtLa 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 Par a Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRobles Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle MesaCourt Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill ExpresswayMiranda Ave nue La Par a AvenueSan Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Av enue 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 Se quoia 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 AvenueJacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage AvenuePepper 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 Road Primrose 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 RoadCalifornia 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 CourtOtterson 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 RoadTanland 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) FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way Homer Avenue Lane 8 West e 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road na Avenue Urban Lane enue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street E ne 11 W Lane 21 Gilman Street University Avenue Lane 30 t Tasso Street Cowper Street Avenue rStreet Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street eetlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson AvenueMelville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Alma Street Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A WestLane 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 eneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda StreetFulton Street Middlefield 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 A Homer AvenueGuinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue Channing AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Forest AvenueFore Somerset Pl Pitman AvenueFife Avenue Forest AvenueLin 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 Pitman AvenueArcadia Place Louisa CourtNewell 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 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 Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia Lane Madison Way Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion Avenue Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Community Lane Court Madeline Ct o Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda AvenueFoothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue 0 E Oregon Expressway Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Waverley Street Kipling Street Hillview Avenue Lane 66 reet et 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 West Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Olmstead Road Serra Street OlmsteadRoad Phillips Road El Dorado Avenue Clara Drive Bellview Dr Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way K enneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charlesto Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Commuity Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Alma Village Circle Alma Village Lane Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Cr e e k Adobe Creek Adobe Creek E m i l y R e n z e l W e t l a n d s Ad ob e Cr eek Coast CaseForebay A do be C re ek e ekDeer Creek Matadero Creek Matadero Creek A d o b e C r e e k Dry Creek D r y C r e e k Creek This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Zoned for Single-Family Residential Use Existing Single Story Combining Districts Proposed Single Story Combining District (Los Arboles Tract # 2396) Proposed Single Story Combining District (Greek Park N Tract #796) Tract (Torraya Ct.) Adjacent to Proposed Single Story Combining District 0'2500' Existing and ProposedSingle StoryCombining Districts 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, 2015-08-25 16:51:04SingleStoryOverlay ProposedSSO LA2396 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) ATTACHMENT C City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 September 30, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing7 8 1. Los Arboles Single Story Overlay: Request by Rebecca Thompson on Behalf of the Property9 Owners of the Los Arboles Tract #2396 for a Zone Change from R-1 and R-1(7000) Single Family 10 Residential to R-1(S) and R-1(7000S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. 11 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305. 12 For more information, contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Continued from 13 September 9, 2015 14 15 Chair Tanaka: So let’s move on to the first item so this is the Los Arboles Single Story Overlay. Does staff16 have a presentation?17 18 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, so we last visited with you on the 9th of September and we did19 have a public hearing at that time. We had comments from the public at that time. We have confirmed20 the noticing was proper for this meeting and so we go ahead and pick up the hearing where we last left21 off with the Los Arboles Single Story Overlay and I believe the applicant is here tonight.22 23 Chair Tanaka: Does the applicant want to speak on the topic again? No? Ok. Yeah, don’t feel obligated24 to. Ok, so ok so… does anyone on the Commission have any questions or comments further on this topic25 or does anyone want to make a Motion?26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: Did we make a Motion last time to push…28 29 Chair Tanaka: I wasn’t here.30 31 MOTION32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. I wish I had the language, but I think the Motion I will make is that the34 Commission recommend that the City Council approve the draft ordinance to rezone the 83 homes within35 the Los Arboles neighborhood from R-1 single family residential and R-1(7000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000-S)36 single family residential with single story overlay district.37 38 SECOND39 40 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Second.41 42 Chair Tanaka: Ok, does the maker of the Motion want to speak on the Motion?43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: No, I think we covered this.45 46 Chair Tanaka: Does the seconder want to speak?47 48 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Nope. Thank you.49 50 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Does anyone have any deliberation or should we take a vote?51 52 ATTACHMENT D City of Palo Alto Page 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Actually I think it’s probably worth mentioning that the Commission didn’t hear 1 from anybody at least we didn’t receive any emails and there weren’t any updates to this conversation or 2 to this discussion and I think that’s I think we had pushed it out because of a notice element and there 3 were no additional information providers during that period of time. 4 5 Chair Tanaka: Let me just ask staff a quick question. So I assume that there was silence; no one 6 objected there were no other issues that came up? 7 8 Ms. French: Correct. We advertised in our newspaper again and we did not hear anything back from any 9 of the neighbors one way or the other. 10 11 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 12 13 Ms. French: In the intervening time. 14 15 VOTE 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So does the Commission want to deliberate or does anyone have comments on 18 this Motion before we take a vote? Ok, so let’s take a vote then; so all in favor raise your hands. All not 19 in favor raise your hands. And I abstain mainly because I wasn’t really as involved in the conversation. 20 Thank you. So let’s close this item. 21 22 MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Chair Tanaka abstained, Vice-Chair Fine and Commissioner Rosenblum 23 absent) 24 25 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Alcheck, second by Acting Vice-chair Downing to 26 approve staff’s recommendation for a Zone Change for the Los Arboles Single Story Overlay. 27 Approved unanimously with Chair Tanaka abstaining, Vice-chair Fine and Commissioner Rosenblum 28 absent. (4-0-1-2) 29 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6141) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay Rezoning Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay: Request by Rebecca Thompson on Behalf of the Property Owners of the Los Arboles Tract #2396 for a Zone Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hear from the public and recommend that City Council approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) to rezone 83 homes within the Los Arboles neighborhood (Tract #2396) from R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1(7000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000)-S, Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay (SSO) District. Executive Summary The PTC conducted a hearing on September 9, 2015, and continued the hearing to September 30, 2015, by unanimous vote, to ensure the code-required publication of the hearing notice was accomplished. The newspaper publication of the September 9, 2015 hearing had appeared less than 12 days prior to the hearing per Zoning Code Chapter 18.80 notification requirements. Publication for this meeting was provided in the Palo Alto Weekly on September 18th consistent with local requirements. Three speakers expressed support for the Single Story Overlay proposal, including one of the co-applicants. The PTC members found the proposed boundary to be acceptable, and discussed the potential advantages and disadvantages of a Single Story Overlay, including the house size and market appeal of single story homes. The PTC acknowledged that a one story home is allowed additional lot coverage equivalent to the maximum Floor Area Ratio, and that basements do not count as a second floor thereby allowing any new one story home additional living area. Since the PTC did not expand the boundary of the area to be rezoned, no additional addresses received notice of the September 30, 2015 public hearing. ATTACHMENT E City of Palo Alto Page 2 The attached September 9, 2015 staff report (Attachment B), including attachments, provides background and discussion. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (PDF) Attachment B: P&TC Staff Report w/attachments from 9/09/15 ID#5974 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 September 9, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing7 8 Los Arboles Single Story Overlay: *Quasi-Judicial Request by Rebecca Thompson on Behalf of the9 Property Owners of the Los Arboles Tract #2396 for a Zone Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to10 R-1(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the11 California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305. For more information, contact Amy French at12 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org13 14 Acting Chair Fine: Our next item is Item Number 3, the Los Arboles Single-Story Overlay. This is a quasi-15 judicial matter evaluating a zone change from R-1 Single Family to R-1(S) Single Family Residential with16 Single-Story Overlay. Let’s start with any disclosures. So I should disclose that I have family friends in17 this neighborhood and I was recently at their house in their backyard swimming in their pool and they18 complained that if there were second story houses people would be able to see me swimming in their19 pool.20 21 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: You know I should also just clarify for the record that this is22 actually a legislative matter. So it is always helpful to have those types of disclosures.23 24 Acting Chair Fine: Could you explain (interrupted)25 26 Ms. Silver: Yeah, so a legislative matter is a typically thought of as a rezoning or a zone change that27 applies broadly to several different properties whereas a quasi-judicial matter which requires disclosures28 is something that’s applied to one.29 30 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. And I believe (interrupted)31 32 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yeah, we need a minute or two just to set up.33 34 Acting Chair Fine: Sure. Should we take a quick few minutes break?35 36 The Commission took a break37 38 Acting Chair Fine: Alright, let’s get back to the meeting. We are on Item 3, the Los Arboles Single-Story39 Overlay and this is the first application since Council recently decided to waive fees for these types of40 applications. With regard to this application we as a Commission can recommend it to Council,41 recommend denying it, or recommend expanding or contracting the boundaries. However, tonight we’re42 just going to be discussing, asking questions, hearing from the public and staff, and we’ll make the vote43 on this on the 30th.44 45 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Ok, thank you for taking a break so that I can set up. I’m Amy46 French, Chief Planning Official. I’m working with multiple single-story overlay applicants throughout town47 so this is the first of several that you will be seeing. The purpose of a single-story overlay is to preserve48 and maintain single family living areas of predominantly single-story character. It’s required for initiation49 that 80 percent of the homes be within the boundary be single-story. Here’s a map showing the in green50 the proposed single-story overlay for Los Arboles and next to it is Torreya Court, also a proposal, and51 then farther over to the left is Allen Court, also that’s an approved and for many years approved and52 successful single-story overly, also an Eichler neighborhood.53 ATTACHMENT F City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 Here are the boundaries of the Los Arboles proposal. The tract includes all but two of the, the single-2 story overlay boundary includes all but two of the homes in the tract. The two homes excluded from the 3 boundary are fronting Ross Road at the top of the screen, on the corner of Ames and Ross. So the 4 neighborhood is single family single-story Eichler homes built in the 1959-1960 range. The zoning is both 5 R-1 and R-1 7,000. As I mentioned two of the homes of the original tract are excluded from the 6 boundary proposal and within the boundary 95 percent of the homes are one stories. The two-story 7 homes in the boundary have second floor additions that are compatible with the Eichler style and there 8 are no two-story applications on file with the City. They’re moderate lot sizes and moderate lot sizes of 9 course allow larger first floor footprints. The reasons that the Ross Road lots were excluded were stated 10 in the application and staff thinks they’re reasonable. 11 So once a single-story overlay is approved by Council the result is that new construction cannot be placed 12 on properties within the single-story boundary that are 17 feet, over 17 feet or more than one habitable 13 floor. Two-story homes are not allowed, new two-story homes, but the existing two-story homes may 14 remain. So what happens is we then call those two-story homes or homes over 17 feet non-complying 15 facilities, legal non-complying facilities and they’re subject to the regulations in our non-complying 16 facilities chapter. 17 18 What the single-story overlay does not do is require design review for any one-story replacement homes. 19 We aren’t reviewing for privacy or design compatibility. It’s simply a building permit. We also in the 20 building permit process do not provide notices about building permits of one-story homes. 21 22 The applicants had several phases of outreach. They did discuss this at their annual block party. They 23 conducted a couple of surveys or a survey and an outreach letter and then they gathered the signatures. 24 They met all the requirements of the chapter for rezoning and we met the requirements about the 25 mailing of notices. We also exceeded our requirements by providing courtesy notices, providing some 26 detail about what happens when you become a single-story overlay. One thing that did not happen is we 27 did not successfully meet the 12 day timeframe for publication in the newspaper. It was a six day 28 publication and that’s the reason why we request continuance to the 30th of September. 29 30 As noted in the report there’s 80 percent support, 66 of the 83 owners. That exceeds the 70 percent 31 level by 10 percent. And there is some other data about when there are no signatures associated with an 32 address and there’s some facts up here. 33 34 So the discretion of the Planning Commission as mentioned is to either accept the boundary as a position 35 and continue the hearing to the 30th to ensure that all who would like to speak to this matter can be 36 heard, another alternative is to suggest expanding or contracting the boundaries. If it’s contracting the 37 boundaries there’s no additional notice. If it’s expanding the boundaries then additional notice to a larger 38 radius would be required. And then of course there’s the deny option. In any case, continuance is the 39 option tonight. We’re looking towards November or December for the Council hearing. 40 41 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you so much. Do we have any, do we have a presentation from the applicant or 42 is it via speaker cards? 43 44 Ms. French: The applicant, there are two applicants, co-applicants. One of them is not able to be here 45 tonight. I believe Sherilyn was planning to attend. I’m not sure. 46 47 Phillip Bednarz: I’m Sherri’s husband. 48 49 Ms. French: Oh, got it. 50 51 Mr. Bednarz: I can just speak during the normal hearing comments. 52 53 Acting Chair Fine: Do you want to lead off for us, sir? 54 55 Mr. Bednarz: Yeah, sure. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. 2 3 Ms. French: I think it’s 10 minutes, isn’t it? Or five? 4 5 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, five minutes. 6 7 Mr. Bednarz: Alright, thanks for the opportunity to speak to the Commission. My name is Phillip Bednarz 8 and along with a number of my neighbors I am representing Los Arboles neighborhood of original Eichler 9 homes. So last fall at our annual block party our homeowners came together and shared an interest in 10 protecting what we see as an increasingly rare neighborhood. So we’re here to ask you to initiate an 11 ordinance to change our zoning from R-1 to R-1(S). It is what the vast majority of our neighborhood 12 firmly wants. Protection of privacy, sorry, protection of privacy, sunlight, and views, the overall 13 neighborhood aesthetic, and the sense of community is what Los Arboles homeowners want. 14 15 Our application has the backing of more than 80 percent of homeowners. It is enthusiastically supported 16 by owners from all ages and backgrounds from our newest arrivals to those who bought from Eichler 17 himself. So thoughtfully planned Eichler neighborhoods where homes are constructed to allow nature in 18 and situated to maintain homeowner privacy were very forward thinking. Eichler communities are an 19 important part of Palo Alto’s heritage and a key appeal of Palo Alto today. They are an important part of 20 the California modern architecture legacy and should be protected. So we ask for your leadership and 21 support in initiating this ordinance. 22 23 In neighborhoods like ours where residents are willing to dedicate so much of their own time to 24 protecting this legacy we ask for your support by initiating an ordinance to change our zoning from R-1 to 25 R-1(S). Again, it’s what the vast majority of our neighborhood firmly wants. So thank you for your time. 26 27 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you very much. And I believe we do have speaker cards. 28 29 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: Yes, we have first Bonnie Borton followed by Richard Willits. 30 31 Bonnie Borton: My name is Bonnie Borton and I’m here to ask that you grant our Los Arboles 32 neighborhood a single-story overlay protection. My late husband and I bought our Los Arboles Eichler 33 home from Al Eichler in February of either 1959 or 1960, I can’t remember which. We raised our son, 34 Dan, and our daughter, Suzie, in the four bedroom single-story Eichler that I still live in today. It was 35 and still is a wonderful and vibrant neighborhood, I kid you not. Children ride bikes and residents of all 36 ages can safely walk there in the evenings and we do. Neighbors look out for each other. Many of us 37 have grandchildren and great grandchildren, not yet, just grandchild, who join the block party annually 38 that takes place in late September to play with some of our newer residents and we do have a turnover. 39 We’re very much a community. 40 41 When some of the neighbors started talking about the single-story overlay I just want to be supportive. I 42 really feel it’s important that our houses remain single-story. I sat in my kitchen this afternoon before I 43 came here and I looked out to the left and I could see trees and sky. I looked straight ahead and I have 44 a skylight over the front door. I can see the sky above and sometimes I see a plane go over and at night 45 it’s especially nice because it’s dark and you can just see the light going across the sky. It’s just a, it’s a 46 wonderful home and I feel it is so important that it remains single-story. We have several story homes 47 that were added on to before any of us had sense enough to understand that these homes really were 48 meant to be single-story so that we could all get the inside and the outside together. 49 50 I’d run out of space here for what I want to say. Anyway, many of us thought we already… this is 51 important. Many of us already thought we had a single-story overlay after signatures were collected in 52 1990 and I remember being one who went out and collected them so I don’t know what happened, but 53 we don’t have it apparently. So I beg you please to help us make this change and we thank you for your 54 time and consideration. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So next is Richard Willits. He’s our last speaker card. 1 2 Richard Willits: Good evening, my name is Richard Willits. I am with a group of folks. We’ve been 3 working with Amy for a long time to bring this about and we’re very happy to see our first single-story 4 overlay application coming through. It’s been a pleasure working with the Planning staff in general. 5 They’ve been very efficient and knowledgeable and straightforward in every way that we’ve dealt with 6 them. And so I want to thank them for all the work that they’ve done on this. 7 8 I also wanted to let this Commission know I’m sure you’ve all read some of the notes that there were a 9 number of different Council meetings that we addressed with regard to particularly with regard to what 10 was the stumbling block for many of us and was for this particular application for over a year and that is 11 the imposition of the fee. My understanding was at that time that the fee would be not only eliminated 12 for a standard single-story overlay by the referral of the process to this Commission, but also that the 13 language in the code which I’m not a lawyer, but I think it looks pretty poorly written that actually 14 imposes the fee would be struck. And I think that was a Motion of the Council. So my concern comes up 15 because in the notes for tonight’s session with regard to the follow on application for Torreya Court it 16 also mentions a fee. And I just want to make it clear that this fee for this process, which is essentially a 17 political process, really throws sand in the works from the standpoint of the people who are trying to get 18 it done. 19 20 Torreya Court I happen to know because I was involved with it was a group of people that within a week 21 had basically 80% of their signatures ready. They were, when they heard about it they said yes, we’ve 22 got to do this. They’ve got no Eichler’s that have been changed. They did have an unusual situation that 23 they had a number of I would call them two stories as built by Joe Eichler. If you looks at the lines of 24 sight of privacy in those houses they were planned so that they do not disturb the other houses and what 25 this neighborhood really wanted was for everything to remain the way it is which is the way that they’ve 26 kept it and that’s what they want. My understanding is that they’re going through the process of trying 27 to figure out how to go now that they’re not firmly and fully attached to the Los Arboles application and 28 therefore they don’t meet the less than how do we put this? They have more than 20 percent of the 29 houses are already two stories, but they my feeling is they should not be considered not complying 30 because they were built that way. But in any case my understanding from the meeting from the two 31 Motions that were passed at the City Council meeting was that that law that verbiage in the law that said 32 that a fee could be applied for this process was to be struck and that I would hope that would be the 33 case for all single-story overlays that go forward. And thank you for your support of this one. 34 35 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. I believe that’s it from our public speakers. Thank you so much. Sure. 36 37 Ms. French: Sure, yes let me please address that last comment about the fees. As you will see in our 38 next item we are including that in our administrative or policy changes. It’s actually considered a new 39 policy, but it was one that the Council espoused during this hearing when they were discussing the fee. 40 So that will be removed and it is not applicable to the Torreya Court proposal. We have not charged 41 them a fee or told them that it’s a hang up for them. The hang up as you rightly noted was that they do 42 have nine homes and that kicks them to 30 percent. And so some of those nonconforming would be 43 nonconforming homes, homeowners are concerned about that status. 44 45 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you so much. Let’s open it up to questions, Commissioner Gardias. 46 47 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I’d like just to get more clarification on 48 the options that we have tonight. If you could just put them on the board specifically that’s district that’s 49 next to, let’s see if I can read this, Torreya Court. 50 51 Ms. French: Mmmm hmmm. 52 53 Commissioner Gardias: That’s adjusted to, adjacent to this proposed addition. What are our options on 54 inclusion of this one in today’s vote if we’re going to approve this overlay? 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ms. French: What your option would be would be to suggest that the boundary be expanded to, for Los 1 Arboles to include the Torreya Court and therefore we would have to broaden our notice and modify the 2 project description which is simply the Los Arboles to be a broader neighborhood. 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: And we would have to continue through (interrupted) 5 6 Ms. French: Yes. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: Through September 30th, I don’t know if there is anybody from that neighborhood 9 tonight? No? Ok so we were only talking about this one. Thank you. 10 11 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Michael. 12 13 Commissioner Michael: I want to thank the neighbors for coming out and speaking about the qualities of 14 the neighborhood that you love and want to preserve. To the extent that there appears to be 66 of the 15 83 homes in support of the proposal is there any questions that should be asked regarding the numbers? 16 The tally, is this in any way something that we should analyze or verify? 17 18 Ms. French: My impression reading the materials that were submitted was that the outreach statements 19 that were made on that petition were sufficient and the signatures that appear there when I compared 20 them to the file of addresses, owners it seems that those people are the same (interrupted) 21 22 Commissioner Michael: Ok. 23 24 Ms. French: As far as that goes. Did I get to the question? 25 26 Commissioner Michael: Well pretty much. So since you didn’t get 83 out of 83 and 17 people weren’t 27 counted in the 66 is anybody in the 17 here tonight that has a different point of view? It appears not so 28 that may be worthy of noting. 29 30 So it, I guess those are my only questions for the movement. Oh, on the boundary if, if you drew a 31 different boundary would that affect the 70 percent support? If you or is there a large group of people 32 immediately outside the proposed boundary who would like not to have this restriction? 33 34 Ms. French: I will address that, through the Chair, the homes on the screen that are fronting Ross Road 35 that are within the tract above the red line the one to the left is a two-story stucco home and so that 36 would be then one more point, percentage point. So instead of four out of 83 homes it would be 5 out of 37 85 homes as far as number, percentages of two-story homes. I believe they still meet the entry 38 requirement of 20 homes so I mean 20, 20 percent, maximum 20 percent two-story homes. The home 39 to the right is an Eichler one-story so I’m not sure if a negative signature there how that would tip the 40 balance. I don’t think it would though. 41 42 Acting Chair Fine: Any other questions? Acting Vice-Chair. 43 44 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: I think given our purview this seems like a no brainer to me, which is the 45 boundary seems sufficient. There’s a large enough number of people to qualify. They’ve well exceeded 46 even if the people that were not found all oppose they’re still above the limit. There was an error in not 47 providing sufficient public notice, but I suppose we’ll get back to that at the right time and hopefully this 48 will be fast. So I’d just say we have lots of items we go round and round on for hours. I think this is one 49 where I don’t know if we all want to make a statement or we could make a Motion to say go to the next, 50 but I don’t see any issues here. 51 52 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just going to follow the lead here and make questions and comments sort of 1 together if that’s alright? So just for clarity here does the staff feel that this will because I read what you 2 wrote and I heard what you said; this is not necessary, this isn’t really preserving Eichler homes, right? 3 4 Ms. French: That’s correct. It’s not necessarily preserving, yes. That is a true statement. Remodels can 5 happen to the existing homes. The existing homes could be torn down and replacement one-story 6 homes could be constructed after a single-story overlay is approved. 7 8 Commissioner Alcheck: And three of the four two-story homes are Eichler two-story homes? Is that 9 correct? 10 11 Ms. French: They’re Eichler one-story homes with second floor compatible Eichler additions, so in the 12 Seventies so those additions came at a later date. Whether Eichler designed them or not they’re small 13 additions. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok well, so let me just I’ll make my comment now. I completely understand the 16 love affair. I myself am partial to midcentury modern architecture and I’ve been in some exceptionally 17 well maintained Eichler homes in Palo Alto and also in Sunnyvale, but I just I want to highlight but that 18 said this doesn’t preserve your Eichler home or your neighbor’s Eichler home. Only a neighbor with the 19 interest, motivation, and passion to maintain their Eichler home will maintain their Eichler home and I 20 think that’s an important consideration here. 21 22 I think that you’re out of the three, out of the four homes that are two stories I imagine a scenario where 23 their home burns down in some awful event and they can’t rebuild exactly what they had before with 24 their insurance premium or coverage. And that seems sort of unjust for that individual so I’m not sure 25 how we could remedy that situation. I don’t, I don’t love that portion of this. 26 27 I also am not really persuaded I just hope for the record, for general discussion I’m not really persuaded 28 by this notion that two-story homes that comply with our single family zoning code in some ways ruin 29 daylight or interaction with nature or affect our interaction with the urban canopy or our visuals in 30 general because our process for single family homes that are two stories is really deliberate. There’s an 31 individual review process for any proposed two-story home in the City in which they evaluate context and 32 setback and what do you call it when the second story is set even farther back? So there’s a real effort 33 to preserve that sensibility that sense of openness and light and I just don’t, I don’t think I think if we 34 accept the premise that somehow single family preserves these things and we’re also saying at the same 35 time that our two-story neighborhoods are somehow destroying that and I don’t love that. 36 37 That said I think it does enhance privacy and I also think this is exactly the sort of action that my vision 38 of local government supports. I mean this is a community that is essentially voted in unison according to 39 the parameters we’ve set up. They’ve met that standard and I think they’re entirely entitled to pursue 40 this application and I would support their vision for their neighborhood because that’s what I think, that’s 41 exactly what I think local government should be doing. I’m just clarifying because I know I see the 42 Eichler preservation movement here and I don’t know if this accomplishes all of your goals. 43 44 And then I’d also like to throw out there this idea, this notion because this will have a significant impact. 45 I know we’ve done this in other areas of the City, but not while I was on Commission. I wonder if this is 46 something we should consider or recommend considering doing under a time constraint; for example, 47 limiting second story development for five or seven years, revisiting the topic at that date to see if the 48 same level of consensus exists. Again I don’t want to ruffle the community’s feathers, but I’m just our 49 community is on the precipice of a dramatic change just as the entire country is. There’s going to be a 50 tremendous likely to be tremendous change in the ownership profile of residences in California as our 51 population grows and continues to change and this is a very permanent affect. And so I sort of wonder if 52 there should be some automatic opportunity to revisit it, check with the community to see if they still feel 53 that same way or I don’t know. I’m just throwing that out there, but I would support this process. I just 54 want to clarify I don’t know if what you’re asking us tonight is to expand the boundary because you’ve 55 City of Palo Alto Page 7 gotten that request and if in that case if you haven’t that’s not how I would, I would just move this along 1 the way that it’s already been presented and then I guess review it on the second go round. That’s it. 2 3 Ms. French: Through the Chair, yes, we are recommending moving forward as has been requested by the 4 Los Arboles applicant. To the other points I would just say a basement is a possibility for a new one-5 story home (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: This is non-flood zone? 8 9 Ms. French: Not a flood zone. And the other thing is if there was a desire by 70 percent of those in the 10 single-story boundary five years from now, seven years from now, those 70 percent could come forward 11 with a proposal to undo the single-story overlay. So that’s the out if you will. 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 14 15 Acting Chair Fine: Any other questions? 16 17 Commissioner Michael: Amy if I could just follow up one of the things that I’ve always wondered about is 18 since the requirement to create the single-story overlay is 70 percent why is the requirement to move 19 back to the unrestricted R-1 not 30 percent? 20 21 Ms. French: Well, you’ve got me there. I don’t know the history on why that’s the case. That is what the 22 code says. 23 24 Commissioner Michael: Ok, because it seems to me that well anyway, just it’s not for us to answer 25 tonight, but just to maybe create a record that we’re thinking if that’s the case. When I was growing up 26 here one of my good friends, very large family I think six or maybe seven kids, lost track we were lived in 27 the Crescent Park neighborhood at that time and they had a large house to a lot of kids. And when the 28 kids grew up and many of them moved away and actually the father passed away so the widow, Daryl 29 Carrie, moved to Torreya Court. And she’s an absolutely wonderful gracious lady and she loved living in 30 Torreya Court, but she moved there because her family size had contracted naturally as the kids grew up. 31 And it would not have been possible for the Carrie family to live in Torreya Court with their full family, but 32 only after they got smaller. So one of the things I just wanted to be sensitive to is that and I think that 33 the overwhelming support of the 66-78 homeowners will compel us to go forward and be successful so 34 that’s a maybe a wonderful thing, but it I think it inadvertently has the effect of excluding large families 35 in the sense of the Carries moved there when they had a smaller family, couldn’t have fit there if the 36 whole family and a 2,600 sf house was going to be the largest in this neighborhood. So that exclusionary 37 quality is probably an unintended consequence. 38 39 Also the census data for Palo Alto suggests that there’s demographic changes in who lives in Palo Alto 40 from when Eichler was building and now some of the groups that are more have larger percentages in 41 Palo Alto tend to favor multigenerational households. And you’re also probably inadvertently excluding 42 multigenerational households from living in your neighborhood. That’s probably ok. 43 44 And the thing that always baffles me and again I don’t know that this would be a positive opportunity for 45 anybody who lives in the proposed area is that by so enthusiastically supporting a single-story overlay in 46 some ways its contrary to the economic self-interest which when you cap potential square footage 47 because the construction cost of additional square footage is much less than the value in Palo Alto. So 48 let’s say you had 1,000 square feet second story it would cost you $500 a square feet, sf to build, but it’s 49 worth $1,000 a sf to a buyer you just lopped off a half a million dollars off your home value. So I take 50 that as the really very enthusiastic sincerity of the neighborhood in wanting to constrain your economic 51 value. So it looks like you will triumph and these are just questions that I’ve had about the wisdom of 52 the statutory scheme and I think that the architectural values, the neighborhood values, the nature, the 53 indoor/outdoor living, all of this stuff, the privacy, these are wonderful things, but there are some major 54 factors, changes imminent in Palo Alto as elsewhere and some of these things are maybe not as simple 55 as they first appear. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. I think I’ve just got a few comments and then I think we can move on to 2 the next item. I really appreciate you all coming out. It’s really good to hear from all of you and as 3 Commissioner Alcheck said I think it is a really nice example of neighbors coming together and being 4 unanimous on something. It’s been pretty rare nowadays so that’s really great. 5 6 A few questions and then just one comment, so one question is about expanding the boundary; you 7 mentioned additional notifications. Just hypothetically what if we expanded the boundary to double it 8 and some way the vote didn’t carry. I mean would there have to be a new petitioning? How does that 9 work? 10 11 Ms. French: Right, I guess doubling if that’s a, that’s a formula I mean when you talk about maybe 12 including Torreya Court that’s kind of more of a specific so I’m just going to use that. So you would need 13 to notice the Torreya Court neighborhood. Likely they already received notice that it was the Los Arboles 14 tract that was going forward. Then we would go 600 feet from that neighborhood so it would go across 15 Middlefield and over and around and so include more folks in the radius. And we would revise the 16 project description so that’s the first part of that (interrupted) 17 18 Acting Chair Fine: But would they I mean so let’s say we included Torreya Court and went all the way up 19 to Ross and maybe even across Loma Verde. I know there’s some second story homes there. Would 20 there be a new petition required if (interrupted) 21 22 Ms. French: Yes, yes there would be. 23 24 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, so we’d start from scratch? 25 26 Ms. French: So basically yes, we do have the petition for Torreya Court already submitted. It was just 27 the fact that there were too many two-story homes that they couldn’t be on their own a single-story 28 overlay as a standard single-story overlay. But yes, if we expanded the single-story overlay boundary 29 associated with Los Arboles I’m not sure I mean if you wanted to go all the way up to a street let’s say it 30 just isn’t as (interrupted) 31 32 Acting Chair Fine: Right, I just wanted to kind of figure out the process and the operations for noticing 33 and the re-petitioning. Great, thank you. 34 35 Ms. French: Yes, we would have to have them sign (interrupted) 36 37 Acting Chair Fine: And then kind of to build on Commissioner Michael’s comment about changing families 38 and removing building potential and the value that you have, land is very valuable in Palo Alto. There’s 39 pretty much nowhere else to build so the logical thing is to build up actually, right? And so this is actually 40 restricting that. And I think it would be helpful for staff, for the Council, and for future commissions to in 41 some way record what building potential has been taken off the market when we do something like this. 42 Maybe it’s 80 households, 1,000 feet per household, that’s 80,000 sf of building space. I’ve heard in a lot 43 of different forums here and the Citizen’s Advisory Committee from Council that like we really need to 44 understand what is our building potential, what is our capacity, what we’ve already built, this is a very 45 clear and concise area where we are going to essentially be rezoning a spot and essentially taking out 46 building potential. I think it would be helpful to measure that with each of these applications. I think 47 that’s it for my comments, but it sounds like there’s one more. 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: I want to clarify a few things. You said lot sizes varied from 6700 to 10,000. So 50 let’s let me I just want to clarify a few things. So a 10,000 square foot lot in Palo Alto you’re allowable 51 floor area is in the range of 3,800 sf. That means the largest home you can build on a 10,000 square 52 foot lot is 3,800 sf, doesn’t matter if you stack it two stories or one-story. So I think it’s dangerous to 53 suggest that any one of these home owners has lost any buildable square footage. What the result is 54 that they will have less potential landscaping, but not that they’ll have a smaller home. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 And I don’t not to just respond to you, but I think there’s a vast majority Baby Boomers have taken over 1 the sixties, seventies, and eighties and by and large they all like one-story homes. And so the notion that 2 this would be unappealing to maybe multigenerational families I also think is a dangerous assumption 3 because you can build an almost 4,000 square foot home which is your max. There is no scenario where 4 you can build more than that as one-story an example I’m giving you and that example works its way 5 down to smaller lots. And so I think the additional I’m just going to throw this out there, I don’t know if 6 everybody realizes it, but the fact that these are not flood zone properties let’s assume you’re maxed out 7 at 4,000 sf if you build a 2,000 square foot first story and a 2,000 square foot second story the maximum 8 basement you can build is based on the footprint of your first story, which means you could theoretically 9 build a basement that’s 2,000 sf which would then put you in the 6,000 square foot property range. It’s 10 enormous. If you build a 4,000 square foot first floor you can in theory build a 4,000 square foot 11 basement, which puts you in the 8,000 square foot range. Now not all square feet are equal in value. 12 Basements are not typically the same value as a first story, but I just want to suggest that just because 13 we’re limiting the development to a single-story does not mean that we’re limiting value. And I mention 14 that because I live in a neighborhood where there’s a lot of construction going on and a lot of the homes 15 are one-story and they’re huge and those are I think some of these homes are spec homes and I think 16 those decisions are based on this idea that right now a one-story home is appealing to a broader market 17 because of the fact that it’s appealing to multi-generational users. So I just I want to suggest that. 18 19 I also want to say one other thing which is there’s no incentive to increase the boundary. Number one it 20 might dilute the voting strength of this community and number two their decision does not affect their 21 neighbor, neighboring streets. Unlike allow me for a minute the example of the overnight parking ban in 22 Crescent Park, which when one block decides what to do with their street parking the parkers move to 23 the next block and that decision did affect the individuals who didn’t get to vote on whether that parking 24 restriction would’ve applied to them. So in that case I would have supported broadening the community 25 vote. In this case I think expanding it would actually harm these, harm the result because the goal here 26 is for them to determine their own future and so I wouldn’t support expanding it specifically for that 27 reason. 28 29 And then my last question actually for staff is how small can the applicant be? Can it be like one street? 30 Is there, do we have a limit? So if for example the street next door decided hey, we really like what’s 31 going on over there, it’s encouraging and preserving the Eichler homes and we want to jump in on that 32 can they do it as a group of four or is there a minimum size? I’m not familiar with that. 33 34 Ms. French: There is no minimum size. I just put up the on the screen the Allen Court which is 20 35 something so that’s a fairly small distinct neighborhood, but I don’t think down the road if there was 36 another if there’s a desire to expand this single-story overlay to include additional homes that that could 37 be processed just like this one is to say… 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, just wanted to check. So in theory like three homes could to it for their three 40 homes? 41 42 Ms. French: I think that it has to be logical enough with logical boundaries such as a tract or streets or… 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, got it. 45 46 Ms. French: We have had a situation in the past where there was a portion of a neighborhood and it was 47 odd. It was they had kind of drawn it around the support level and I don’t think we’re after that. 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 50 51 Ms. French: To make the numbers we really want it to be a logical defined by waterways or streets or 52 tracts or something that makes sense. 53 54 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Acting Chair Fine: Seems like we have one last comment. Let’s try to wrap this up and move into the 1 next items. 2 3 Commissioner Downing: Sure, so thank you everyone for coming out. I just really appreciate seeing the 4 community here. There’s one other comment that I just wanted to make in terms of just making sure 5 that there’s a full view of the implications of this action. So the one other comment I wanted to make to 6 that is if you incentivize first floor and people want to build out their first floor and they want them to be 7 bigger you’re taking over more of your lot area, because you’re going to expand the house horizontally 8 rather than vertically. The one issue that you might find by doing this is that you may not have all that 9 much space left if you ever wanted to add a secondary dwelling unit, if you ever wanted to add a space 10 for a caretaker or an elderly parent or maybe you want to move in you want to let your kids get the main 11 house. You may not have the ability in doing that because you the house itself needs to comply with 12 setbacks, the secondary unit needs to comply with setbacks, and you also need to find two extra parking 13 spaces on your property. So just consider that. You’re all spry right now, but you may want other things 14 in the future. So just think about that so long as you have that in mind, you’re happy with the tradeoffs 15 you’re making, by all means. 16 17 Acting Chair Fine: Well, thank you all for showing up unfortunately we can’t vote on this tonight, but it 18 will be back on September 30th. 19 20 Ms. French: You need to make a Motion. 21 22 Mr. Lait: You need to make a Motion to continue to September 30th. 23 24 MOTION, SECOND, VOTE 25 26 Acting Chair Fine: I move to continue this item to September 30th, second by Commissioner Michael. 27 Should we take a vote? All in favor? Passes unanimously. Thank you so much. 28 29 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Chair Tanaka absent) 30 31 Commission Action: Commission heard public testimony, provided comments. Motion by Acting 32 Chair Fine, seconded by Commissioner Michael to continue this item to meeting of September 30, 33 2015. Motion passed unanimously (6-0-1, Chair Tanaka absent) 34 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5974) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay Rezoning Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay: Request by Rebecca Thompson on Behalf of the Property Owners of the Los Arboles Tract #2396 for a Zone Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hear from the public (who received notice cards) and discuss the proposed Single Story Overlay rezoning, and continue the hearing to September 30, 2015 to allow newspaper publication of the hearing prior to making a recommendation to City Council to approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) to rezone 83 homes within the Los Arboles neighborhood (Tract #2396) from R- 1 Single Family Residential and R-1(7000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000)-S, Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay (SSO) District. Executive Summary Los Arboles homeowners (80% of 83 homeowners), represented by Rebecca Thompson and Sherilyn Tye, request rezoning of 83 homes from R-1 and R-1 (7,000) to the R-1-S and R- 1(7,000)-S, Single-Family Residential Single-Story Overlay zone. The Los Arboles proposal meets the eligibility criteria to initiate a standard1 SSO district rezone application. This report forwards the proposal and provides discussion intended to clarify the proposal’s eligibility, SSO rezone process and consequences of an R-1-S rezoning. Attachment B is a map showing the Los Arboles tract boundary and the boundary of the requested Los Arboles SSO, which includes all but two properties within the 85-lot tract. The omitted properties are two corner lots fronting Ross Road (a one-story Eichler home and a two- 1 A standard SSO district involves no changes to the text of PAMC Chapter 18.12. ATTACHMENT G City of Palo Alto Page 2 story stucco home). The 83 Eichler homes within the proposed SSO boundary include all homes fronting on Holly Oak Drive and Cork Oak Way, 11 homes facing Ames Avenue from 700 to 788 Ames, and eight homes on Middlefield (3287-3333). Currently, 767 and 771 Holly Oak Drive are both zoned R-1, which requires lots to be 6,000 square feet (sf) to meet the minimum lot size. The remaining properties are currently zoned R-1(7000), where the minimum lot size is 7,000 sf. Background Single Story Overlays Council adopted the Single Story Overlay zone as a standard zone district in 1992. In 2005, Council updated the Zoning Code to eliminate the ‘moderate lot size’ requirement for a single story overlay. On June 29, 2015, Council set policy to waive the fees for standard SSO applications. Required Level of Support Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.12.100 states the following: “For creating a single- story overlay district, a list of signatures evidencing support by: (i) 70% of included properties; or (ii) 60% of included properties where all included properties are subject to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit building height to a single story, whether or not such restrictions have been enforced. For the removal of a single-story overlay district, a list of signatures evidencing support by 70% of included properties, whether or not deed restrictions intended to limit the building height to single story apply. “Included properties” means all those properties inside the boundaries of the district proposed to be created or removed. The written statement or statements accompanying the signatures must state that the signer is indicating support for a zone map amendment that affects his or her property. One signature is permitted for each included property, and a signature evidencing support of an included property must be by an owner of record of that property.” Existing SSOs A map of the existing single story overlays within Palo Alto was contained with the June 29, 2015 Council report (ID #5907) that discussed the fee waiver; the report is viewable at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47895. Attachment G to this report shows all existing SSOs and proposed/pending SSOs. Pending SSOs Attachment G to this report is a map showing all existing and pending SSOs. The PTC is tentatively scheduled to review the Greer Park North SSO proposal (another one-story Eichler tract of 72 homes) in October. PTC Purview on a SSO Rezoning City of Palo Alto Page 3 PAMC Chapter 18.80 provides regulations for the rezoning process. PAMC Section 18.80.035 states ‘SSO applications are considered in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80 and can be made by a property owner within the district in accordance with PAMC 18.12.100. PAMC 18.80.060 requires mailing of hearing notices to property owners within a radius of 600 feet of the property to be rezoned, as well as the property to be rezoned. Recommendation Options and Timeline The PTC purview is to review and recommend Council action on any rezone application. The alternative recommendations available to the PTC include these: (1) expand or contract the boundaries of the overlay district, or (2) deny the request for a SSO. No additional notice is required to contract the boundaries. Once an Ordinance containing the PTC recommendation is made, staff has no more than 30 days to forward the PTC’s formal recommendation to Council. The draft ordinance, which may be modified in accordance with PTC recommendation(s) during the PTC hearing, would accompany a report to Council for public hearing and action. If the PTC does not support the request, the PTC is still required (within a reasonable time following the close of the public hearing) to render a formal decision on the rezone request in accordance with PAMC 18.80.070 (f), based upon prepared findings and determinations with respect to the application. Draft Ordinance Staff has prepared the attached ordinance to rezone the property. The City’s rezoning regulations are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80. The PTC is asked to determine that the rezone application is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning Code) and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, per PAMC Section 18.80.070 (e), ‘Action by Commission’. The PTC is asked to recommend that Council re-classify the zoning within the proposed SSO boundary from R-1 to R-1-S (and from R-1(7000) to R-1(7000)-S) by adopting the attached draft ordinance. Discussion Los Arboles Tract/Proposed SSO Existing Conditions Los Arboles neighborhood is comprised primarily of single-story, single-family residences of a similar age (1959-60), design and character (Eichler homes); 95% of the 83 homes within the proposed SSO boundary are original single-story Eichler homes; City of Palo Alto Page 4 The four two-story homes within the proposed boundary are original one-story Eichler homes with small second floor additions; One of the one-story homes in the neighborhood has recently been sold. Staff has not obtained information about the new homeowner and has not reached out to the new homeowner. There are no two-story home applications filed with the City within the proposed SSO boundary. Proposed Boundary The proposed boundary for rezoning is easily identifiable: it is two properties short of an entire, original Eichler homes tract. Two corner properties in the original Eichler tract are not included in the proposed SSO boundary SSO. One is developed with a one-story Eichler home, 3366 Ross Road, which has its entry facing Ross Road. The other excluded corner property is 795 Ames Avenue, a non-Eichler, two-story stucco home. The boundary’s original Eichler homes face both sides of the main streets - Holly Oak Drive, Ames Avenue, Cork Oak Way - or they face Middlefield as a large group (of eight homes). The proposed SSO boundary does not include the 30 homes in the adjacent tract, Torreya Court (Tract #5371), which has too many two story homes to be eligible alone for rezoning to SSO. The Los Arboles SSO applicant stated that they were interested in moving forward quickly with Los Arboles SSO, and were concerned that homeowners in the Torreya Court tract were having issues with the proposal (mostly, the consequences of a SSO rendering the two story Eichler homes as noncomplying facilities) to the extent these concerns might delay the process for the Los Arboles SSO. Attachment F shows the proposed Los Arboles Tract next to the Torreya Court Tract. Los Arboles SSO Submittal On June 30, 2015, the applicant (co-applicants) submitted information containing the SSO rezone proposal materials. The co-applicants are Rebecca Thompson of 754 Holly Oak Drive, and Sherilyn Tye, of 731 Holly Oak Drive. They represent 80% of 83 property owners within the proposed SSO boundary located within Los Arboles Tract 2396. The applicant paid no application fees, given Council direction that staff waive SSO rezoning application fees. This application has the support of 66 (80%) of the 83 homeowners within the proposed SSO boundary, where a lesser minimum (70%) of tract homeowners is required. Initiation Requirements The Los Arboles SSO rezone application meets the established criteria set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.12 for a SSO combining district initiation. The requisite signatures were gathered and the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum qualifications for initiation of a Single Story Overlay Rezoning. City of Palo Alto Page 5 80% of property owners (66 of 83 owners) within the proposed boundary (83 of the 85 homes within Tract 2396) support the proposal. This support level is 10% more than the 70% support level required for initiation. The applicants conducted an initial survey in September 2014 ‘to gauge support’, and distributed a second letter prior to gathering signatures on the attached petition in May and June. These materials were submitted to the City and staff reviewed the petition and outreach materials, to ensure the proposal reflects the requisite level of support. Copies of the applicants’ outreach efforts are included with application materials (Attachment C.) 95% of the homes within the proposed SSO boundary are single-story homes, where the requirement to initiate a SSO is 80% of homes as single story within the SSO boundary. The proposed SSO boundary is appropriate, as all are the original Eichler homes - none have been torn down and replaced since 1960; only four homes have second stories, which were constructed as compatible additions in the 1970’s. Two Ross Road fronting homes within the tract are excluded from the proposed boundary for appropriate reasons noted in the applicant’s letter. The lot sizes within the boundary range from 6,700 square feet (sf) to 10,000 sf, and the home sizes range from 1,650 sf to 2,850 sf. The majority of lots within the proposed SSO boundary are moderately sized (7,000-8,000 sf). A moderate lot size allows for a larger home footprint than a minimum lot size. Lot size is no longer a requirement for SSO initiation as noted earlier in this report. Neighborhood Values The June 30, 2015 application letter (contained in Attachment C) conveys the neighborhood values expressed by the supporters of this rezoning. These include privacy, livability, neighborhood diversity (generationally, ethnically and culturally), and appreciation of the neighborhood’s unique design and character. The letter also states the reasons for the application, provides information about the mid-century homes and subdivision design, and expresses concern about the lack of sensitivity to scale and compatibility with existing homes conveyed by new homes developed elsewhere. Finally, the letter requests that the application be processed and approved as soon as possible. SSO Regulations PAMC Section 18.12.010 (provided within Attachment H) sets forth the purposes of the (S) combining district and R-1 district. Briefly, the purpose of a Single-Story Combining District (S) is to modify the site development regulations of the R-1 single-family residence district, to preserve and maintain single-family living areas of predominantly single-story character. An area proposed for a single story combining district should be of a prevailing single story character, thus limiting the number of structures rendered non-complying by the (S) combining district. Site Development Regulations The Single Story Overlay process and development regulations are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.12, Single Family Residence District Section 18.12.100 City of Palo Alto Page 6 (Attachment H). New homes within a SSO district are restricted to a maximum building height of 17 feet and one ‘habitable’ floor. In a special flood hazard area, the maximum building height may be 20 feet pursuant to a specific formula (1/2 of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation). The code text states, “habit-able floors include lofts, mezzanines and similar areas but exclude basements and exclude attics that have no stairway or built-in access. Lofts and mezzanines include any space above the first floor in excess of five feet (5') from the floor to the roof above.” Noncomplying Facilities Within a SSO district, existing two story homes, homes with basements or mezzanines, and homes exceeding maximum height of 17 are considered non-complying facilities subject to the regulations of PAMC Chapter 18.70. The SSO does not mandate any design review for one- story replacement homes, so continued privacy and design compatibility are not assured for new homes within a SSO boundary. Protection of Eichler Homes and Compatibility of New One Story Homes The recent batch of SSO proposals are for Eichler neighborhoods. However, imposition of SSO zoning does not ensure replacement one-story homes would be compatible with the neighborhood’s Eichler style homes, nor address existing privacy conditions of adjacent homes, since no discretionary review is involved. Only zoning compliance review is required for one- story home construction, in conjunction with a building permit, and no notices are distributed. Single-Story Overlay Level of Support and Outreach Applicant’s Outreach Efforts The applicants conducted neighborhood outreach in three phases: (1) an initial survey in September 2014, (2) a second outreach letter, and (3) gathering of signatures from the neighbors within the SSO boundary on a petition. There was also a neighborhood annual block party where the SSO proposal was discussed. According to the applicant, the purpose of the September 2014 survey was “to gauge interest in preventing construction of additional two story houses in the neighborhood.” The applicant’s second outreach letter provided a link to the City’s webpage containing the code conveying the SSO process, purposes and limitations. Further Verification and Notices The SSO process regulations do not require the City to further verify homeowner support via postcard mailing. Staff reviewed the applicant’s outreach letters and petition and, due to the 80% level of support for the SSO proposal, staff felt it unnecessary to verify this level of support prior to public hearing at the PTC meeting. The code simply requires notification of the PTC public hearing (per PAMC Chapter 18.180); notice cards have been sent to all property owners and residents of the homes within the proposed overlay boundary, as well as to property owners within 600 feet of the proposed overlay boundary, to meet the notice requirements. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Staff’s Informational Memo The informational memorandum staff mailed on August 24, 2015 provided clarifications on the limitations of Single Story Overlays (Attachment E). Petition Signatures The petition of 66 signatures gathered in May and June shows that 17 addresses have no signatures of support: Owners of property on Ames (716 and 764), Middlefield (3321), Cork Oak Way (3393, 3404, 3412, 3415, 3444, 3452), and Holly Oak Drive (712, 715, 720, 744, 784, 785, 786, 788) did not sign the petition. The percentage of homeowners not providing signatures on the petition is 20% (17 of 83 homes). The applicant states that six of the non-responding homeowners (7%) stated they are not supportive, and that 11 of these homeowners (13%) remain undecided or unreachable. Two of the four two-story homeowners (788 Ames Avenue and 3373 Cork Oak Way) signed the petition in favor of the rezoning proposal. The other two, two-story homeowners (788 and 785 Holly Oak Drive) did not sign the petition. Boundary of the Los Arboles SSO The reason the Ross Road homes were excluded from the Los Arboles SSO boundary, as stated in the application, is that the property owners requested to be excluded from the boundaries of the proposed SSO, and these properties are geographically located such that their exclusion is logical. The history and reasons the Torreya Court tract is not included in the Los Arboles SSO boundary request at this time are provided below. Adjacent Tract, Torreya Court On the same day the Los Arboles proposal was filed with the City, a representative of the adjacent Torreya Court tract dropped off a SSO proposal for the adjacent Eichler neighborhood, Torreya Court. Attachment D is a map submitted by the applicant of the Torreya Court proposal. The Los Arboles SSO narrative recognizes the Torreya Court SSO proposal, and states, “Planning staff might want to process the two applications together.” However, staff did not accept the application for the Torreya Court SSO proposal, because it does not meet the initiation criteria (too many two-story homes), and because the two story home owners have contacted staff regarding their concerns that their homes would become non-complying facilities. The Torreya Court tract (Tract #5371) has nine two-story, original Eichler homes within the boundaries, which represents 30% of the 30 homes. The percentage of single story homes on the court (70%) is less than the 80% minimum criteria to initiate rezoning (per PAMC 18.12.100 (2)(B)). Several of the nine two-story homeowners are concerned about the fact that their homes would become ‘non-complying facilities’ subject to regulations of PAMC Chapter 18.70, following the SSO rezoning. These homeowners have been meeting to discuss their concerns; City of Palo Alto Page 8 they are considering resubmitting an application to modify the text of Chapter 18.12 to allow rebuilding of the two story homes. Such a proposal would not be considered a ‘standard’ SSO zone, and would be subject to payment of application fees. Meanwhile, the Los Arboles applicants told staff the Los Arboles neighborhood does not wish to delay the rezoning process for Los Arboles SSO. As shown on the attached maps, the Torreya Court and Los Arboles neighborhoods are adjacent to each other, and staff has no concerns about merging the neighborhoods into one SSO boundary, if the PTC directs this. An expansion of the boundary would require re-noticing, but this is not an issue. If the PTC wants to expand the boundaries of the SSO, the description of the boundary would be revised for notices to be published and mailed to a radius of 600 feet from the expanded boundary. Staff would be able to meet deadlines for sending notices of an expanded SSO boundary prior to the September 30, 2015 hearing. Public Notice Notice cards were sent to property owners and residents within the proposed Los Arboles SSO boundary and to property owners and residents within a 600 foot radius of the boundary. Staff also mailed out an outreach letter on August 24, 2015 to property owners within the proposed SSO boundary (Attachment X). The newspaper publication requirement was not met for the September 9, 2015 hearing of this item, so the PTC is asked to continue the hearing to a date certain: the PTC meeting of September 30, 2015. A newspaper notice will be placed to meet the code requirements for publication for September 30, 2015. Policy Implications The proposed SSO is supportable as a standard SSO, and is in accordance with Council direction regarding rezoning of properties to SSO without requiring application fees to process the applications. Additional SSO applications are on file or pending filing. With a SSO on file, home buyers in the subject neighborhood may be less likely to risk proposing a two story home. Resource Impact The Single Story Overlay process is free for applicants so there have been three proposals submitted within a month’s time and staff is discussing a fourth proposal with a potential applicant. There is no cost recovery for the processing these applications. Timeline The PTC is asked to continue the hearing to September 30, 2015 to allow newspaper publication of the hearing for PTC recommendation on the application. The tentative date for Council consideration of the proposed SSO is November 9, 2015. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Environmental Review The proposed rezoning is exempt from CEQA per Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: Applicant submittal, Boundary of proposed Single Story Overlay (PDF) Attachment C: Los Arboles Applicant Submittal (PDF) Attachment D: Torreya Court Single Story Overlay proposal (PDF) Attachment E: Staff Informational Memo (DOCX) Attachment F: City generated map showing location of 2 story homes (PDF) Attachment G: Existing plus proposed SSOs (PDF) Attachment H: Chapter 18.12 R-1/SSO purpose excerpted (DOCX) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6254) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Midtown Connector Project/Matadero Creek Title: Discussion and Direction Regarding the Midtown Connector Project (Formerly Known as the Matadero Creek Trail Project) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction to staff regarding next steps for proceeding with the Midtown Connector Project, formerly known as the Matadero Creek Trail Project. Executive Summary In November 2012, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (Board) unanimously approved $10.0 million in grants to fund pedestrian and bike path improvements proposed by Stanford and the City of Palo Alto. The Board action included the allocation of $1.5 million in funding for a proposed trail along the levees within the Matadero Creek channel and also established conditions that the City must meet prior to Board approval of a project funding agreement, outlined in Attachment A. The Matadero Creek Trail Project was included in the Stanford-Palo Alto Trails Program application and in both the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan and the City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The project goal is to establish a “Bay to Ridge Trail” network to seamlessly connect the Stanford University campus, nearby neighborhoods, employment centers, parks, schools and other public facilities to an abundant and diverse set of recreational opportunities extending from the San Francisco Bay to the Arastradero Preserve. In early 2013, staff began community engagement for the proposed Matadero Creek Trail Project and met with resident stakeholders through the Midtown Residents Association. In response to community input, staff expanded the feasibility study to include alternative alignments, and later renamed the project the Midtown Connector Project to reflect a commitment to assess alternatives to the creek trail alignment. Staff began a feasibility study of the Matadero Creek alignment and alternative alignments in 2014, and held a study kick-off meeting in June 2014. Notes on the initial public meetings are included as Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Page 2 In early 2015, staff convened a Citizens Advisory Committee to help define alternatives for further study, along with a suite of evaluation criteria that could be used to review the alternatives. A second public meeting was held to focus on these same issues. In mid-2015, a preliminary constructability review indicated that constraints along the Matadero Creek channel may limit the feasibility of a public access trail on large segments of the corridor. Constraints include seasonal access closure structures, steep grades and required maintenance access to the creek channel. Staff presented these preliminary findings to the Citizen Advisory Committee on September 8, 2015 for discussion. The Citizen Advisory Committee meeting agenda packet is enclosed as Attachment C. Staff subsequently identified three options for the City Council’s consideration, as elaborated in the Discussion section below. These options include: continue the study of the creek alignment with the understanding that design, permitting, construction, and maintenance costs will be significantly greater than originally anticipated, end the feasibility study, or continue the study of alternative east-west alignments in lieu of the Matadero Creek channel. Background The adopted City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) identifies the Matadero Creek channel levees and a number of other on-street bicycle routes through the Midtown neighborhood of Palo Alto. The BPTP identifies bicycle and pedestrian connections across the barriers of Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and US 101 freeway as key objectives. Residents of Midtown and of the Stanford University campus who may travel through Midtown for recreational access to parks and the Baylands are well aware of the challenges of crossing the many busy streets along the way, as well as the constraints of traffic and parking along the connecting streets. Providing safer and more comfortable connections for bicyclists and pedestrians is a key objective of the BPTP. The purpose of the Midtown Connector Project is to establish an east-west bicycle and pedestrian connection through the Midtown neighborhood between the west side of the Caltrain tracks and Alma Street to the east side of the US 101 freeway that serves to extend and connect recreational resources and provide improved active transportation options for both City residents and users of the Stanford University campus. Project Funding In November 2012, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved $10.0 million in grants to fund pedestrian and bike path improvements proposed by Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto. The $10.0 million included $1.5 million for a proposed trail along the levees of the Matadero Creek. The grant application (http://bit.ly/1BroN5e) proposed the trail alignment along the Matadero Creek channel levees and estimated a total project cost of $2.0 million. This project is also City of Palo Alto Page 3 identified in the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan (http://bit.ly/11oO6oA), which was last updated in 1995. The feasibility study phase for the Midtown Connector Project is funded at $383,645 in the City’s FY15 Capital Improvement Plan budget through CIP PL-14001 Midtown Connector Project. Through a public procurement process, the City retained Alta Planning + Design to lead a consultant team to prepare the study. Initial efforts provided a high-level evaluation of five alternative alignments for a Midtown Connector between Alma Street and the US 101 freeway, including a Matadero Creek Trail concept, Colorado Avenue, Loma Verde Avenue, California Avenue, and East Meadow Drive. Approximately $200,000 is remaining in the budget allocated for the feasibility study. Based on the conditions established by the County Board of Supervisors, successful completion of the Feasibility Study and concurrence by the Santa Clara Valley Water District is required prior to beginning the next steps of environmental review, more detailed preliminary plans, permitting, plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), bidding, and construction. If a different alignment is selected as the locally-preferred alternative, City staff would need to consult with the County staff to determine whether this alternative meets the requirements of the original grant award. Significant deviations from the original creek channel alignment may require the revised project to compete in a new competitive grant process established by the County Board of Supervisors. Community Feedback Staff met with community members at resident association meetings in 2013 and at public meetings on June 26, 2014 and April 14, 2015, as reflected in the attached meeting notes. Additional public comments were gathered using an online map developed for the bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways program. Comments made within the Midtown neighborhood were pulled out and analyzed separately to help with the initial alternatives development and planning. A project-specific Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed in early 2015 for the purpose of increasing community participation in the planning process to help define overall project objectives, identify alignment alternatives, and to consider the criteria for evaluating alternatives. Eleven members of the public, one Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) member, and one Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) member comprise the CAC. Two CAC meetings were held on February 26, 2015 and September 8, 2015. In addition, staff met one-on-one with interested CAC members. Overall, the project has received feedback in favor of and in opposition to an alignment along the creek corridor. Most participants agree that an east-west connection should be comfortable and accessible. Many see the future Adobe Creek/Highway 101 overcrossing and the existing Embarcadero Road overcrossing as providing adequate accommodations, while others believe that these two routes are too far north and south to fully meet the needs of the Midtown community. The Caltrain and Highway 101 freeway crossings, along with the limited available right-of-way along the Matadero Creek channel are among the major challenges cited by the public. Other concerns include security, privacy, lighting, and safety at mid-block crossings. City of Palo Alto Page 4 There seems to be concern about the cost of the project and the possibility of needing to forfeit the County grant funds. At the first Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on February 26, 2015, the project team and CAC members discussed preliminary alignments including: (1) the Matadero Creek channel, and (2) on-‐street bicycle routes with enhanced pedestrian facilities along North California Avenue, Oregon Avenue, Moreno Avenue and Amarillo Avenue, Colorado Avenue, East Meadow Drive, or Loma Verde Avenue, as shown in Attachment D. Staff sought input on draft criteria for selection of alignments and agreement on five alternative alignments for initial screening using the criteria. Attachment E depicts the five alternatives selected by the CAC, which were Oregon Avenue, Colorado Avenue, Loma Verde Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and the Matadero Creek channel, as well as some of the alignment constraints. Staff and the CAC also discussed goals for Community Workshop #2, which was subsequently held on April 14, 2015. While the City Council charged staff with assessing the feasibility of the Matadero Creek channel alignment, the CAC has sought to understand the rationale for selecting the creek channel alignment for in-depth evaluation prior to a screening of alternative alignments using the evaluation criteria developed for ranking the east-‐west connector routes. Questions raised include the weighting of the different criteria, whether a creek trail that could not remain open 24 hours a day and 365 days per year is worth studying, and how and when costs for each option figured into the evaluation. At the second CAC meeting on September 8, 2015, the staff and CAC members discussed the preliminary constructability review findings. The CAC was supportive of discontinuing study of a Matadero Creek channel alignment, based on the significant challenges and suggested continuing to study a high-quality protected bikeway along Loma Verde Avenue, Colorado Avenue or East Meadow Drive. The CAC also discussed an option to focus more detailed study on a Midtown project to bridge the Alma Street and Caltrain barrier. CAC members are concerned that the City may have to give the grant back to the County if a suitable alternative is not identified. If possible, CAC members would like the City to retain the funding for an alternate corridor. The Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) discussed the feasibility study at its October 6, 2015 meeting. Following discussion of the significant challenges along the Matadero Creek channel alignment, PABAC adopted two motions recommending: (1) The City discontinue the study of the Matadero Creek channel alignment as this alternative presents obstacles that are overly expensive and/or infeasible to overcome; and (2) The City would be well-served by a new grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing over/under Alma Street and Caltrain between Oregon Expressway and East Meadow Drive. This piece of the Midtown Connector Project is important and should be advanced. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Staff notes the City has long-term plans for a new South Palo Alto pedestrian and bicycle grade separation project, as identified in the City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Staff submitted a $13.0 million estimate for this project in response to the recent Valley Transportation Plan 2040 call for projects. The project would construct a grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing between California Avenue Caltrain station and the at-grade crossing on East Meadow Drive. Inter-Agency Coordination The Santa Clara Valley Water District is a key partner for any public use within the Matadero Creek channel. An approved Joint-Use Agreement for public access is required prior to expenditure of the $1.5M in County funding. Following the April 14, 2015 community workshop, staff postponed the May CAC meeting in order to take a fresh look at the feasibility study approach. Staff determined that the evaluation of alignment alternatives should not proceed further prior to an initial screening of the Matadero Creek alignment in collaboration with Santa Clara Valley Water District staff. On August 21, 2015, City staff and two members of the Alta Planning + Design consulting team met with Sue Tippets from the Santa Clara Valley Water District to discuss the feasibility of a trail along Matadero Creek channel. The following list includes the takeaway points from the meeting: City will need to work with private property owners to get access within the easement areas No current plans to daylight the creek west of Alma Street o Reflective strips might be allowed, such as LED bot dots o Lighting is allowed under long overpasses and at intersections with roadway Joint-use Agreement would defer all responsibility and liability to the city City would need to put access closure structures in at Greer Road, Louis Road, and Middlefield Road in advance of rain and remove following rain events during the rainy season (or close the trail for duration of the rainy season) Concern about how the ramps could be shared and hydraulic analysis might be required especially if the flood wall and/or ramps are moved Bridges and cantilevered structures are likely not feasible due to clearance and access top of bank for maintenance City would be required to partner to support ongoing required maintenance needs such as o Excavators to clear sediments every three to five years, depending on rain levels o Vegetation management for spillover landscape and weep holes a few times per year o Graffiti and trash removal ongoing/as needed o Security for mowing and sediment removal o Trail closure for flail mower (throws rocks, etc.) Discussion After receiving public comments and meeting with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, staff has determined that there are significant challenges that will increase the design, permitting and construction costs of a trail along the Matadero Creek channel. There is also a significant City of Palo Alto Page 6 amount of community concern surrounding the potential for access and security impacts to the abutting properties. A preliminary constructability review indicates that constraints along the Matadero Creek alignment may limit the feasibility of a public access trail on a majority of the Matadero Creek corridor. Constraints include access closure structures that are put in place at three locations to prevent flooding during the rainy season and steep trail gradients required for maintenance access to the creek channel. Staff identified potential impacts of the Matadero Creek Flood Control Project on trail feasibility as an area requiring further investigation and reviewed historical documents, including the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project Engineer’s Report, Construction Drawings, and Final Environmental Impact Report. Matadero Creek Flood Control Project The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐‐Term Remediation Project, a six-‐‐year, $23.0-million flood-‐‐ control effort was completed in 2005 to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) goal of 100-‐‐year (1%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The improvements reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of flooding in Matadero Creek and Barron Creek between Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. While the project provides protection for a 1% (100- ‐‐year) flood event, it does not mitigate for tidal flooding, which affects the channel area from the bay to the Middlefield Road area. The flood control project included construction of access closure structures, which are installed across the existing maintenance road annually, from October to April, at three locations: Middlefield, Louis Road, and Greer Road. These structures are installed manually and are required for flood control during high-water events. Information gathered to date indicates a creek trail was not a priority for either agency during the planning process for the flood control project, when trail infrastructure might have been designed in harmony with the project. A summary of the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐‐Term Remediation Project review is included in Attachment C. Creek Channel Maintenance Access The Santa Clara Valley Water District utilizes the existing levees to access the Matadero Creek channel for vegetation management, graffiti and trash removal, and sediment removal. A public access trail would need to maintain access for maintenance vehicles through a Joint-use Agreement with the water district. Preliminary concepts to maintain access indicate that the trail would ramp steeply, up and down at approximately 4.99% grades at four locations along the creek channel. The maintenance ramp would need to split off at the low point of the trail and continue at a steeper gradient to access the channel. Attachment C includes a conceptual ramp configuration at Louis Road with maintenance access to the channel. Alternative, more costly solutions, involving right of way acquisition, have not been analyzed. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Five-percent grades are not comfortable for many people who walk and bicycle. Due to existing block lengths, trail users would experience few flat segments of trail. Other area trails that ramp up and down typically do so to provide benefits to users, such as grade separated crossings of intersections. Coupled with at grade crossings of intersections, the ramp configuration required for maintenance access would likely discourage many potential trail users. Locations that would require ramping include: East of Alma Street on the north side East of Middlefield Road on the south side (at the tennis courts) East of Louis Road on the north side At US 101 freeway Screening Conclusion In summary, the trail alignment screening identifies significant potential challenges to achieving the vision of a creek corridor trail to connect community facilities for use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages. Should the City continue to pursue a trail on the Matadero Creek levees, and should it prove feasible, the Santa Clara Valley Water District staff has outlined the following options: 1) City takes on full responsibility to close trail to public and install access closure structures in advance of a significant rain event and to remove them following a significant rain event; and 2) Keep the trail closed during the rainy season from approximately October to April, similar to the Adobe Creek undercrossing. Based on all that is known today, staff believes there are three options on how to proceed and would appreciated the City Council’s direction: 1. Continue Feasibility Study: Continue the current feasibility study for a trail along the creek corridor with the understanding that the trail design, permitting and construction costs will be much, much greater than originally estimated. Unanticipated challenges will need to be overcome. These include: a) avoidance/modification of the ramps/service roads, b) city resources required for installation/maintenance of closure gates during rain events, c) assumption of liability by the city for their installation and other potential claims, d) acquisition of property in certain locations and e) community opposition. 2. End Feasibility Study: End the current feasibility study for a trail along the creek corridor and do nothing further. The bikeway program will continue to plan, design and construct specific corridors based on their priority in the citywide network. The remaining local funding would be redirected to other bikeway projects. Grant funds would be returned to the County for reallocation to other projects. City staff would coordinate with County staff to advance other local bikeway projects to compete for the funding. City of Palo Alto Page 8 3. Study an Alternative Alignment: With the concurrence of the County of Santa Clara, re- scope the current study to examine the feasibility of a high-quality protected bikeway along Loma Verde Avenue or Colorado Avenue and/or a bike/pedestrian connection over/under Alma Street and Caltrain. The creek corridor would be ruled out as infeasible based on challenges outlined above. City staff would coordinate with County staff to determine if there are any potential obstacles with this strategy. Resource Impact The feasibility study phase for the Midtown Connector Project is funded in the City’s Adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP PL-14001). Approximately $200,000 is remaining in the budget allocated for the feasibility study. Option 1: Continue Feasibility Study The original project cost estimate of $2.0M total cost is insufficient for a creek trail alignment, which will be substantially more expensive than previously anticipated and more expensive than alternative alignments. Should the Council proceed with Option 1, additional local funding would need to be allocated to complete environmental review, overcome unanticipated challenges, develop community consensus, and satisfy all conditions required by the County Board of Supervisors. County grant funds of $1.5M are available for design and construction of a creek alignment should the City satisfy the project conditions approved by the County. Based on identified constraints, significant additional funds from other sources would be required for construction. Option 2: End Feasibility Study The remaining $200,000 in local funding would become available for programming for priority bikeway projects. Staff would coordinate with Council and the County to advance competitive local projects for the $1.5M funding returned from the Matadero Creek trail award. Option 3: Study Alternative Alignment Both the Colorado Avenue and Loma Verde alignment alternatives could likely be designed and constructed for less than $1M per bikeway project, not including a new crossing of Alma Street and Caltrain. It is unclear whether awarded County funds would be available for a parallel alignment in Midtown. Should the Council proceed with Option 3, staff would coordinate with the County to determine eligibility. All Options: Cost estimates for option(s) that advance would need to be refined through additional study. If additional funds are allocated from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation Projects CIP, this would reduce funding availability for other projects. Timeline The timeline will be determined by the option chosen by City Council. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Environmental Review The feasibility study was intended to inform environmental review. Based on the City Council’s direction and the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s position, the environmental review will either: proceed as originally anticipated, not proceed, or focus on an alternative to the creek alignment. Attachments: Attachment A: November 2012 Board of Supervisors Action (PDF) Attachment B: 2013 Midtown Resident Association Project Meeting Notes (PDF) Attachment B-1: Alta_Matadero-Creek-Trail-Feasibility-06262014-Public-Kickoff- Meeting-Notes (PDF) Attachment C: Citizen Advisory Committee Agenda Packet (PDF) Attachment D: Preliminary Alignment Alternatives (PDF) Attachment E: MataderoCreekTrail_PrelimAlignmentAlts (PDF) Attachment E-1: Constraints (PDF) County of Santa Clara Office of the County Executive Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 1 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith 65238 DATE: November 20, 2012 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Sylvia Gallegos, Deputy County Executive SUBJECT: Report Back on Alternative Mitigation for Impact OS-3 in Stanford 2000 GUP EIR RECOMMENDED ACTION Under advisement from the May 22, 2012 (Item No. 10), June 19, 2012 (Item No. 21), and August 7, 2012 (Item No. 37) Board of Supervisors meetings: Consider recommendations relating to recreational projects to fulfill alterative mitigation for Impact OS-3 identified in the Environmental Impact Report for Stanford University’s 2000 General Use Permit. Possible Action: a. Accept report back; b. Find that these projects - the Bay Trail Connection, Mindego Gateway, Red Barn Picnic Area and Trails, El Corte de Madera Staging Area and Trails, Alpine Pond Boardwalk, Stanford Perimeter Trail, Matadero Creek Trail, Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101, Fremont Road Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trail, and Spring Down Pond - would provide adequate substitute mitigation, in part, for the adverse effect on recreational opportunities for existing or new campus residents and facility users caused by the housing and academic development approved by the 2000 Stanford University General Use Permit, which reduces the availability of recreational facilities while increasing the demand for such facilities (Impact OS-3); c. Declare intent to fund all or parts of certain proposed projects and approve project-specific conditions, if any; and d. Direct the Administration to negotiate project agreements for approved projects and submit for approval to Board of Supervisors consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS There is no negative impact to the General Fund as a result of the recommended actions. CONTRACT HISTORY Not applicable. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 6 Packet Pg. 17 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 2 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 The County of Santa Clara has available $10,379,474 to use on projects that will mitigate the loss of recreational facilities for existing or new campus residents and facility users due to development on the Stanford University campus resulting from approval of a General Use Permit (GUP) in 2000. In 2000, the County certified a program EIR and issued the GUP to Stanford University for campus-wide development. EIR Impact OS-3 recognizes that Stanford housing and academic development permitted under the GUP on several sites used for recreation and an overall increase to Stanford’s resident and worker population would reduce the availability of recreational facilities while increasing the demand for such facilities, causing a loss of recreational opportunities for existing or new campus residents and facility users. To mitigate the loss of recreational facilities, two mitigation measures were adopted. Mitigation OS-3A requires Stanford to improve parks in the faculty area to provide suitable recreation for the campus population and to continue to provide neighborhood recreation in new residential areas. Mitigation OS-3B requires Stanford to dedicate trail easements. Mitigation OS-3B does not require Stanford to make any improvements to the trail corridors. Mitigation OS-3B was satisfied by GUP condition I.2 requiring Stanford to dedicate easements for, develop, and maintain the portions of two trail alignments that cross Stanford lands shown in the 1995 Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan (Routes S1 and C1). Agreements for the trails easements were to be executed within one year of GUP approval in 2000. However, due to complexities associated with the Alpine Road C1 alignment, the Board directed County staff and Stanford in 2001 to suspend work on the C1 alignment and to proceed with the S1 alignment. In December 2005, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute a Trails Agreement with Stanford University. Trails Agreement The Trails Agreement required Stanford to construct and dedicate one of the specific S1 trail alignments near Page Mill Road. Stanford completed construction of the S1 trail alignment and the trail was opened to the public on May 20, 2011. The C1 trail alignment proposed by Stanford followed Alpine Road. Because portions of this alignment ran through jurisdictions of the County of San Mateo and the Town of Portola Valley, the Trails Agreement gave Stanford time to reach agreement with those jurisdictions for their portions of the alignment. If Stanford did not reach agreement with the County of San Mateo and/or the Town of Portola Valley within a certain amount of time, Stanford was required to pay the County $8.4 million for the portion of the C1 trail in San Mateo County and $2.8 million for the portion in Portola Valley. The County of San Mateo and Stanford did not reach agreement within the amount of time identified in the Trails Agreement and, thus, in accordance with the Trails Agreement, Stanford paid the County $10,379,474 on February 29, 2012. The Trails Agreement provided that these funds are to be used to mitigate the significant environmental impact due to the loss of recreational facilities and the resulting decrease in recreational opportunities for the target beneficiaries caused by development authorized under the GUP. The Trails Agreement further provides that funds shall not be used for facilities on Stanford University lands without Stanford’s consent. 6 Packet Pg. 18 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 3 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 Process to Identify Mitigation Measures for Loss of Recreational Facilities and the Resulting Loss of Recreational Opportunities With the transfer of the $10.4 million, the obligation to mitigate the loss of recreational facilities is assumed by the County of Santa Clara. In response, the County issued a request for applications for projects that would serve as alternative mitigation measures to address the loss of recreational facilities on the Stanford campus. The County received 15 project applications from six local agencies. In addition, Supervisor Kniss previously proposed two projects: the Dumbarton Link in the San Francisco Bay Trail, which has also been proposed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as the Bay Trail Connection, and the Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101, which has also been submitted as part of the Stanford University/City of Palo Alto application. The following list presents the six agencies and the fifteen project applications: City of Menlo Park Sand Hill Road Pathway Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bay Trail Connection/Dumbarton Link (Ravenswood Open Space Preserve) Mindego Gateway (Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve) Red Barn Picnic Area and Trails (La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve) Staging Area and Trails Project (El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve) Alpine Pond Trail and Boardwalk (Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve) Stanford University and City of Palo Alto Stanford Perimeter Trail Park Boulevard “Bicycle Boulevard” Matadero Creek Trail Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101 Arastradero Road C-2 Trail Upgrades Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Road Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trail Project Town of Portola Valley Spring Down Pond Project Ford Field Renovation/Expansion Project 6 Packet Pg. 19 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 4 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 Triangle Park Expansion Project Suitability of Proposed Projects as Alternative Recreational Mitigation Measures As set forth earlier in this report, this unique, one-time source of funds has been established for a narrow and specific purpose –– to mitigate the adverse environmental effect due to the loss of recreational facilities for existing or new campus residents and facility users that is caused by the housing and academic development authorized by the GUP. There are, as a result, two tasks before the Board of Supervisors. The first task is to establish which of the fifteen proposed recreational projects fulfill the intent of the mitigation. Those projects that do not fulfill the intent of the mitigation would not be suitable to fund from this source of funding. The second task would be to then decide, among those projects that do qualify, which ones to fund in whole or in part. With these purposes in mind, the Administration and County Counsel reviewed each of the fifteen applications to determine the suitability of the proposed projects in fulfilling the intent of the mitigation identified in EIR Impact OS-3. Projects Not Qualifying The County’s obligation under the Trails Agreement is to mitigate the loss of recreational facilities and the resulting decrease in recreational opportunities due to housing and academic development approved by the GUP. The means by which recreational opportunities are created is by establishing new recreational facilities or expanding existing recreational facilities such that they create new recreational uses or a new facility that previously did not exist for the target beneficiaries – existing or new campus residents and facility users. Based upon a review of the applications and communications with the project sponsors, five of fifteen projects have been deemed to not achieve the intent of the mitigation. To expand on these statements, establishing a new recreational facility – for example, a new trail or soccer field – is readily understood as creating a new recreational asset when none previously existed and, thus, satisfies the intent of the mitigation to address the loss of campus recreational facilities and the resulting decrease in recreational opportunities. The less straightforward circumstance is when an existing recreational facility is expanded or improved. The central question is, does the totality of improvements to an existing recreational facility create a use or new recreational facility that did not previously exist? An example would be if an existing trail were widened to allow for equestrian use when such a use did not previously exist. Another example of such a case would be if a street previously available to both automobile and bicycle traffic were to be dedicated exclusively to bicycle use. With respect to the following five projects, the totality of improvements to the existing recreational facility does not create a new use or recreational facility. Moreover, it is not sufficient – as has been posited by some applicants – that the improvements make an existing facility more attractive for more people to use. 6 Packet Pg. 20 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 5 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 Sand Hill Road Pathway (City of Menlo Park) This proposed project is not a suitable alternative mitigation measure because the project would repave existing asphalt paths along both sides of Sand Hill Road, and would thus, in effect, be a maintenance project rather than a new recreational facility or use for the target beneficiaries. Park Blvd “Bicycle Boulevard” (City of Palo Alto) Palo Alto’s Bicycle Boulevards are low-traffic, low-speed streets where bicycle travel is prioritized over automobile travel. The proposed improvements include signage to brand the route as an official “Bicycle Boulevard,” apply share-the-road “Sharrow” roadway markings, remove certain Stop signs, and install traffic calming features. Painted sharrow symbols (a bicycle with two arrows) do not designate a section of a street for the exclusive use of bicycle riders. Rather, they are visible reminders to share the road safely. The proposed improvements, taken together, do not constitute a new recreational facility nor expand recreational uses because bicyclists can currently use Park Boulevard as a bicycle route, and there are already barriers in place at certain intersections (e.g., Park Blvd at Chestnut) to discourage automobile traffic. After the improvements are completed, automobiles would still be permitted to use the street so Palo Alto’s proposal does not create a facility that would be exclusively for the use of bicyclists. The project also does not qualify for funding merely because it may facilitate people traveling to other existing or new recreational facilities, it must stand on its own merits as a recreational facility. As set forth in Stanford University and Palo Alto’s joint letter to County Counsel dated October 17, 2012, the applicants appear to believe that Park Boulevard qualifies for funding because “Installation of bicycle boulevard improvements in these two locations would increase recreational opportunities by enabling Stanford and Palo Alto residents to bicycle to and from the proposed Stanford Perimeter Trail, recreational facilities on the Stanford campus, the proposed Matadero Creek Trail, and existing bicycle lanes facilities connecting to the proposed Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge and Bay to Ridge Trail routes.” This is not the case because the totality of the improvements does not create a new recreational use. If this were the case, it would imply that any road project that facilitated access to a recreational facility would qualify for funding regardless of whether the road project created a new recreational facility or use. Arastradero C2 Trail Upgrade (City of Palo Alto) The Arastradero C2 Trail is an existing 6-foot wide asphalt shared use (pedestrians and bicyclists) path along the north side of Arastradero Road with bike lanes on both sides of the road (except for the segment between Deer Creek and Purissima, which is too narrow for bike lanes.) The proposal is to widen the existing path with two-foot shoulders with decomposed granite on each side of the path. The project would not result in the establishment of new recreational uses (for example, equestrian use) because the path would be limited to pedestrians and bicyclists both before and after the improvements; nor would it result in the dedication of additional land for recreation. In concluding that the Arastradero C2 trail project is not qualified, the Administration relied upon the features and purposes of the upgrade of the C1 trail along Alpine Road – a project in the Trails Agreement 6 Packet Pg. 21 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 6 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 that was ultimately not undertaken – to determine qualification because the Alpine C1 trail project had been previously deemed acceptable in the 2005 Trails Agreement to fulfill the intent of the mitigation. Stanford/Palo Alto’s October 17 letter to County Counsel assumes that all of the proposed projects are comparable to the Alpine C1 trail project. This is not true with regard to a couple of the projects, including the Arastradero C2 trail project. The Trails Agreement originally contemplated that the Alpine C1 trail would be improved between the Menlo Park city limits and Arastradero Road in Portola Valley. In its current state, the Alpine C1 trail is comprised of bike lanes on portions of each side of Alpine Road, along with a shared use (pedestrians and bicyclists) asphalt path. The C1 trail along Alpine Road is narrow (3-feet) and deteriorated in many sections of the trail with tree roots buckling the asphalt surface. There are significant gaps in the trail and a section closed off for safety, and it is in danger of falling into San Francisquito Creek in certain sections. In short, the Alpine trail is fragmented and deteriorated, and is neither complete nor safe as a shared use trail. The proposed improvements included extensive roadwork along Alpine Road in the Weekend Acres section consisting of significant engineering and environmental work and major grading to move a hillside to shift the road right-of-way and trail further away from residential properties adjacent to Alpine Road, as well as widening, re-constructing, and, in some sections, constructing a new trail. The totality of improvements to the Alpine C1 trail would have re-aligned the trail on to newly dedicated land and made other improvements that would essentially complete and enable the C1 trail’s actual use. By comparison, the Arastradero C2 trail is a six-foot wide shared use (pedestrians and bicyclists) asphalt path with easy accessibility, three safe, well-marked, at-grade crossings with excellent visibility along the proposed segment. As acknowledged in the project application, “The Arastradero Trail is already a recreational facility for residents of nearby neighborhoods, Stanford students and faculty, and employees of nearby businesses.” The conclusion is that the Arastradero C2 trail is currently usable, and the improvements would only widen and make the trail more attractive, but would not facilitate an additional recreational use. Ford Field Renovation/Expansion Project (Town of Portola Valley) This proposed project is not a suitable alternative mitigation measure for two reasons: First, the target beneficiaries of this project are Little League baseball teams from Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Ladera, and Woodside, according to the applicant. Secondly, this project is a renovation of an existing ballpark that proposes to “expand the facility for handicap accessibility . . . and with larger capacity bleachers, dugouts, and storage areas” and does not, thus, constitute a new recreational facility nor create a new use that did not previously exist. Triangle Park Expansion Project (Town of Portola Valley) This proposed project is not a suitable alternative mitigation measure because the project would renovate an existing park in Portola Valley, and the capital project would not provide additional recreational uses. As indicated in the application, “the project enables continued recreation of uses of the parks (sic) lawn areas, picnic tables, and walking paths.” Partially Qualified Projects 6 Packet Pg. 22 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 7 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 One project has been deemed to be partially qualified. That is to say, a portion of the proposed project is suitable for funding while other portions do not qualify for funding from this source of funds. Alpine Pond Trail and Boardwalk (MROSD) Currently, the project site includes Alpine Pond, the Daniels Nature Center, and a perimeter path around the pond. This project would rebuild the existing perimeter trail, but decommission a portion and replace it with approximately 440 linear feet of boardwalk with a pond-facing box blind, which would extend through the wetland (dense cattails marsh and willows habitat) and over Alpine Pond. This project has been deemed to be partially qualified. The perimeter trail is an existing recreational facility, and the aspect of the project where the “remaining section of the perimeter trail would be resurfaced with compacted base rock to minimize tread erosion and provide a stable base for mobility devices” is a maintenance project. The new boardwalk ($250,000) and the Site Amenities including picnic tables, benches, etc. ($140,000) would, however, qualify as a new recreational facility because they are assets that currently do not exist. The boardwalk would be constructed as an interpretive boardwalk system that would provide a low-impact, whole-access interactive experience. The educational elements of the boardwalk and interpretive features would demonstrate the flight of sensitive, native species that depend on the habitat, the role of restoration in caring for them, and practical ways a visitor can help the environment. Use of picnic tables and benches are forms of passive recreation, which as the population ages will become an even more popular means by which to experience the outdoors. These amenities would allow for open space visitors to enjoy beautiful vistas and scenery, experience wildlife, particularly birds, and to interact with friends and companions. Policy Options With respect to the recreational projects (nine qualified and one partially qualified) that have been deemed to fulfill the intent of the mitigation identified in EIR Impact OS-3, the Board of Supervisors has broad discretion with respect to the funding of these proposed projects: The Board may declare its intent to fully commit the $10.4 million at this time. The Board may elect to only partially commit the $10.4 million at this time (with the understanding that it would have to ultimately expend the full amount of funding to mitigate Impact OS-3.) The Board may fund projects at a different level of funding than requested in the project application, (and the burden would rest with the applicant to demonstrate sufficient matching funds to accomplish the project). The Board is not required to fund an applicant’s entire application package. The Board may fund only some of the projects. The Board may elect to give more weight to projects that campus residents have declared to be more likely to be used by them, but the Board is not required to do so. 6 Packet Pg. 23 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 8 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 Next Steps in Process If the Board desires to proceed with funding any of the projects, the first action by the Board would be to declare its intent to fund the project and approve the project-specific conditions, if any, related to the project. The Administration and County Counsel would subsequently negotiate Project Agreements that would be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Applicants are required to provide periodic project status reports until the completion of the capital project. Project Specific Conditions The Administration recommends that approval of certain projects be conditioned, and that certain of these conditions be accomplished prior to Board approval of Project Agreements. Other conditions, as illustrated in the sample project agreement approved by the Board at its August 7 2012 meeting, would have to be satisfied prior to issuance of project funding. Ravenswood Bay Trail/Dumbarton Link Applicant must designate project lead for Phases 2 – 4 among the pertinent stakeholders: MROSD, East Palo Alto, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Menlo Park as part of the project agreement. Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and submit one of the following: Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk, or Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk. Stanford Perimeter Trail Applicant must undertake a public outreach process including conducting a minimum of two community meetings regarding the proposed project with attention to the net loss of 20 – 22 parking spaces along Stanford Avenue near the Dish trail. Obtain an Encroachment Permit from the County Roads Department relating to the segment of Stanford Avenue in County Right-of-Way. Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and must submit one of the following: Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk, or Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk. 6 Packet Pg. 24 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 9 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 Matadero Creek Project Applicant must complete project Feasibility Study with Santa Clara Valley Water District. Applicant must execute a Memorandum of Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District for Joint Use of levees and access roads by the public prior to receipt of County funding. Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and must submit one of the following: Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk, or Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk. Applicant must undertake a public outreach process including conducting a minimum of two community meetings regarding the proposed project prior to receipt of County funding. Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101 City of Palo Alto must provide evidence of sufficient matching funds to complete the project prior to receipt of County funding. Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and must submit one of the following: Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk, or Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk. Spring Down Pond Project Applicant must complete CEQA process prior to receipt of County funding and must submit one of the following: Notice of Exemption filed with, and stamped by, the county clerk, or Initial Study with a Negative Declaration and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk, or Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report and a copy of the Notice of Determination filed with, and stamped by the county clerk. CHILD IMPACT The recommended action would have a positive effect on children and youth because they would be able to enjoy new recreational facilities that permit them to enjoy the outdoors and experience the health benefits of physical activity. 6 Packet Pg. 25 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 10 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 SENIOR IMPACT The recommended action would have a positive impact on seniors who could enjoy some of these recreational facilities. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The recommended action would have a positive effective on the County’s sustainability goals. BACKGROUND At the January 24, 2012 Board meeting, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Administration and County Counsel a request to provide information that sets forth the legal parameters for the expenditure of funds in the amount of approximately $10.4 million and that describes internal mechanisms to earmark and administer the funds that were paid to the County by Stanford University on February 29, 2012 pursuant to the Trails Agreement. A legal opinion and a staff report were distributed to the Board on April 10, 2012. At the May 22, 2012 Board meeting, the Board considered a proposal by Supervisor Kniss to declare its intent to fund two projects that would provide adequate substitute mitigation for Impact OS-3. The Board postponed action on the two projects, and directed the Administration and County Counsel to undertake the following: Develop a public process and timeline for consideration of projects. Provide the square footage of new recreational facilities constructed since approval of the Stanford University General Use Permit. Provide clarification of the terms “Stanford residents” and “facilities users.” Determine compliance of the two projects proposed by Supervisor Kniss at the May 22, 2012 Board meeting with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Provide a description of the target population that would benefit from alternative mitigation measures. The Administration and County Counsel submitted the requested information at the June 19 Board meeting, at which time the Board deferred the matter to the August 7, 2012 Board meeting. The Board approved the proposed process, timeline, the project application and sample project agreement at that meeting. The Administration proposed reporting back at the October 9 Board meeting with the project applications, but because of difficulty arranging for tours of the project sites, the Administration requested deferring the matter to the Board’s November 6 Board meeting. Subsequently, the Administration requested another deferral to the November 20, 2012 Board meeting. 6 Packet Pg. 26 Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss Page 11 of 11 County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith Agenda Date: November 20, 2012 CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION The Board would be required to take action at a subsequent Board meeting to approve suitable alternative mitigation projects for impact OS-3 at another time as the County holds $10.4 million to accomplish this mitigation. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Direct the Administration to prepare project agreements for approved projects. ATTACHMENTS: Alt Rec Mitigation Projects Matrix Nov 20 2012 FINAL (PDF) Roads Dept.Stanford-City of Palo Alto Application Review (PDF) 1 City of Menlo Park Sand Hill Road Pathway (PDF) 2 Ravenswood bay Trail Connection Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF) 3 Mindego Gateway Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF) 4 Red Barn Picnic Area and Trails Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF) 5 El Corte De Madera Creek Staging Area and Trails Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(PDF) 6 Alpine Pond Trail and Boardwalk Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (PDF) 7 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Pt 1- Cover_TOC_Introduction (PDF) 7 a. Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Pt 2 - Executive Summary (PDF) 8 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Pt 3 - Stanford Perimeter Trail (PDF) 9 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Park Blvd Bicycle Boulevard (PDF) 10 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Matadero Creek Trail (PDF) 11 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101 (PDF) 12 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Arastradero Road C-2 Trail Upgrades (PDF) 13 Stanford and Palo Alto Application_Pt 5 - Appendices (PDF) 14 Fremont Road Pedestrian Equestrian and Bicycle Trail Project Town of Los Altos Hills (PDF) 15 Town of Portola Valley Spring Down Pond Project (PDF) 16 Town of Portola Valley Ford Field RenovationExpansion Project (PDF) 17 Town of Portola Valley Triangle Park Expansion Project (PDF) Correspondence received through November 15, 2012 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 27 Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP Page 1 of 8 Sand Hill Road Pathway Replacement of existing asphalt path along Sand Hill Road bet. Santa Cruz Ave. & Monte Rosa Dr. City of Menlo Park No $525,000 $300,000 $825,000 The project is ready to go, pending funding. The project is exempt from CEQA. No Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection/Dumbarton Link in Bay Trail (Ravenswood Open Space Preserve ) Builds last 0.6 mile segment in South Bay portion of 500-mile SF Bay Trail, which would connect Redwood City to Alviso in one continuous 26-mile trail & provides Dumbarton connection to East Bay part of Bay Trail Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District / Supervisor Kniss Yes $2.1 million by MROSD. Alternative request of $2 million by Supervisor Kniss $95,000 + public easement land value $2,195,000 MROSD is in Phase 1 (conceptual design, public engagement, & enviro review) to obtain trail easement from SFPUC. This phase incl. certification of a project-level enviro doc. Funding request pays for Phases 2 - 4 (design & trail construction). Because the project site is w/i East PA and Menlo Park, MROSD, ABAG, SFPUC, East PA & Menlo Park need to determine best project lead for phases 2 - 4. Regulatory permits to be secured from mid- 2014 thru 2015. No Project Description Within Santa Clara County Create Additional Recreational Facilities or Uses Agency Sponsor Funding Request Other Dedicated Sources of Matching Funds Project Readiness & CEQA Review Status Estimated Total Project Cost 6.a Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : A l t R e c M i t i g a t i o n P r o j e c t s M a t r i x N o v 2 0 2 0 1 2 F I N A L ( 6 5 2 3 8 : R e p o r t B a c k o n A l t e r n a t i v e Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP Page 2 of 8 Project Description Within Santa Clara County Create Additional Recreational Facilities or Uses Agency Sponsor Funding Request Other Dedicated Sources of Matching Funds Project Readiness & CEQA Review Status Estimated Total Project Cost Mindego Gateway (Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve ) Staging area & 1- mile Ancient Oaks Connector Trail. (Part of larger project incl. Trail to Mindego Hill & Commemorative Site) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Yes $518,150 $440,930 $959,080 The project has already been designed and permitted. The grant funds would pay for construction. Construction could be completed by Spring/Summer 2013. An Initial Study and Mitigated Neg Dec are on file. No Red Barn Picnic Area and Trails (La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve ) Scenic picnic area, future segment of BA Ridge Trail incl. a 1-mile interpretive loop trail, a 5-mile multi- use loop trail, & 1.5-mile connector trail Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Yes $586,000 $390,000 $976,000 Engineering and Design by Oct. 2014 for Connector and Loop Trail and Construction in Oct. 2015. An Initial Study and Mitigated Neg Dec are on file. Need to obtain regulatory permits and grading permits from County of San Mateo. No 6.a Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : A l t R e c M i t i g a t i o n P r o j e c t s M a t r i x N o v 2 0 2 0 1 2 F I N A L ( 6 5 2 3 8 : R e p o r t B a c k o n A l t e r n a t i v e Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP Page 3 of 8 Project Description Within Santa Clara County Create Additional Recreational Facilities or Uses Agency Sponsor Funding Request Other Dedicated Sources of Matching Funds Project Readiness & CEQA Review Status Estimated Total Project Cost Staging Area and Trails Project (El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve ) Staging Area, 2 Multi-Use Trail Connections, Adds 2-mile segment of Bay Area Ridge Trail Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Yes $200,000 $600,000 from 4 Sources $800,000 4-Phase Project. Phase 1 incl. staging area and 2 trail connections, which are currently under construction. The requested funds would pay for Phases 2-4, which MROSD is poised to undertake. These phases would create 2 miles of multi-use trails, which creates new segment of BA Ridge Trail. No Alpine Pond Trail and Boardwalk (Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve ) ADA accessible 1/2-mile boardwalk trail section over Alpine Pond & picnic tables, interpretive signs Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Partially Qualified $490,000 $190,000 $680,000 Engineering and design by Oct. 2013. Permits by Aug. 2014 & Construction in Oct. 2014. An Initial Study and Mitigated Neg Dec are on file. No 6.a Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : A l t R e c M i t i g a t i o n P r o j e c t s M a t r i x N o v 2 0 2 0 1 2 F I N A L ( 6 5 2 3 8 : R e p o r t B a c k o n A l t e r n a t i v e Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP Page 4 of 8 Project Description Within Santa Clara County Create Additional Recreational Facilities or Uses Agency Sponsor Funding Request Other Dedicated Sources of Matching Funds Project Readiness & CEQA Review Status Estimated Total Project Cost Stanford Perimeter Trail A 3.4-mile trail. Part A (JSB) —1/2 mile of new shared use path adjacent to Junipero Serra Blvd. Part B (Stanford Ave)—Incl. net loss of 20-22 parking spaces & install shared use path on north side of road. Part C—1/2 mile of new trail and 0.9 mile of existing trail upgraded. Stanford University & City of Palo Alto Yes $4.5 million $0 $4.5M Construction anticipated to begin in 2014. Still requires Engineering & CEQA not yet started. Need permits: Clean Water Act Sec 404, DFG Sec 1602 Streambed Alteration, Caltrans Encroachment, SWRCB General Permit, & encroachment permit from County for parking spaces w/i County road ROW. Yes Park Boulevard “Bicycle Boulevard” Linkage 1: Stanford Ave. from El Camino to Park. Linkage 2: Park Blvd bet. Lambert & Charleston (via Wilkie). Install signage, apply "Sharrow" markings on roadway, remove stop signs, & install traffic calming features Stanford University & City of Palo Alto No $200,000 $0 $250,000 Project construction would occur in 4th qtr of 2013. The blvd. was identified in the City’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2011 & an NOD has been filed on the Plan. No permits b/c in City ROW. Yes 6.a Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : A l t R e c M i t i g a t i o n P r o j e c t s M a t r i x N o v 2 0 2 0 1 2 F I N A L ( 6 5 2 3 8 : R e p o r t B a c k o n A l t e r n a t i v e Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP Page 5 of 8 Project Description Within Santa Clara County Create Additional Recreational Facilities or Uses Agency Sponsor Funding Request Other Dedicated Sources of Matching Funds Project Readiness & CEQA Review Status Estimated Total Project Cost Matadero Creek Trail New 1.3 mile shared use (bike/ped) trail along levees & access roads of Matadero Creek from Bryant St. to Greer Rd. Property owned by SCVWD Stanford University & City of Palo Alto Yes $1.5 million $0 Estimated $1.5M ($1.2 million in hard costs & $800,000 in engineering & contingency) Levees are owned & operated by SCVWD. Feasibility Study needs to be completed first. PA needs to obtain joint use MOA with SCVWD. No CEQA review done yet. No community outreach/input has occurred yet. No regulatory permits obtained yet: US Army Corps Sec 404, CA F&G Sec. 1602, SWRCB General Storm Water Construction, SCVWD Encroachment, PA Encroachment. Yes 6.a Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A l t R e c M i t i g a t i o n P r o j e c t s M a t r i x N o v 2 0 2 0 1 2 F I N A L ( 6 5 2 3 8 : R e p o r t B a c k o n A l t e r n a t i v e Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP Page 6 of 8 Project Description Within Santa Clara County Create Additional Recreational Facilities or Uses Agency Sponsor Funding Request Other Dedicated Sources of Matching Funds Project Readiness & CEQA Review Status Estimated Total Project Cost Adobe Creek Overcrossing of Highway 101 Design & Construction of Shared Use (bike/ped) overcrossing of Hwy 101. Connects PA with Baylands and SF Bay Trail Stanford University & City of Palo Alto / Supervisor Kniss Yes $4M by Stanford & Palo Alto. Alternative request of $5M by Supervisor Kniss PA City Council will be dedicating $1M from Stanford Univ Medical Center Mitigation Fund later this year. $500,000 already expended by PA on feasibility and environmental analysis. Total Match: $1.5M Est. $6 - 10 million Construction is anticipated to begin in 2015 and end in 2017. No CEQA review has occurred yet. Permits need to be obtained: US Army Corps Sec 404, CA F&G Sec. 1602, CA DOT Encroachment, SWRCB General Storm Water Construction, SCVWD Encroachment and MOA, PA Encroachment/Street Opening, County Encroachment in ROW, Calrans Encroachment, and, possibly, BCDC. Yes Arastradero Road C2 Trail Upgrades Widen and repave an existing shared use (bike/ped) asphalt path along Arastradero Rd bet. Purissima Rd (S1 trail) & Foothill Exwy (Bol Park Bike Path) Stanford University & City of Palo Alto No $200,000 $125K would come from PA's CIP "Bike & Ped Trans Plan" Fund or "Parking and Trans Improv" Fund Estimated $325,000 Construction would begin in 2014. No CEQA review has occurred yet. Need encroachment permit from Los Alto Hills. Yes 6.a Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : A l t R e c M i t i g a t i o n P r o j e c t s M a t r i x N o v 2 0 2 0 1 2 F I N A L ( 6 5 2 3 8 : R e p o r t B a c k o n A l t e r n a t i v e Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP Page 7 of 8 Project Description Within Santa Clara County Create Additional Recreational Facilities or Uses Agency Sponsor Funding Request Other Dedicated Sources of Matching Funds Project Readiness & CEQA Review Status Estimated Total Project Cost Fremont Road Pedestrian, Equestrian, & Bicycle Trail Project 0.9 mile ped/equestrian pathway & class I bike lane on both sides of Fremont Ave bet. Concepcion & Arastradero Rd. Connects to S1 & C2 trails & connects PA trails w/ 90 miles of LAH trails Town of Los Altos Hills Yes $594,000 $0 $594,000 Construction would begin and end in 2013. No regulatory permits are needed because it's w/i Town’s ROW. Environmental Notice of Exemption has been filed with County Clerk. Yes Spring Down Pond Convert existing irrigation stock pond into a 3-ft deep vernal pool with paths and benches by removing cyclone fence, man-made berm & installing wood fence & landscaping, etc. Town of Portola Valley Yes $135,975 $0 $135,975 Construction and completion in 2013. CEQA and Permits in process. Submitted permit apps to Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. No 6.a Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : A l t R e c M i t i g a t i o n P r o j e c t s M a t r i x N o v 2 0 2 0 1 2 F I N A L ( 6 5 2 3 8 : R e p o r t B a c k o n A l t e r n a t i v e Alternative Mitigation Projects to Address Impact OS-3 in Stanford GUP Page 8 of 8 Project Description Within Santa Clara County Create Additional Recreational Facilities or Uses Agency Sponsor Funding Request Other Dedicated Sources of Matching Funds Project Readiness & CEQA Review Status Estimated Total Project Cost Ford Field Renovation & Expansion Project Renovate existing ballpark on Alpine Rd w/ ADA access for spectators, new infield, outfield, bleachers, dugouts for Little League Baseball Town of Portola Valley No $324,627 $457,912 $782,539 Construction and completion in 2013. CEQA Notice of Exemption filed August 17, 2010. No regulatory permits required. No Triangle Park Expansion Project Renovate existing park at Alpine & Portola Rds w/ new lawn area, irrigation, benches, walkways, landscaping etc. Town of Portola Valley No $112,000 $0 $112,000 Construction and completion in 2014. CEQA not applicable. No regulatory permits required No Total:$15,985,752 Total with Kniss Requests:$16,885,752 6.a Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : A l t R e c M i t i g a t i o n P r o j e c t s M a t r i x N o v 2 0 2 0 1 2 F I N A L ( 6 5 2 3 8 : R e p o r t B a c k o n A l t e r n a t i v e Notes from MRA Matadero Creek Trail Meeting – April 16, 2013 Provided by Sheri Furman, Annette Glanckopf and Karen Lawrence Attendees: About 70 attendees. 90% live along Matadero Creek. Half bike or walk a mile or more a day. Presentation by Jaime Rodriquez Want to hear what should be included in feasibility study, so a better scope of work can be prepared. Matadero Creek Trail is part of the city bicycle/pedestrian Transportation Plan; E-W from 101 to Alma. Want to connect it to the Bryant Bike Boulevard. Bike plans were approved in July, 2012. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) on’t allow lighting along the trail, so it won’t be a 24-hour trail. Curfew required by SCVWD. City will have to maintain path instead of SCVWD. City committed to feasibility study when applying for a grant for the trail; City pays for study. 9 months to complete feasibility study. If the project isn’t feasible, City won’t get grant money. In response to multiple resident concerns around safety, privacy, crime, etc. City agreed that MITIGATION could be discussed earlier, and put into the FEASIBILITY STUDY. County grant kicks in after the feasibility study, with local match. Attendee Comments Notification Most had never heard of project. Why didn’t City notify residents sooner? I never got a personal letter, even when a house is built near me I get a letter. Jaime: Part of Pedestrian and Bike Transportation Plan. Multiple meetings, and much advertisement. In WEEKLY and in Utility bills. Costs Jaime: Feasibility study will happen. Cost is $100,000. Estimated project cost is $2.5 million; grant is $1.5 million. Stanford is paying for the Stanford Perimeter Trail. The Grant for the project came from Santa Clara County, which pays for the Matadero Creek Trail. How much more money will this cost (e.g. maintenance, monitoring)? Objectives What are objectives? Need to know in order to determine the best way to spend the money. Need a conceptual framework, value proposition. Jaime: The bike plan wanted off-road trails. People probably didn’t think of streets needing to be crossed. RFP seems to be only looking at the Matadero creekside alignment. It feels like the City is spending money just because we have it via the $1.5 million grant and there’s a “use it or lose it” attitude. The project is a “bridge to nowhere.” Strategy to build part of trail and hope for the rest is a FLAWED strategy. Should use money to figure out how to safety cross under 280 on Page Mill. Feasibility study should be more about soliciting community input. Ask “is this a good way of spending money?” Many feel we are stuck with Jaime’s vision. What is the purpose of the trail? Safety? Aesthetics? City is OVERSELLING this. According to Jaime, all of the “community” has equal weight in the decision. Alternatives Need alternatives. To have alternatives you must have objectives. Thinking of alternatives to the path is critical. Concerns for connections to the Midtown Center. More important to get overpasses over Alma. Consider a bridge over Matadero to connect the Sterling Canal trail from Greer to Loma Verde. Must have alternative routes. Project should be called the East-West Midtown Trail because calling it the Matadero Creek Trail limits what’s looked at. There’s a need for some sort of east-west connection, but not along the creek. Jaime: The feasibility study will look at alternate routes. Usage / Aesthetics The maintenance path is a trail in name only. There is nothing aesthetic about walking along the creek, which is actually a culvert. Not a place where folks would go for a stroll The idea of a trail is a romantic notion, but it’s really an alley way. Aesthetics: “Path” is UGLY – space is between concrete wall and fence. Safety / Crime Consider City’s liability; need to understand demand for trail; what are the real costs of maintenance? Who will close the path at night? Who will monitor fences, graffiti, curfew, etc.? Jaime: Feasibility study will include working with PAPD on safety issues. Many concerns about trail crossing streets, particularly mid-block. Study must include safety issues. Pedestrians and bicycles – not safe for both on same trail. Path will be less safe than areas along the street. Concerns about bikes crossing streets, especially during rush hour traffic and near El Carmelo. Crosswalks are not adequate. At night it will be the Midtown Crime Alley. Who is going to patrol and make sure no one is on path at night? People will have to get burglar alarms for their homes. If paved, the skate boarders will use this... I already have problems after 10PM with skateboarder noise. Skate boards could flip in, sometimes bikes accidents happen when bikes fly into the air...they could go into the creek. Who will be using the trail? Teenagers at night. Our property - back yard - is very secluded. The kids go around with no clothes. I am very worried about people going by my property. They could see my kids, it is easy to jump over the fence. I fear people who smoke might flip a cigarette into my yard and we could have a fire. When one considers all the factors, I am scared...there is a whole host of things not considered. In the winter when the water is high, it is very dangerous. People will die. kids sit on the ledge. They could fall in or be pushed. Install speed bumps and stop lights - not popular with residents. Bikes coming out of the blind path - cars won't see them, a disaster waiting to happen. Safety and flooding are big concerns. This is a bad project with a half a dozen dangerous intersections. As a biker, I wouldn't cross mid-block on Middlefield. I always cross at the light. Other Almost everyone in attendance thinks the plan is not a good idea. This isn't a green project...people would have to add things. Concerns for property values. There is a petition to STOP this project. Several people want minutes of this meeting – to compare what was talked about to the RFP. City reminds us that this is a COMMUNITY project, not just Midtown. Sheri Furman reminded group that the RFP is on the MRA website. Jaime: Will update the RFP based on tonight’s comments. Suggestion that people should email the City Council with concerns if they are worried about the concerns not getting into the public record. MRA Role Sheri Furman clarified role of MRA – provide information and conversation, not advocacy (even though she herself as a Matadero neighbor has her own concerns). MRA will continue to work with the City. Continued Communication Send email to shala.yazdy@cityofpaloalto.org Or to City Council, or to MRA (on website) Memorandum 100 Webster Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 540-5008 phone (503) 540-5039 fax www.altaplanning.com Date: July 1, 2014 To: Jaime Rodriguez, City of Palo Alto Cc: Mary Stewart, Randy Anderson, Alta Planning + Design; Rafael Rius, City of Palo Alto From: Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Subject: Matadero Creek Trail Feasibility Study –Public Kickoff Meeting Notes Meeting Date and Location: June 26, 2014 6:30-8pm, Friends of Palo Alto Meeting Room (957 Colorado Ave) Summary of Public Comment/Questions: Process/Coordination - Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Palo Alto Police should be here (at this meeting) - Is SCVWD in discussions with City on this? - Representative from from Parks & Rec Commission, PRC/Planning & Transportation Commission sub-committee: general comments that City commission/sub-committee are following this closely, very interested in promoting safe routes to parks, especially year-round access to the Baylands. Thank you for participating in this project/process Legal Issues/Liability & Risk - Feasibility of suing over transportation use of Matadero Creek (a utility corridor) is high - Will lawyers weigh in on access to Matadero Creek? Will the City be liable for issues along the proposed trail? - Is the City prepared for lawsuits related to property damage? - I’ve already checked and cities aren’t liable for trails in California - How is the City going to protect home owners’ properties (from vandalism, theft, right-of-way takings)? Alternatives Analysis/Connectivity - Thank you for looking at east-west connections in Midtown, the Bay to Ridge Trail is a great concept, but Matadero Creek Trail won’t meet that vision - Improvements to other (existing) over/undercrossings of key barriers would be better connection, i.e. the orange (proposed Oregon Ave route alternative) and yellow (existing Bay to Ridge Trail on N California Ave) are better - I bike a lot and am very interested in east-west connections; is there an estimate of potential use/trips along the proposed trail? - Are you considering East Meadow Drive as potential alternative route? Seems a better route due to presence of schools and other key destinations along it - How will evaluation criteria be chosen? - Trail doesn’t make sense without crossings of 101 and Alma/Caltrain - Other routes don’t need structural work - What are the alternatives being considered besides the creek trail corridor? - Already a crossing at Charleston Road, El Camino, San Antonio-101; don’t need more - Need a crossing of railroad tracks in Midtown/South Palo Alto; I now walk 40 minutes to transit on El Camino – this would be 10 minutes with new crossing - As an occasional recreational cyclist, I like twists and turns to make my route interesting - Yellow line (N California Ave alternative concept) too far north for this study - Look at east-west connection holistically, not on one corridor - Put green striping/bike facilities on Santa Clara and remove parking on one side - What is the outcome of the feasibility study? Kids/Traffic Safety/School Travel - Loma Verde route has several crossings with crossing guards, this is the appropriate place to improve for school commutes - Do students go to El Carmelo from south of Matadero? - Matadero is an attractive nuisance; kids will go over wall if no one is watching - Related to concerns of creek access: would be interesting to know if there are any issues with crossing of creek at Wilkie Way pedestrian/bicycle bridge - What will happen on Middlefield Road? Kids on the trail currently travel on the sidewalks to get to Midtown snack/eating destinations, and this would get worse with trail. I’m worried about this since I’ve almost hit kids on sidewalks numerous times without any further encouragement of this kind of travel - Speed limits on Middlefield; need to address as people drive too fast - Not enough lighting in Palo Alto (in general), but especially in midtown and along Clara Drive. This affects safety of cyclists and pedestrians - If it’s “dawn to dusk” operation of the trail, users (especially commuters) won’t be able to rely on it in the winter 2 | Alta Planning + Design - Concerns over potential bike/ped conflicts on proposed trail - Concerned about children cycling in pairs/groups on the street; would like to see education/signage that encourages riding in single file - Concerned about trail concept as a school commute route;, with crossings of busy streets; beware of the illusion of safety (is what I was told by PA police) - Not an improvement for middle/high school kids, who already ride on street en masse - Concerned kids will get hit at crossings - Worried about visibility of cyclists (to motorists) at roadway crossings: sight distances, adding barriers or other features; how will City address this concern? Funding/Costs/Grant - Does the $1.5m grant (from Santa Clara County) only cover funding for Class I trail? - Will the project cost out the whole connection from west of Caltrain/Alma to east of Hwy 101, so we have an honest cost assessment of the full concept? - Why choose Matadero Creek for the grant application? - Existing grant won’t cover everything needed to make good east-west trail; it will be disconnected from where people need to go - City can give back the grant funding and re-apply for different project based on feasibility study outcomes embraced by community - Does the cost (of proposed improvements) affect the rating? Will we provide costs with the rating methodology? Property & Creek Impacts / Crime & Security - Concern about impacts to property values if trail is built - Clara Street resident: Our backyards are already small (15’ deep) as is, and the trail would further reduce effective size of our properties - Would like to see examination of crime rates and estimated impact of trail construction - People already jump the gates and hang out on the creek maintenance roads; will get worse - The trail would ruin privacy/security/safety - People already throw bottles/trash into creek to see it float/hit ducks; how will City handle increase in this activity with better access to creek? - I’m a homeowner along the Creek and City’s GIS parcel data is incorrect – was off by more than 3.5 feet compared to property record of survey. How might this affect others in relation to the project? - Canal is not pretty – it’s a concrete lined channel. People think “creek trail” and support the concept, but reality is not what people are envisioning. I’d rather ride/walk on tree-lined street with interesting front yards, homes to look at - Impossible to climb out of canal in winter with water flowing, if child falls in 3 | Alta Planning + Design Public Process - What is the process for getting on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee? What is the composition? - Ask the students what they want to see. They take 360 trips a year (180 school days x2) and would know what their needs are/what to improve Meeting Attachments: 1. Project flier with annotated comments – from resident Julie Nolan 2. Summary of concerns – from resident Patricia Bilir 3. Ellsworth Drive – exhibits to verify discrepancies between City GIS, record of survey data near Matadero Creek (from resident) 4. Meeting sign-in sheet 4 | Alta Planning + Design Palo Alto Midtown Connector Citizen Advisory Committee September 8, 2015 Agenda Mitchell Park Community Center South Adobe Room, 6:00 pm Estimated Time 1. Welcome and Introductions 15 min 2. Goals for Tonight 5 min 3. Review findings of preliminary constructability review 15 min 4. Open Question & Answer Period 20 min Break 10 min 5. Discuss Options, Develop draft Citizen Advisory Committee 45 min Recommendation 6. Next Steps 10 min City Council Study Session – Monday October 26, 2015 “Review and Comment on the Status of Palo Alto’s Bicycle Program” 7. Adjourn Enclosures: Matadero Creek Trail alignment constructability review memo Summary of Matadero Creek Flood Control Project Conceptual Ramp configuration at Louis Road Notes: 1 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Memorandum Date: September 3, 2015 To: Midtown Connector Citizen Advisory Committee From: Sarah Syed, Senior Transportation Planner Subject: Midtown Connector Project Update: Matadero Creek Trail alignment constructability review findings INTRODUCTION The Midtown Connector Project seeks to identify routes on and parallel to the Matadero Creek between Highway 101 and Alma Street that serve to connect community facilities for use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A preliminary constructability review indicates that constraints along the Matadero Creek alignment may limit the feasibility of a public access trail on a majority of the Matadero Creek corridor. Constraints include access closure structures that are put in place at three locations to prevent flooding during the rainy season and steep trail gradients required for maintenance access to the creek channel. Prior to these findings, the City of Palo Alto had anticipated carrying forward the Matadero Creek alignment through completion of a final Feasibility Study and Preliminary Environmental Assessment. The constraints identified raise important policy questions and staff is finalizing the preliminary findings for presentation to City Council next month. Staff will develop options on how to proceed for City Council consideration, with input from the Citizen Advisory Committee. 2 BACKGROUND The Midtown Connector Project seeks to identify routes on and parallel to the Matadero Creek between Highway 101 and Alma Street that serve to connect community facilities for use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages. The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was appointed in early 2015 for the purpose of increasing community participation in the planning process to help define overall project objectives, identify alignment alternatives, and to consider the criteria for evaluating alternatives. At the first Citizen Advisory Committee meeting (February 26, 2015), the project team and committee members discussed preliminary trail alignments including (1) the Matadero Creek Trail route along the levees of Matadero Creek and (2) On-‐Street Bicycle Routes with Enhanced Pedestrian Facilities, including N. California Avenue, Oregon Avenue, Moreno and Amarillo Avenues, Colorado Avenue, E. Meadow Drive, and Loma Verde Avenue. The City sought input on draft criteria for selection of alignments and agreement on five alternative alignments for initial screening using the criteria. The City and CAC members also discussed goals for Community Workshop #2, subsequently held April 14, 2015. While the City Council charged the staff with assessing the feasibility of the Matadero Creek alignment, Citizen Advisory Committee members have sought to understand the rationale for selecting the creek alignment for in depth evaluation prior to a screening of alternative alignments using the evaluation criteria developed for ranking east-‐west connector routes. Questions raised include the weighting of the different criteria, whether a creek trail that could not remain open 24 hours a day and 365 days per year is worth studying, and how and when costs for each option figured into the evaluation. CURRENT PROJECT ACTIVITIES Following the April 14, 2015 Community Workshop, the City postponed the May Citizen Advisory Committee meeting to take a fresh look at the feasibility study approach. Staff determined that the evaluation of alignment alternatives should not proceed further prior to an initial screening of the Matadero Creek Trail alignment in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The following is a preliminary summary of this investigation. MATADERO CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT SCREENING Staff identified potential impacts of the Matadero Creek Flood Control Project on trail feasibility as an area requiring further investigation. Staff reviewed historical documents, including the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project Engineer’s Report, Construction Drawings, and Final Environmental Impact Report. 3 The City also engaged Santa Clara Valley Water District staff, from whom a Joint Use Agreement would be required for public access to the levees along the Matadero Creek. Matadero Creek Flood Control Project The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project, a six-‐year, $23 million flood-‐ control effort was completed in 2005 to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) goal of 100-‐year (1%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The improvements reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of flooding in Matadero and Barron Creeks between Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. While the project provides protection for a 1% (100-‐year) flood event, it does not affect tidal flooding which affects the channel area from the Bay to approximately Middlefield Road. The Project included construction of access closure structures, which are installed across the existing maintenance road annually, from October to April, at three locations: Middlefield, Louis, and Greer Roads. These structures are installed manually and are required for flood control during high water events. Information gathered to date indicates a creek trail was not a priority for either agency during the planning process for the flood control project, when trail infrastructure might have been designed in harmony with the project. A summary of the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project Review is included in Attachment A. Creek Channel Maintenance Access The Santa Clara Valley Water District utilizes the existing levees to access the Matadero Creek channel for vegetation management, graffiti and trash removal, and sediment removal. A public access trail would need to maintain access for maintenance vehicles to secure a joint use agreement with the Water District. Preliminary concepts to maintain access indicate that the trail would ramp steeply, up and down at approximately 4.99% gradients at four locations along the creek trail. The maintenance ramp would split off at the low point of the trail and continue at a steeper gradient to access the channel. Attachment B provides a conceptual ramp configuration at Louis Road with maintenance access to the channel. Alternative, more costly solutions, involving right of way acquisition have not been analyzed. Five percent grades are not comfortable for many people who walk and bicycle. Due to existing block lengths, trail users would experience few flat segments of trail. Other area trails that ramp up and down typically do so to provide benefits to users, such as grade separated crossings of intersections. Coupled with at grade crossings of intersections, the ramp configuration required for maintenance access would likely discourage many potential trail users. Locations that would require ramping include: 4 • East of Alma on the north side • East of Middlefield on the south side (at the tennis courts) • East of Louis on the north side • At US 101 Matadero Creek Trail Alignment Screening Conclusion In summary, the initial screening identifies significant potential challenges to achieving the vision of a creek trail alignment to connect community facilities for use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages. Should the City continue to pursue a trail on the Matadero Creek levees, the Santa Clara Valley Water District staff has outlined the following options: 1) City takes on full responsibility to close trail to public and install access closure structures in advance of a significant rain event and to remove them following a significant rain event 2) Keep the trail closed during the rainy season from approximately October to April, similar to the Adobe Creek undercrossing. Staff will discuss these findings further with the Citizen Advisory Committee at the September 8, 2015 meeting and solicit committee input for a discussion of options with the City Council in October. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project Review Attachment B: Ramp Configuration Concept with 4.99% Gradient for Maintenance Access to Channel Attachment A MATADERO/BARRON CREEKS LONG-‐TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT REVIEW The Matadero Creek Remediation Project, a six-‐year, $23 million flood-‐control effort was completed in 2005 to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) goal of 100-‐year (1%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The improvements reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of flooding in Matadero and Barron Creeks between Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. While the project provides protection for a 1% (100-‐year) flood event, it does not affect tidal flooding which affects the channel area from the Bay to approximately Middlefield Road. The remediation project was initiated in 1999. The Engineer’s Report and Environmental Impact Report were completed in October 2002. The design was performed from 2002-‐ 2003, and included modification of floodwalls between Alma Street and U.S. Highway 101, the replacement and raising of the Louis Road Bridge as well as channel modifications under the bridge, and excavation of an overflow bypass downstream of Highway 101 to the Palo Alto Flood Basin to preserve the natural Matadero Creek channel but provide additional conveyance of high flows to the Palo Alto Flood Basin. The Project included construction of access closure structures, which are installed across the existing maintenance road annually, from October to April, at three locations: Middlefield, Louis, and Greer Roads. These structures are required for flood control, as Matadero Creek is subject to flooding at high water events. In October 2002, the Santa Clara Valley Water District issued a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-‐Term Remediation Project. In the review of the project for Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies, the EIR does not mention the Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan’s 1995 identification of the Matadero Creek/Page Mill Trail as a sub-‐regional trail passing through Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, and Stanford from the Bay Trail to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. No agencies commented on the project’s failure to consider the impact of the project on the proposed trail corridor. In 2003, the Palo Alto City Council approved negotiations to execute an easement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to construct, operate, and maintain portions of the Matadero Creek overflow flood control channel on City property. In the staff report to Council on this item, staff discuss bicycle and pedestrian pathways in the project area, stating, “The City and the Water District are also exploring the potential of a separate project that would add a pedestrian and bicycle pathway along Matadero Creek, under Highway 101, accessing near Greer Park or Greer Road. The district is developing a feasibility analysis and will continue to work with staff.” Staff continue to search for records of this feasibility analysis to document the outcome of past consideration of this corridor. Midtown East - West Connector Matadero Creek Trail Alignment at Louis Road looking East Bird’s eye views of potential SCVWD ramp / trail reconfiguration View along the trail from the north side of Louis Road View from across Louis Road Challenge:Defining Project Parameters """" "" """ "" ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " n n n n n "b C o w p e r S t M i d d l e f i e l d R d L o u i s R d R o s s R d P a r k B l v d Oregon Expy Oregon Ave A l m a S t C a l t r a i n C o r r i d o r El C a m i n o R e a l Mead o w D r W B a y s h o r e R d E B a y s h o r e R d US 1 0 1 Br y a n t S t Cha r l e s t o n R d Color a d o A v e Clara Dr Sutter Ave G r e e r R d Loma Ve r d e A v e Way California Ave Fab i a n W a y Amarillo Ave Oregon Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing Future Adobe Creek Pedestrian Overcrossing Oregon Expressway Pedestrian Overcrossing Future Adobe Creek Pedestrian Overcrossing Hansen Way Gr e e r R d Sa n F r a n c i s c o B a y T r a i l Matadero C r e e k Barron C r e e k Ado b e C r e e k Wa v e r l y S t El Dorado Ave El Carmelo Ave G e n g R d A d obe Creek Mayview Ave F a b e r P l Colora d o A v e Ames Ave Portage Ave Moreno Ave California Avenue Pedestrian Undercrossing California Avenue Pedestrian Undercrossing Oregon Expy Undercrossing Oregon Expy Undercrossing At-Grade Caltrain Crossing At-Grade Caltrain Crossing Baylands Preserve !I 0 0.250.125 Miles » Oregon Avenue » Colorado Avenue • From Alma Street to W Bayshore Road, and • An alternative alignment from Alma Street along El Dorado Avenue and Cowper Street to Colorado Avenue » Matadero Creek, including potential on-street connections around constrained areas » Loma Verde Avenue • From Alma Street to W Bayshore Road, and • From Bryant to W Bayshore Road » E & W Meadow Drive City of Palo Alto Bicycle Network Midtown East-West Connector Private Pathways Park Trails One-Way Bicycle Lane (with opposing Sharrows) Class III Shared Roadway (Sharrows) Class III Shared Arterial (or Further Study Needed) Bicycle Boulevard Across Barrier Connection (ABC) Enhanced Bikeway (with existing Class II Bike Lane) Class II Bicycle Lane Class I Multi-Use Path Study Area Not in Study Area Spot Improvement Existing Proposed Enhanced Bikeway (with existing Class III or no facility) Dedicated On-Street Shared On-Street Parks and Open Space Select Attractors and Generators "b Caltrain Station Caltrain Tracks Schoolsn " ! Baylands Preserve Preliminary Alignment Alternative Challenge:Trail Clarity and Continuity City of Palo Alto (ID # 5980) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/9/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: Plastic Foam Ordinance Expansion Title: Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto's Plastic Foam Ordinance (Ordinance 5039) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed revisions to the City of Palo Alto’s Ordinance 5039 “Plastic Foam and Non-recyclable Food Service Containers” to prohibit the retail sale or distribution of plastic foam products (Attachment A). Executive Summary Expanded plastic foam (e.g., expanded polystyrene or Styrofoam™) is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, ice chests, shipping boxes and packing materials. Expanded plastic foam foodware and packaging is found in local creeks and throughout Palo Alto’s watershed. In May 2009, the City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting the use or distribution of plastic foam at food service establishments (effective September 1, 2010) and an internal policy to prohibit staff from purchasing plastic foam foodware or distributing it at special events (Attachment B). However, plastic foam is still one of the most prevalent forms of litter and also contributes approximately 114 tons of garbage to the City’s waste stream each year. Staff proposes expanding the existing ordinance to prohibit retail sale or distribution of plastic foam foodware such as plates and cups, packaging materials such as foam peanuts and blocks, and the sale of eggs in plastic foam containers. The proposed ordinance revisions are congruent with current policy and Council direction to eliminate waste that cannot be recycled or composted to meet the City’s 2021 Zero Waste goal, and the Municipal Regional City of Palo Alto Page 2 Stormwater permit requirements to achieve no adverse impact from litter by 2022. Background In 2009, the Council approved the addition of a new chapter 5.30 (“Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers) to Title 5 (“Health and Sanitation”) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CMR: 201:09). The ordinance prohibited the use of expanded polystyrene and non-recyclable plastic, as defined by the ordinance, at food service establishments. Restaurant compliance exceeds 90%. The ordinance adoption is one of many actions that have been implemented by Public Works to reduce trash loading in Palo Alto’s watershed and to meet Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Provision C.10. This provision requires a reduction in trash loads from municipal separate storm sewer systems to no adverse impact by June 30, 2022. Discussion Where Plastic Foam Litter is Found Although implementation of the existing ordinance was a good first step in reducing plastic foam litter, the material continues to be an environmental hazard to wildlife, water quality and human health and an eyesore. Its prevalence is also a hindrance to regulatory compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit because of the difficulty in both preventing its release and removing it from the environment. Staff finds this pollutant across Palo Alto watersheds: Plastic foam litter is found in local creeks - More than 415 plastic foam pieces were recovered during the May 2015 National River Cleanup Day event in Matadero and Adobe Creeks. A combined 945 pieces were recovered from the same two creeks during the September 2015 Coastal Cleanup Day. These pieces are notoriously problematic to collect as they continuously break into smaller pieces with age and can float or blow away. Volunteers who attend creek cleanup events are often unable to retrieve all the small pieces of plastic foam material. These plastic pieces can be mistaken for food by wildlife, impair water quality of chemicals that leach from plastic, and contribute to broader concerns of plastic pollution loading in San Francisco Bay and beyond. While only one annual creek cleanup is required per the City’s permit, the City has historically conducted two. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Plastic foam is also consistently one of the top three forms of litter found in creek litter booms (floating trash capture devices). Booms are installed during the dry weather season in the downstream reaches of both Adobe and Matadero Creek that are designated as hotspots by the City’s stormwater permit. Staff routinely find plastic foam the most difficult pollutant to remove from booms during routine maintenance; Plastic foam litter is found on streets–six percent of the litter by volume found in Bay Area stormwater trash capture devices (stormdrain inserts) is plastic foam foodware (Cascadia Consulting Group and EOA, Inc. on behalf of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, 2012); Plastic foam litter is found in San Francisco Bay– In January 2015, the San Francisco Estuary Institute counted between 14,000 and 2,000,0000 plastic particles per square kilometer (an area roughly equivalent to 250 football fields); Plastic foam litter contributes to oceanic plastic pollution– 80% of ocean pollution comes from land and most of it is plastic. (Jose Derrick, The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2002). Where Plastic Foam is Sold or Distributed in Palo Alto Based on July 2015 staff observations, plastic foam coolers and/or foodware were found available for sale at six pharmacies, two grocery stores, two mail service stores and one hardware store. Separately, plastic foam is currently distributed (not directly sold) as egg cartons, meat and fish trays, packing material and complimentary food or beverage containers. Plastic Foam Recycling is Problematic and Does Not Adequately Reduce Litter Despite numerous attempts by the City since the 1980’s, a reliable, affordable recycling market for small quantities of plastic foam is still not available. According to recycling haulers, when small amounts of plastic foam are collected by recycling trucks, the plastic foam routinely breaks apart and cannot be captured at the material recovery facility. Loads of lightweight plastic foam are expensive to haul relative to the weight of other wastes, easily rejected due to City of Palo Alto Page 4 low tolerance for contamination (even light rainwater is unacceptable) and may even be rejected if there is not enough total volume of the material at the facility to be recycled. While members of the public have raised the idea of leasing bailing equipment to find better markets for the material, experience at the Sunnyvale Materials and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station has shown that the equipment is expensive to own and maintain, is prone to malfunctions and takes up space needed for other operations. GreenWaste Recovery, the facility where Palo Alto’s curbside recyclables are processed, does operate an expanded polystyrene densifier, but only for large amounts of high-quality commercial polystyrene. This service is provided at a cost to the business but would not work with regular curbside business and residential recycling collection due to the material handling issues referenced above. If residents are willing, Green Citizen in Mountain View will accept and recycle expanded polystyrene for a fee of $5 per 30-gallon bag. Ultimately, recycling does not solve the associated litter problems with this material. The best way to prevent creek litter is to reduce the volume of plastic foam that enters the community. Summary of Proposed Ordinance Changes To further reduce plastic foam litter, staff proposes expanding the current ordinance to prohibit: 1. The retail sale, use or distribution of plastic foam ice chests, foodware and packing materials. Retailers would include grocery stores, pharmacies, mailing services, hardware stores and any other retailer or business that may sell or distribute plastic foam products identified in the ordinance. 2. The distribution of plastic foam egg cartons used for the sale of eggs; 3. The use of plastic foam for complimentary beverages or food items at any business. More than 90 cities and counties throughout California have adopted ordinances restricting expanded polystyrene in retail and/or restaurant distributions. Several cities and counties, including Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and the City City of Palo Alto Page 5 and County of Santa Cruz have adopted similar retail sales and distribution requirements to those being proposed in this expanded ordinance. Retail Plastic Foam Packaging Reuse Residents have suggested dropping off foam packing materials for reuse at mail centers. Although staff strongly supports the reuse of materials to reduce waste, plastic foam packing materials can be released to the environment during transport. In addition, it would be difficult for staff to determine if plastic foam products that are getting reused were truly sourced from residents who have brought the material to the vendor, or if the store had purchased the material. External Sources of Plastic Foam Packaging Materials Shipments containing plastic foam packaging coming into Palo Alto are excluded from the proposed ordinance revisions. However, a retailer in Palo Alto will be restricted from using additional plastic foam to protect the product during resale. Public Input Staff held two public meetings to receive input on proposed ordinance changes. The first meeting was held on June 11, 2015 for Palo Alto businesses and other community stakeholders. Letters were sent directly to all businesses and invitations were distributed to the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association and California Avenue Business Association. Two ads ran in the Palo Alto Weekly inviting the community to attend. No members of the community attended the meeting, but three residents emailed the ordinance expansion project manager support for the ordinance (Attachment C–Public Comments Supporting Palo Alto’s Plastic Ordinance Expansion). In addition, a second meeting was held for plastic industry representatives on June 19, 2015. No plastic industry representatives attended. Additionally, staff personally contacted managers or owners from those most likely to be impacted by the proposed ordinance changes including hardware stores, pharmacies, grocery stores and mailing services. Store representatives, including those from Safeway, Mollie Stones, Walgreens, Hassett Ace Hardware, Kinkos FedEx Office, and The UPS Store responded and indicated that the expanded ordinance would not result in any undue hardship on their business. Staff field inspections and conversations with store representatives have determined several stores including Country Sun, Sigona’s Farmers Market, City of Palo Alto Page 6 Whole Foods and Peninsula Hardware are already in compliance with the proposed ordinance. Timeline Staff proposes that the ordinance effective date commence on March 1, 2016. Resource Impact There will be no long-term resource impact to staff. In addition to complaint- based enforcement, periodic compliance checks would be performed at retailers identified in this report where sales of plastic foam are most likely to occur. Compliance checks at food service establishments that are already prohibited from using plastic foam are included in the City’s Restaurant Inspection Program. Policy Implications The proposed ordinance revisions are consistent with the City’s Single-use Plastic Reduction Policy, Clean Bay Plan and Climate Action Plan. The proposed ordinance would also support Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements to reduce litter to no adverse impact by 2022 and to meet the City’s zero waste goal by 2021. Environmental Review In April 2009, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration in connection with the 2009 amendments to the polystyrene ordinance. Staff has prepared an Addendum to the prior Negative Declaration to relfect the latest ordinance updates. Attachments: Attachment A Proposed Revisions to Ordinance 5039 Plastic Foam (PDF) Attachment B Single use plastic policy_CMR 2015 (PDF) Attachment C Support Letters for Plastic Foam Ordinance Expansion (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 151026 jb 0131491 1 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 5.30 (“Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers”) to Title 5 (“Health and Sanitation”) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and purpose. The Council finds and declares as follows: (a) The City of Palo Alto is charged with eliminating litter which passes through the storm drain system to no adverse impact by 2022 as part of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. (b) The City is charged with achieving Zero Waste by 2021 and Plastic Foam is not reliably recyclable. (c) Palo Alto’s watersheds reside at the edge of the San Francisco Bay which is part of the Pacific flyway and which protects habitat for two endangered species–the California clapper rail and saltmarsh harvest mouse. (d) The City of Palo Alto desires to protect the natural environment, the health of its citizens, and the economy. This includes exercising environmental stewardship by reducing the amount of Plastic Foam litter released into the City’s watershed and beyond. (e) On February 11, 2009, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board identified two Palo Alto creeks, San Francisquito Creek and Matadero Creek, as having water quality that is impaired by trash as defined by the Clean Water Act. The staff report recommending that the creeks be listed identifies polystyrene, a predominant source of Plastic Foam, as being one of the types of trash responsible for the impairment. (f) Plastic foam litter was the largest component by count of litter found in Adobe and Matadero Creeks during the 2014 National River and Coastal Clean-up Day events. (g) Plastic foam litter constitutes six percent of the litter collected in storm drains in four Bay Area counties and 149 storm drain inlets based on a study performed by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. (h) Plastic foam litter presents unique management issues because it is lightweight, floats, resists biodegradation, and easily breaks into smaller pieces. Because it is not easily contained, it is often conveyed through storm drains to local creeks, the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. These small pieces, similar in size to plankton, are ingested by marine wildlife, leading to reduced appetite and nutrient absorption and possible death by starvation. According to a United Nations Environment Global Program of Action study, at least 162 marine species including most seabirds are reported to have eaten plastics and other litter. NOT YET APPROVED 151026 jb 0131491 2 (i) Recycling Plastic Foam is problematic and not cost-effective. Ongoing logistical and quality control challenges related to the minimal recycling market for Plastic Foam makes maintaining a recycling program for peanuts and blocks financial and operationally infeasible. All Plastic Foam materials must now be disposed of in a landfill. (j) The retail sale or distribution of Plastic Foam undermines the goals of the City of Palo Alto’s ordinance prohibiting the distribution of Plastic Foam foodware at Food Service Establishments and City-sponsored events. (k) Both of the major chemicals used to produce Plastic Foam, benzene (a known human carcinogen) and styrene (a possible carcinogen and neurotoxin), are suspected by the EPA and FDA to leach from polystyrene food containers, posing a threat to the environment and human health. (l) Plastic Foam used at Food Service Establishments is a one-time use product that degrades extremely slowly in nature. (m) There are many suitable reusable, compostable or recyclable alternatives to Plastic Foam foodware, ice chests and packaging materials. (n) The City of Palo Alto provides an organics collection and composting program to residents and Food Service Establishments which can accept paper and compostable foodware for municipal composting. (o) Non-recyclable materials pose a challenge to any environmentally and fiscally responsible solid waste management program. Regulation of Plastic Foam is necessary to encourage a recyclable waste stream and to reduce the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs of waste management. (p) It is the intent of the Council to reduce the negative impacts of Plastic Foam and encourage the use of recyclable or compostable alternatives through the implementation of this Ordinance. SECTION 2. Chapter 5.30 (Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 5.30 EXPANDED POLYSTYRENEPLASTIC FOAM AND NON-RECYCLABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS AND PACKAGING ITEMS Sections: 5.30.010 Definitions 5.30.020 Prohibitions on the Use of Expanded PolystyrenePlastic Foam and Non- Recyclable Plastic 5.30.030 Exemptions NOT YET APPROVED 151026 jb 0131491 3 5.30.040 Operative Dates 5.30.050 Severability 5.30.060 Enforcement and Penalties 5.30.070 Construction and Preemption 5.30.010 Definitions. (a) “ASTM Standard” means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International Standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and compostable plastics and any amendments or successor standards thereto. (a)(b) “City facilitiesFacilities” refers to any building, structure or vehicle owned or operated by the City of Palo Alto, its agents, departments and franchises.; (b)(c) “Disposable food service containerFood Service Container” means single-use disposable product used by food vendorsFood Service Establishments for serving or transporting prepared and ready-to-consume food or beverages. This includes but is not limited to plates, cups, bowls, lids, trays and hinged or lidded containers. This does not include single-use disposable straws, utensils, or hot cup lids.; (c) “Expanded Polystyrene” means a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing the styrene monomer, marked with recycling symbol #6, processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene), sometimes incorrectly called Styrofoam®, a Dow Chemical Company trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation. In food service, expanded polystyrene is generally used to make cups, bowls, plates, and trays. (c)(d) “Food vendorService Establishment” means any establishment, located or providing food within the City of Palo Alto, which provides prepared and ready- to- consume food or beverages, for public consumption including but not limited to any store,Retail Service Establishment, eating and drinking service (as defined in Title 18), takeout service (as defined in Title 18), supermarket, delicatessen, restaurant, retail food vendor, sales outlet, shop, cafeteria, catering truck or vehicle, cart or other sidewalk or other outdoor vendor, or caterer. which provides Prepared Food; (d)(e) “Non-Recyclable Plastic” means all plastics that do not meet the definition of “Recyclable Plastic”. ; (f) “Plastic Foam” shall mean blown expanded and extruded plastic foams made from polystyrene or other resins which are processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of monomer spheres (expanded bead plastic), injection molding, foam molding and extrusion-blown molding (extruded foam plastic). Expanded polystyrene and other plastic foam resins are generally used to NOT YET APPROVED 151026 jb 0131491 4 make disposable cups, bowls, plates, trays, egg cartons, clamshell containers, ice chests, shipping boxes and packing materials. (g) “Plastic Foam Products” shall mean disposable Plastic Foam ice chests, cups, bowls, plates, clamshells, shipping boxes containers, egg cartons, packaging peanuts, packing blocks or other packaging materials that are not wholly encapsulated or encased by a more durable material. Additional Plastic Foam Products may be added by administrative regulation promulgated by the Director of Public Works or his/her designee; (e)(h) “Prepared foodFood” means any food or beverage prepared for consumption using any cooking, packaging, or food preparation technique, including but not limited to cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, squeezing, or brewing, and which requires no further preparation to be consumed. Prepared food includes uncooked fruits or vegetables and any, “take-out” food, or food prepared to be consumed off the food vendor’sFood Service Establishment premises. Prepared foodFood does not include any uncooked meat, fish, or poultry, or eggs.; (f)(i) “Recyclable Plastic” means all plastics that can be recycled, salvaged, composted, processed, or marketed by any means other than land-filling or burning, whether as fuel or otherwise, so that they are returned to use by society. Recyclable plasticsPlastics” include any plastic which can be feasibly recycledaccepted for recycling or composting by the City’s municipal recycling program and presently is limited to those plastics with the following recycling symbols: #1 - polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), #2 - high density polyethylene (HDPE), #3 - polyvinyl chloride (PVC), #4 - low density polyethylene (LDPE), #5 - polypropylene (PP), #6 – polystyrene, except for the expanded version of polystyrene, and #7 - other plastics, including compostable plastics such as polylactic acid (PLA) . For purposes of this Chapter, Recyclable Plastic does not include any expanded polystyrenePlastic Foam labeled with recycling symbol #6., or any other Plastic Foam made with other plastic resins; (g)(j) “Retail Service Establishment” shall have the same meaning as Retail Service as defined in Title 18 of this Code. 5.30.020 Prohibition on the Use of PolystyrenePlastic Foam Products and Non-Recyclable Plastic. (a) Except as provided by section 5.30.030 food vendors, Food Service Establishments are prohibited from providing prepared food in disposable food service containersDisposable Food Service Containers made from expanded polystyrene or non-recyclable plastic. Plastic Foam or other Non-Recyclable Plastic; (b) Except as provided by section 5.30.030, Retail Service Establishments are prohibited from selling, leasing or otherwise providing Plastic Foam Products; NOT YET APPROVED 151026 jb 0131491 5 (b)(c) Except as provided by section 5.30.030, all City facilities, City managed concessions, and vendors at City sponsored events, and or City permitted eventsowned facilities are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyreneDisposable Food Service Containers, packaging or non-recyclable plastic. other products made from Plastic Foam or Non-Recyclable Plastic; (c)(d) Nothing in this Ordinance shall be interpreted to restrict the use or sale of any form of fiber or paper disposable food service container, or the use of any form of biodegradable or plastic food service container meeting ASTM Standards or other products authorized by Administrative Regulation. 5.30.030 Exemptions (a) The following exemptions shall apply: (ai) Foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Palo Alto are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of Palo Alto are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter. (b) Coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. (cii) The directorDirector of Public Works, or his/her designee, may exempt a food Food Service Establishment, Retail Service Establishment or City facility/vendor from the requirements of this Ordinance for a period of up to one year, upon showing by the food vendorif the applicant for such exemption can demonstrate that the conditions of this Ordinance would cause an undue hardship. An “undue hardship” includes, but is not limited to situations unique to the food vendorapplicant where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrenePlastic Foam Products or nonNon-recyclable plastic disposable food service containersPlastic Disposable Food Service Containers and compliance with this Ordinance would cause significant economic hardship to that food vendorapplicant, or cause the food vendorthem to be deprived of a legally protected right. (diii) A food A Food Service Establishment, Retail Service Establishment or City facility/vendor seeking an exemption application shall include all information necessary for the City to make its decision, including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Director may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. NOT YET APPROVED 151026 jb 0131491 6 (eiv) Emergency Supplies and Service Procurement. City facilities, food vendorsFood Service Establishments, Retail Service Establishments, City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter, in a situation deemed by the City Manager to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety. 5.30.040 Operative Dates. All food vendors Food Service Establishment, Retail Service Establishments and City facilities and vendors must comply with the requirements of this Ordinance by April 22, 2010March 1, 2016. 5.35.050 Severability. If any provision or clause of this chapter is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this chapter, and clauses of this chapter are declared to be severable. 5.35.060 Enforcement and Penalties (a) The Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall have primary responsibility for enforcement of this chapter. The Director of Public Works or his or her designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, entering the premises of any Food Provider to verify compliance. (a)(b) Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction as set forth in Chapter 1.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (b) Each and every sale or other transfer of disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene or non-recyclable plastic shall constitute a separate violation of this Ordinance. (c) The remedies and penalties provided in this Section are cumulative and not exclusive. 5.35.070 Construction and Preemption This Chapter and any of its provisions shall be null and void upon the adoption of any state or federal law or regulation imposing the same, or essentially the same limits on the use of prohibited products as set forth in the Chapter. This Chapter is intended to be a proper exercise of the City’s police power, to operate only upon its own officers, agents, employees and facilities and other persons acting within its boundaries, and not to regulate inter-city or interstate commerce. It shall be construed in accordance with that intent. NOT YET APPROVED 151026 jb 0131491 7 SECTION 3. On April 27, 2009 the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration with respect to the City’s earlier prohibition against food establishments’ use of extended polystyrene products. The Council hereby finds that this ordinance’s extension to other foam products and further applicability to retail service establishments would not result in any additional impacts not already analyzed under the earlier Negative Declaration. The City has prepared an addendum to the Negative Declaration to clarify the extended scope. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works I:\iwdocs\_SourceControl\Current Programs\Plastic and Polystyrene\Single use plastic container policy_Final.doc CITY OF PALO ALTO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS POLICY POLICY STATEMENT The City recognizes that single-use plastic containers including plastic bags, expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers, and single-use plastic water bottles are important components of the plastic litter which is building up in ecosystems and harming wildlife. These plastic items degrade extremely slowly and removal from the natural environment, when possible at all, is very resource intensive and expensive. Further, single-use plastic containers consume energy in manufacturing which creates carbon dioxide and exacerbates global warming. The City has taken action to restrict the distribution of certain plastic bags and expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers. The purpose of this Policy is to take similar steps with respect to City Operations and demonstrate leadership by going beyond the requirements being imposed via City Ordinance. Single-use plastic water bottles are being included because of their explosive sales growth, frequent occurrence in ecosystem litter, and readily available alternatives. The following items shall be phased out of City Operations by the dates indicated: 1. Single-use plastic bags shall not be purchased or distributed, effective on September 18, 2009. 2. Expanded polystyrene food and beverage containers shall not be purchased, distributed or sold after December 31, 2009. 3. Single-use plastic water containers shall not be purchased, distributed or sold after December 31, 2009. Applicability of this Policy This Policy shall apply to all City operations, with the exception of emergency response actions. City contractors, lessees and vendors shall also adhere to the Policy. All events sponsored or co-sponsored by the City shall also be in compliance with the Policy. This Policy will also be included in the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Chapter of the Palo Alto Purchasing Manual and shall be implemented via contracts, purchase orders and agreements. PROCEDURES City staff, vendors, lessees and event managers shall all be responsible for adherence to the Policy and insuring that non-conforming plastic containers are not distributed at City facilities or City sponsored (or co-sponsored) events. Purchasing staff shall also assist in assuring that non-conforming plastic containers are not purchased. Changes to this Policy must be coordinated through the City Managers Office. Note: Questions and/or clarifications of this Policy should be directed to the Public Works Department. Attachment C– Written Public Comments Supporting Palo Alto’s Plastic Foam Ordinance Expansion From: To: Cc: Subject: Cedric Compost de La Beaujardiere <cedric.compost@gmail.com> Weiss, Julie Re: Public Meeting Notice: Proposed Polystyrene Ordinance Expansion Hi Mrs. Julie Weiss and City Staff, Sent: Thu 6/4/2015 5:14 PM I 100% support expanding the ban on the sale of expanded plastic foam products. these products often break down into little pieces and end up in our land and waterways, where wildlife eat them thinking they are food, and die from poisoning or malnutrition with bellies full of plastic instead of nourishment. These products don't decompose, they just accumulate in our biosphere and are virtually impossible to clean up. Keep up the good work! Cedric de La Beaujardiere 741 Josina Ave Palo Alto CA 94306 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Wejss, Julie <Julie.Weiss@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: The City of Palo Alto is holding a public stakeholder meeting to discuss the proposed expansion of Palo Alto's existing ordinance 5.30 CExpanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food SCI>ice Containers) Title 5 CHealth and Sanitation") of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The current ordinance prohibit> the use of expanded plastic foam (e.g., Styrofoam TM) and other non-recyclable plastics for use as foodware at food service establishments. The proposed revisions would prohibit retail sales of expande.d plastic foam such as cups, bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, ice chests, shipping boxes and packing materials. See attached letter sent to Palo Alto businesses for additional information.