Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-30 City Council Agenda Packet CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL November 30, 2015 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 November 30, 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 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 5:00-6:00 PM 19.PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-Foot, Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-Foot Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District Located at 429 University Avenue; and Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has Been Prepared. This Hearing is Continued From May 4, 2015 *Quasi Judicial Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:25 PM 2.Proclamation Honoring Winners of the 2015 Architectural Review Board Awards REVISED 2 November 30, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 3.Appointment of Three Candidates to the Parks and Recreation Commission to Terms Ending December 15, 2018 Study Session 6:25-7:45 PM 4.Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:45-7:55 PM Oral Communications 7:55-8:05 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 8:05-8:10 PM 5.Approval of Action Minutes for the November 9 and 16, 2015 Council Meetings Consent Calendar 8:10-8:15 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 6.Approval of Transformer Supplier Pre-Qualification Process and Authorization to Spend up to $1,000,000 per Year With any of theQualified Vendor(s) Over the Next Five Years, Total of not to Exceed $5,000,000 for the Purchase of Electric Distribution Transformers Required to Provide Service to Customers 7.Adoption of a Resolution Adopting a Complete Streets Policy to Maintain the City's Eligibility for Regional Transportation Funding 8.Review and Approval of Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Bryant Street, Redwood Circle, Carlson Court, Ely Place, Duncan Place, Creekside Drive, Nelson Drive, Shasta Drive and MacKay Drive 9.Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2015 Attachment A 3 November 30, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 10.Approval of a Contract Amendment With VOX Network Solutions, Contract Number C12144216 for Additional Phone Equipment and Maintenance in the Amount of $159,899 11.Approval of Contract Number C16159083 With Cleary Brothers Landscape in the Amount of $831,781 for the Mayfield Soccer Complex Synthetic Turf Replacement Project (Stanford Palo Alto Playing Field, Capital Improvement Project PG-13001) 12.Approval of a Contract With California Land Management Corporation in the Amount of $127,434 for the First Year of Service for Park Ranger Patrol Services in Palo Alto's Urban Parks, Byxbee Park and Baylands Nature Preserve 13.Approval of Blanket Purchase Order With Hill Brothers Chemical Company in an Amount not to Exceed $536,461 for the Purchase of Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide for the Water Quality Control Plant and Approval of Two One Year Extensions 14.Authorization to Amend the Legal Services Agreement With the Law Offices of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai LLP to add $45,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $95,000 for Litigation Defense Services 15.Request for Pre-Screening of a Proposed Hotel Development at 744- 750 San Antonio Road (to be Scheduled for December 7, 2015) 16.Approval of a Contract With Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in the Amount of $89,490 for 2016 Caltrain Go Pass Program 17.Approval of Amendment Number Four to Contract Number S13149754to add $120,000 for a Total Amount not to Exceed $336,000 and Amendment Number Two to Contract Number S15155809 to add $25,000 for a Total Amount not to Exceed $50,000 With Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai LLP Public Law Group for Labor Negotiations Services and to Extend Both Contract Terms to June 30, 2016 18.SECOND READING: 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: 4 November 30, 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. Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15305 (FIRST READING: November 9, 2015 PASSED 9-0) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:15-9:15 PM 20.Approval of Staff’s Plan to Simultaneously Pursue Response toCouncil’s Motion on Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan and Continuation of Negotiations With Google Fiber, AT&T; Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Amendments to two Contracts With Columbia Telecommunications Corporation dba CTC Technology & Energy Extending Each Contract Term Through June 30, 2016 and Increasing Compensation Under: (1) Contract Number C15152568 by $94,490 for a Total not to Exceed Amount of $226,140; and (2) Contract Number C15152569 by $58,850 for a Total not to Exceed Amount of $203,794; Approval of a Temporary Fiber and Wireless Senior Program Manager Position for Three Years at $228,000/Year; and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2016 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $172,850 9:15-10:30 PM 21.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 72 Homes Within the Greer Park Tract Number 796, by Amending the Zoning Map to Re-Zone the Area 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. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Rezoning Only the 47 Parcels With Frontage on Metro Circle and Moffett Circle Closed Session 10:30-11:30 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Molly Stump, Suzanne Mason, Kathy Shen, Dania Torres Wong, Alison Hauk) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); Palo Alto Police Managers’ 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; UtilitiesManagement and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA) 5 November 30, 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. Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 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. 6 November 30, 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. Council Closed Session Meeting December 1, 2015 Sp. Finance Committee Meeting December 1, 2015 Sp. Policy and Services Committee Meeting December 1, 2015 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council Set 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 30, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Proclamation Honoring Winners of the 2015 Architectural Review Board Awards ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment: Attachment A: ARB Awards (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION 2015 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DESIGN AWARDS WHEREAS, architecture is all around us, defining and enhancing our places of recreation, homes and workplaces - the Architectural Review Board Design Awards are presented every five years; and WHEREAS, architects are charged by State law to protect public health, safety and welfare in the areas of seismic safety, universal accessibility, historic preservation, energy and resource conservation, housing for the poor and the homeless and to respect the integrated environment – the sensitive connections between the built, landscaped and natural and cultural environments; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board reviewed projects for the 2015 awards that had been reviewed after mid- 2010 and completed prior to mid-2015; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board selected outstanding projects in order to express appreciation for the efforts of architects that created and maintained Palo Alto’s unique visual character through their creative and responsive designs of public and private spaces; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board granted this award to projects that: 1) were innovative, inclusive, creative and authentic; 2) that enriched the quality of the built environment in Palo Alto; 3) were respectful of the surrounding context and the environment; and 4) were well built, detail oriented and sustainable. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Holman, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim appreciation for the contributions of these architectural firms and their professional design teams and to the well- being and healthy environment of our city: 1. Tom Eliot Fisch, Page & Turnbull, Stephen Wheeler, Stanford Hoover Pavilion, 211 Quarry Road, Preservation; 2. Group 4 Architects, Garavaglia Architecture, Gates and Associates, Rinconada Library, 1213 Newell, Preservation, Addition, and Site Design; 3. Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Architect, Apple Store, 340 University Avenue, Remodel; 4. Jimmy Chang/R.add, Paris Baguette, 383 University Avenue, Small Project and Renovation; 5. Verde Design, Barbara Butler, RHAA, Magical Bridge Playground at Mitchell Park, 600 East Meadow Drive, Special Award for Innovative-Inclusive Playground; and 6. Group 4 Architects, Mitchell Park Library, 3700 Middlefield, Special Award for Sustainable Design. Presented: November 30, 2015 ______________________________ Karen Holman Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 30, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment of Three Candidates to the Parks and Recreation Commissions to Terms Ending December 15, 2018 On Monday, November 30, 2015 the Council will vote to appoint three Commissioners to the Parks and Recreation Commission for three terms ending December 15, 2018. Voting will be by paper ballot. The first three candidates to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be provided to Council Members directly. The Candidates are as follows: Jim Cowie Anne Cribbs Judith Fields Cybele LoVuolo-Bhushan David Moss Victoria Thorp BACKGROUND The City Council interviewed five candidates for the Parks and Recreation Commission on Tuesday, November 17, 2015. Judith Fields was not available for the interview process, but has been advised she is still eligible for appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment: Attachment A: PARC Cowie, Jim (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment B: PARC Cribbs, Anne (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment C: PARC Fields Judith (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment D: PARC LoVuolo-Bhushan, Cybele (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment E: PARC Moss, David (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment F: PARC Thorp, Victoria (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Page 1 Parks & Recreation Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Parks & Recreation Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Parks & Recreation Commission 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience wfth any of these documents. please describe that-experience. Experience with these documem:s is not requirecHor selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element LINK Natural Environment Element LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) LINK Bicycle -Pedestrian Transportation Plan LINK Youth Master Plan LINK room1n Park Fire Management Plan LINK Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report LINK I am somewhat familiar with the Baylands Master Plan and the Youth Master Plan but I would not claim to be experienced with any of these plans today. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the Citv of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: � I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Ariu Cit}' Citfli\. OR _Q_ I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the followihg contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: Q Home 10 Office Phone: E-mail: Page4 Parks & Recreation Commission Personal Information Name: Anne Warner Cribbs Address: 2450 Aanes Wav. Palo Alto. CA 94303 Cell Phone: 415.264.2067 Q Home t 0 Office Phone: E-mail: cribbsaw@pacbell.net Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ..@Yes Q No G]lry uF i9l1LO ;.\LHhCA C IT i' etEHK'S BFFJO{ I 5 AUG 3 I PM 12: 3 8 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?Q Yes 0 No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?� Yes Q No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? QYes ®No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? QYes ®No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission? §ommunity Group Baily Post mail from City Clerk ity Website alo Alto Weekly Q1yer Other: _______________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: 1. 5S S�lA--Foen l q -q 9 -5oo..o-Q... s�� 2 . rov�� 'LDC>q Su,m� f\....O.._,nCM...� �C/Lqa� Page 1 Parks & Recreation Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: San Francisco Bav Area Sports Qrqanizinq Committee Occupation: President & CEO Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organiZ'..@tions: I . <B<IAAcL rY\eNn� R-Lctt-� firiu.LO-CA.-l.-t.C!VG L b� d via--�a . �"'7'1 �d � �Sf" P� MD z.. B<YMcL\llA..-Q/W-f,..<A_ SilM-Jn<_ Sp� �ol 'S. 11\,U;vy\_l).e,L -pt(/)t � c.cfh(<..LLC.. 6 - 4. PA°;,1 E:i\ATI.-)1\.Lcc__ + q CAJ__ s� \Ju-c,l.u_ t �q,' �CW-'V\<1) � �CC& C£P.__c..i'1 S. kovtsC/Ui e,� �c./J � � � 1. What is i� �b.out the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of spec1f1c interest to you, and why? �V-€fl:>T l\A_ LL h.lCM-9 V\.Q_� � 6� (JA.4 oPP°'-fl.L� fr:_ cUL � fv � CM-J- LA.a_ v-€_ CAd:-e SS fn pt1vL1L + V'e._OLUVl� it-� . �� � ltA.., peu-tC-? 4 f'JJ.-CA.u;..._h� l� �<n.� n;, � � 0- �� '{) �<(:_. I' V\.o...,ve � llAOJ\c.J-ecf.. lV-. tAJ...l... � oLJ o._H,,..L.ri:fu_ � � CAJ_J. Q_ll-t.<:> CUUL �<-<­ �. � � \/\A� S p OLP::> b� l�lvi..e). Page2 Parks & Recreation Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. f. fl aO ti �'6.n Ll 0� l;t/.)L. � �S Af'uc l-S W-th.L pv' €%<'z>\A/\c. OVL (rv-cf,.-, -l-tt � t\wvvt, � �· PA I Thj_ � 5�c) �hiu.L .f, �f f �"<>l..u..{h fo 01,<./J� � � 6"-� � 2. C!.,(LQ_f>f'l'\-A- � "'\) LLFZ:-� �t � l\A.-� PAuo A-im (l,t;fl� 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? l · tA..JCA..\c u .. :>" l'\\\-o � S\x\�c hold� � O\iL \A-�t uv·i ff �I� (A,rM_VV\_� � t <L.. �V\.V\.Q.. h, eAT-�t.:>u �Li p��� cfo �pvcr pcu.Jc s pvo �va��. Page 3 Parks & Recreation Commission 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element LINK Natural Environment Element LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) LINK Bicycle -Pedestrian Transportation Plan LINK Youth Master Plan LINK Foothill Park Fire Management Plan LINK Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report LINK x \A_o._0 ��-� 1'u-!JM\ ��� �LM.. �--. '{}-w OUU'-Ot tr-Pet.Lo ()JJo �,,Jr, D-V\. � � � flp-CL� pea�- Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _..Gl. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR _Q_ I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: Q_ Home 10 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature:b \A.), �'l,,.y, Date: cg-\ 2. (o (IS- Page4 Parks & Recreation Commission Personal Information Name: Judith Fields Address: 2581 Park Blvd, Y103, Palo Alto 94306 Cell Phone: x__ Home / __ Office Phone: 650-322-1441 E-mail: judith2468@gmail.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? _X_ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes _X_No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? _XYes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes X__ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes X__ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission? friend List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: No education or training specific to parks and recreation Page 1 Parks & Recreation Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: VSO (Volunteers Serving Overseas); now retired. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I volunteer for Theatre Works. Before I went overseas, I tutored high school youngsters in continuation school. At a different time I tutored twins form Ghana to help them with English. I am looking to get involved with the community. I volunteered for six years in three Asian countries. 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am a regular user of four parks. I CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE C EIV E D 15 Oct 05 | 1:50 pm DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DEFE08C-78A6-4ED0-821E-21F891757FFE believe that recreation is vital to health and enjoyment of life. I believe in fairness.. I am a reasonably educated and thinking person. I want to help. Page 2 Parks & Recreation Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I come to the commission with my own issue—a more equal allocation of resources to the different parks. I go to four parks regularly—Peers Park, Hoover, Boulware and the park on Alma opposite the train station. All have working fountains except Boulware. It has been useless for over two years, full of sand. Two have bathroom facilities. Only one does not have a watered.playing field, Boulware. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would want to set up some kind of monitoring to evaluate the state of the parks as they exist today, what’s needed, and set priorities. I realize that this overlaps with your study. I would like to set up a liaison with the Police Department. There are many homeless people at the Boulware Park entrance and around the neighborhood. They create hygiene problems—use of the park as a bathroom and their proximity to the small children’s play ground (about 12 to 14 feet). Sometimes trash. Neighbors tell me that this park was known as the “Ghetto Park” because the area was once predominately black. They wonder if this park suffers from benign neglect. They also believe that the police department “herds” the vans and campers to the park’s area because it is a mixed residential/commercial area. And not like the most affluent areas where the homeless are not tolerated. If this is true—the herding—then we need to make it a priority to provide bathrooms and fix the water fountain. For everybody. Page 3 Parks & Recreation Commission 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. None. But I learn fast. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element LINK Natural Environment Element LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) LINK Bicycle - Pedestrian Transportation Plan LINK Youth Master Plan LINK Foothill Park Fire Management Plan LINK Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DEFE08C-78A6-4ED0-821E-21F891757FFE The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. yes OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: Judith Fields_________________________________________ 10/5/15 Page 4 Parks & Recreation Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DEFE08C-78A6-4ED0-821E-21F891757FFE Employment Present or Last Employer: Fujitsu Corporation Occupation: ESL WritinQ Curriculum Instructor Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Jv,.\JcQ Cu:� �c._'f:<uf 1 cr1 W av� 1 � Stt .p 5 , :'bea-vt : vt Ve>{JcPf w,1 flt .. � ce1 rt f '*'_ cz /fc(i rn ;_·� be ./c/ V!;\c.._ (/Jb,_ ?\ \fUl�"-1,u 1 ftr � r�·'/ll"IJ.«SuJtt G�se,'J<t'tu1 T-te �e/vL-f I 1 /Y\ .\£� ·-gc,CN <J (P- M 1i,.._ rf �\) I r¥tM :z:� \)Ci ( v . .p cQ w c C o rvb\ "'"l lL'\1 ;i l(' c'f1 '\;, s 'Ytl Tc_') --e)�"'-ec� ;s t(L tv'lvbJe #i:.� 'Yl f Qlo fflfc.,. Page2 Parks & Recreation Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came b f . . to you and describe why you are interested in it �t°re t�e Commission that is of particular interest you can view an archive here: · you ave never been to a Commission meeting £"-"-" "� \j \ £\;_ • f\,,, lJ, { <' () 'l!LO_ f OA k , Sf-" Cc \� <if C CO Ll '/.-C; ( �.<?� ·t,J '> U i\j'" 6" � Co c•-"c; / 1/Y\ J2 'IV\ L.,'-'1 ''to \) c:tl UL '(' T� _(> c pil awt I c "/-c_ ul tlA<l d' ; f� rft d T3. V, JWA 1 efl, A� b, eiN' E. V ; s , 7 a ..z. j/-/fc) .y-s1 s : Io °"'-{ \) ll l � C'� CJ._ c 6'Nl otl \, 1 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience �ith any of.these docum�nts, please describe that experience. Experience wi�h documents 1s not required for selection�. 1 ( , --· , CL ,4tw,ej <. � Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: t<. Community Services and Facilities Element /lf ce«..c( r/I Natural Environment Element J:.J Baylands Master Plan Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) Bicycle -Pedestrian Transportation Plan k,IN!S /Vc:Y Youth Master Plan .hl!':J Foothill Park Fire Management Plan Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report .h!NI< Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website � {))\_'Yvt C) 5 ( California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead._ . 6 � Address:..: ,, Cell Phone: .Lft 5 l/ �:} 1, 3 0 Home 10 Office Phone: - E-mail: b h_u. <;: ' Page4 Parks & Recreation Commission Parks and Recreation Commission Application Personal Information Name: David Moss Address: Cell Phone €) Home I Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ®Yes 0No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? 0Yes G)No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? @Yes No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? 0Yes @No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? 0 Yes @ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission? §Community Group D Daily Post Email from City Clerk D City Website Palo Alto Weekly D Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: MBA from Santa Clara University. I've made a career here in Palo Alto and elsewhere in Silicon Valley as a programmer, business analyst, data quality analyst, and IT project manager. Employment Present or Last Employer: Wells Fargo occupation: Business Analyst and IT Project Manager Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: My wife and I have raised 3 kids here in Palo Alto. I have held several volunteer positions through the years in the schools (Ohlone playground remodel, Gunn Foundation, Gunn Sports Boosters, Gunn new pool committee) and in AYSO (soccer coach, league ball manager), as well as East Palo Alto reading tutor, and Boy Scout troop trip coordinator. We went with the City Council last year to Oaxaca to help represent the city at the 50th anniversary of Neighbors Abroad. Page 1 Parks & Recreation Commission 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I love biking throughout the city and utilizing Foothills and Arasterdero preserve and my local parks, and have always been interested in issues that affect them. My work as a business analyst and IT project manager has given me years of experience as a productive member of teams, and a leader of teams to develop and deliver complex IT solutions. My volunteer activities have almost always been as a member of a committee, and I love the people interaction. As an analyst I am very good at breaking down issues into manageable activities, stating requirements, being a liaison between users, technical staff, and management, and also analyzing data. These skills are valuable in every committee and team. My areas of particular interest include expansion of and threats to open space, urban park fair usage, biking and hiking access, ongoing relations between city, PAUSD, athletic leagues, and Stanford. All these could use someone like me who can be analytical yet empathetic, a good listener, a team player, a leader, patient, persistent, and polite. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I am Interested In any issue that represents an extension of or threat to our current open space and also the connectMty to those spaces from all parts of the city, In order to make them more accessible. I want more people out ot their houses and out of their cars and Into nature. Some recent Issues that most Interested me: the refuse digester plant's Impact on the Baylands, golf course changes and Impact on the Baylands, the trail around Stanford to give us more quasi open space, the walking/biking trail extension near Page Mill and Arastradero Rd, the bike bridge across 101 to give more people year-round access to the Baylands and Shoreline, the expansion of bike paths along east-west and north-south corridors, especially Charleston/Arastradero corridor, the huge suocess of the Magic Playground and Mitchell Park library In my nearby Mltchell Park, the wonderful usage of the present Cubberley fields and track, the under used open space behind Greendell School, the management of Mitchen park to deal with single corporate events versus the public use of the park on a busy atternoon. a new public pool, biker and hiker relations at Arastradero preserve, dog leash enforcement In open space, and more use of open space by school groups for nature and conservation studies. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I am interested in all of the above issues as an extension of or threat to current open space and connectivity to them from all parts of the city, in order to make them more accessible to more people and build community. I would accomplish this goal by sponsoring more community events like the wildly successful music-in-the-park and the July 4th Chili Cookoff. But don't stop there ... have more lectures, community hikes, community picnics, night hikes, star parties, music in Arastradero Preserve, movie nights in Foothills Park, more use of open space for camping nights, community weeding days, creek cleanups, and trash cleanup events, to mention a few. We want events that would expand interest in our open spaces and encourage people to want them. 4� Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element LINK Natural Environment Element .bl.t: Baylands Master Plan LINK Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) .!J.t: Bicycle -Pedestrian Transportation Plan Youth Master Plan .!. Foothill Park Fire Management Plan Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report LINK I have read the bicycle-pedestrian transportation plan, and the Cubberley Community Center Committee report because they both affect my daily activities. I have been on the community rides and gone to the community events around the changes in arastradero/charleston rd configuration. I went to the opening of the Page Mill/Arastradero Rd trail, a joint project with Stanford. As for Cubberley, my nearest open space, I was very interested in keeping Cubberley Community Center intact and the redwood trees and track intact, and the fields intact. I love how it has turned out. Page2 Parks & Recreation Commission Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form wil not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Ferne Ave Cell Phone: ®Home I Office Phone: 650-494-7234 E-mail: ssow111@gmail.com Signature: ., Date: .£.hf/ J- Page 3 Parks & Recreation Commission Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Page 1 Parks & Recreation Commission Victoria Thorp 555 Hale Street Palo Alto CA 94301 415-378-8687 victoriathorp@gmail.com BA, English, Tufts University, M.Ed, UCLA, Secondary teaching credential, English, UCLA 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3131DE37-B3D4-46E9-A0E8-8DB6BF9780AA Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Parks & Recreation Commission As an active person and the parent of two girls, I am lucky to have taken advantage of many of Palo Alto's wonderful Parks and Recreation opportunities, from classes at the Jr. Museum, to summer camps, swimming at Rinconado Pool and hiking in Foothills Park. I love being able to enjoy these opportunities and appreciate being part of a community where parks, recreation and open space are valued and supported. I am applying for the Parks and Recreation Commission because I would like to contribute to preserving the City's parks and recreation assets and ensuring that they are positioned to serve the community for many years to come. freelance writer and editor writer and editor DocuSign Envelope ID: 3131DE37-B3D4-46E9-A0E8-8DB6BF9780AA 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Parks & Recreation Commission I know that the Parks and Recreation Department is in the midst of a big planning and prioritization process that will help clarify goals and shape the future of where resources are spent in Palo Alto. So my first step if I were to become a Commissioner would be to better understand existing plans and proposals before setting out any of my own goals. However, as Palo Alto resident, my observation is that Rinconada Park and Pool are in dire need for remodeling and rebuilding. I would love to see an upgraded pool and locker room in this area, coupled with upgraded park facilities. I think Burgess Park in Menlo Park offers an interesting model of what can be done, although that site is larger and was rebuilt with private donations so it may not be a relevant comparison point. In addition, I would like to see new and up to date play ground equipment to incorporate more variety of structures and ways to engage children in play. Finally, I think the Parks and Recreation Commission should focus on access to parks and ensuring that open space and nature are part of the City's plan for development in the years ahead. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3131DE37-B3D4-46E9-A0E8-8DB6BF9780AA 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element LINK Natural Environment Element LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) LINK Bicycle - Pedestrian Transportation Plan LINK Youth Master Plan LINK Foothill Park Fire Management Plan LINK Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Parks & Recreation Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 3131DE37-B3D4-46E9-A0E8-8DB6BF9780AA 10/16/2015 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6312) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Joint CC/PTC Study Session Title: Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is a joint study session of the City Council and the Planning & Transportation Commission. This study session is intended to discuss issues of interest within the purview of the Commission. No action is required as this is a study session. Executive Summary The City Council and the Planning & Transportation Commission periodically meet in joint session to discuss issues of interest within the purview of the Commission. In advance of tonight’s joint session, the Mayor and Vice Mayor meet with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning & Transportation Commission to identify the following topics for discussion: A. PTC Annual Report (10 Minutes) B. PTC Purview and Expectations (25 min) C. PTC Value Added / Examples (15 min) D. Look Ahead / Projects for 2016 (10 min) The Commission has also prepared an annual report to the Council, which is attached. Attachments:  Attachment A: Planning and Transportation Commission Annual Report to City Council (PDF) PALO ALTO PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2014‐2015 REPORT TO COUNCIL November 18, 2015 Dear Mayor Holman and Council Members: I. Background Planning and transportation issues have become a major concern of Palo Alto’s residents, as these impact the quality of life in our community. In 2015, the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) has provided a forum to study such issues and provide our advice and recommendations to the City Council. We have also discussed how this Commission can best serve the City, the Council, and the public. Two new members (Commissioners Downing and Fine) joined the Commission at the end of 2014, and former Chair Michael will be replaced by Asher Waldfogel in November 2015. The PTC currently has no sub‐committee designations. Over the past year, the PTC has provided input on a range of important land use, zoning, transportation, and related topics, improved the efficiency of our meetings, and engaged citizens through our regular meetings. We are always open to suggestions on further improvements, and this report is intended to communicate what the PTC has accomplished, how our process works, how it does not, and how we plan to improve. II.PTC Processes Regular public meetings of the PTC are held bi‐monthly on Wednesday evening in the second and last weeks of each month. The Chair, Vice Chair, and one Commissioner, together with the Assistant Director and other staff members, including the senior assistant City Attorney attend a pre‐commission meeting. A tentative agenda listing is prepared by the Assistant Director and Commission Secretary that includes descriptions of matters expected to be on the agenda of future PTC meetings. This list seeks to project the timing of agenda items up to six months in advance. Some matters on the PTC agenda relate to current planning applications and other matters concerning long‐range planning. Several process improvements were also implemented by the Chair and Vice Chair during the 2014‐2015 period: ●The Commission used a more structured format to focus on one issue at a time: 1.Commission Q&A used to build a list of issues to be discussed 2.Issues were discussed one at a time 3.Confirmation of the Commission's viewpoint on issue ●Leverage priority focus process and tools, like the central document topic Matrix of Commission issues to help with prioritization. ATTACHMENT A III. Productivity‐ What the PTC worked on Since the last PTC report to the Council in October of 2014, the Commission has held 19 meetings and considered the following matters: Study Sessions: 1. Review of Concept Plan Line options for Maybell Bicycle Blvd. and Churchill Ave. Enhanced Bikeway Projects 2. Downtown Development Cap Study 3. US‐101 Bike Bridge Design Competition Study 4. TMA Update and Study Session 5. Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project ‐ Concept Plans Legislative: 1. Interim Retail Ordinance (June, July, August) 2. Formula Retail Ordinance 3. Interim Retail Ordinance for Office/R&D Growth limit 4. Parking Exemption Ordinance 5. RPP Recommendation Ordinance 6. Downtown RPP Resolution 7. Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform and Preliminary Screening Requirements 8. 3672 Middlefield Road (CUP Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility) 9. Build to Line Ordinance 10. 4261 El Camino Real – City Project: Site and Design Review and CUP for construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path on a public access easement 11. FCC Telecommunications Tiering Policy (April and May) 12. Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements along Park Blvd. Quasi‐Judicial: 1. Los Arboles Single Story Overlay 2. 2555 Park Blvd. – Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 3. 820 Los Trancos Blvd. ‐ Open Space district Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) 4. 805 Los Trancos Blvd. ‐ Open Space district RLUA 5. 1050 Page Mill Road ‐ Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 6. 5061 Skyline Blvd ‐ Open Space district RLUA 7. 224 Churchill ‐ variance request for front setback 8. Greer Park North Single Story Overlay IV. Year In Review‐ Issues impacting planning and transportation in Palo Alto On October 1, 2014, the PTC recommended passage of the Housing Element, as required by ABAG. The rest of the Comprehensive Plan is still in discussion, analysis and drafting stages. Citizens have contributed to the Comprehensive Plan through two major efforts:  The Our Palo Alto Summit (on May 30, 2014) attracted over 300 residents to form Palo Alto’s “Constitutional Convention” (in Mayor Holman’s words)  The Citizen’s Advisory Committee (formed in July‐Aug 2015) was formed to oversee the work of drafting the new Comprehensive Plan The PTC was provided with several major planning‐related datasets:  The National Citizens Survey (2014)  TMA survey of downtown commuters (Aug 2014)  The Business Registry Database (Sept 2014) The Council requested that the PTC study and comment on several major ordinances:  Residential Permit Parking Program for several neighborhoods near University Avenue  The Interim Ordinance for the establishment of Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit applicable to Downtown, California Avenue Area and the El Camino Corridor  Retail‐related ordinances: Formula Retail Ordinance for California Avenue and the Interim Retail Ordinance  Recommendations on Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform Finally, the community engaged in a passionate conversation about diversity and affordability around the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park (with Council moving to provide financial assistance to the current residents of the Park). V. Next Steps The PTC had a productive 2015 due in large part to the Commission’s current leadership which proved to be very effective in encouraging thoughtful yet concise discussions on the numerous topics reviewed. As we look forward to 2016, we hope to continue building on this success. While community member attendance and participation during Commission meetings this year was not significantly different from previous years, the Commission is motivated to develop and encourage new practices that will attract greater participation from the community. The Commission believes that there are significant opportunities for growth in community participation through relevant and active outreach to the community by the Commission and the staff. It is the Commission’s view that a large proportion of community members would participate and voice their perspectives if doing so did not require such a significant sacrifice of their time. The Commission is eager to incorporate ways for the Palo Alto public to communicate their opinions to the Commission remotely and effectively. Doing so would enhance the discussion the Commission hosts and further inform the planning process and Council decision‐making. The Commission is mindful of its advisory role to the Council and will continue to serve in that role. There has been some discussion of late regarding alignment issues among the two bodies, but the Commission believes that its work represents a healthy discussion of alternatives and perspectives that inform the Council in a meaningful way. By hosting a discussion with members of the public and then having an elevated dialogue about the complex planning and transportation issues that face our City, the Commission feels well equipped to do their job. The Commission hopes to help the City of Palo Alto address some of the major issues that face our City, including: ● Transportation issues like traffic congestion, parking deficits and neighborhood parking intrusion, TDM, TMA, shuttle service, and CalTrain. ● Housing issues like affordability, supply, workplace and housing imbalances, mixed use and density opportunities. ● Retail issues, like encouraging retail diversity, preserving local retail, and providing for neighborhood‐community needs. In addition, the Commission believes that the following emerging topics are worth review and consideration: ● Continuing development in walkability, encouraging pedestrian and bicycle friendly spaces, calming traffic, the enhancement of streets to promote social spaces, encouraging neighborhood planning of a living street. ● Further advancement of biking community at local Palo Alto level. Exploring bike‐to‐ work commute with adjacent municipalities of Mountain View and Menlo Park. Improving access to the hills and the Bay along routes through Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley, and East Palo Alto. ● Focus planning regulations to increase opportunity for entrepreneurial and resourceful entrants, starting with micro living units, affordable commerce and enterprise space. Plan access routes for ease of local demand for their services. ● Explore synergies between the Commission and the Architectural Review Board for better space quality. The Commission sees potential in crowdsourcing and open competitions to lure space planning and public structure design to develop the City’s unique identity. ● Interconnected and quality transportation to attract car users. Initiate or request greater collaboration of separate transportation programs. Collaboration could result with greater utilization of transportation corridors and means. Potential innovation could open discrete services to others, improve transits toward greater mobility. ● The City of Palo Alto can lead the nation in digitization of involvement; we are missing a tremendous amount of input from the community. In the past, colleagues’ memos have proved to be an effective tool for issue identification and have informed broader discussions about important issues facing the Commission. A more structured protocol is needed on how colleagues’ memos should happen. And recently the Commission began employing an online tool to maintain a list of emerging topics which is a work in progress (attachment). The Commission hopes to continue to utilize these tools and to get Council’s feedback on the priorities moving forward. In this Matrix, Commissioners’ top three priorities based on votes were: studying development Topic Description Proposer Priority Comments ma kd af mm er Pg Gt totals staff Study current development fees and allocation, including in- lieu parking Rosenblum x X x X 4 Build and regularly update data set for planning (working with staff) including: --residents and workers by neighborhood --sqft of commercial space/ neighborhood --total parking spaces/ neighborhood --employees/sqft; parking places/ employee --mode share for employees --share with public?Rosenblum x x X 3 Land use policy: preserving existing retail businesses No chain store policy? What other policies? Dialogue with community a Alcheck Colleagues memo Gardias/Alcheck?xxx3 Work with city staff and TDM consultants on approving general inflow and outflow of funds for TD --composition of TMA (who makes decisions, who advises) -- sources of funds --recipients of funds --transparency efforts Rosenblum xx 2 Study of specific plans, including downtown plan (outcomes of specific plans in other areas; tools available) Fine x x x 2 Parking Assessment District Review coordination with TMA/ TDM planning membership decision-making processes major policies Rosenblum 0 X 1 Mobility study: tying together all of the different parts Gardias xx1 RPPP v2 take public comments and start working on tweaks and improvements to the current plan Rosenblum 0 Benchmarking: Study paid parking - benchmark against other cities Rosenblum 0 Major Transportation Investment Explorations --Figure out how to make trenching the Caltrain feasible --Continue to expand shuttle service, particularly during school commute hours Major Transportation Invest --Figure out how to make tr --Continue to expand shuttle Major Transp --Figure out h --Continue to Major Transport --Figure out ho --Continue to ex x 0 S:\PLAN\P&TC\COmmission Priorities\PTC - Working Draft potential study session topics - Google Sheets Working Draft CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 30, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the November 9 and 16, 2015 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment5.a: Attachment A: 11-09-15 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC)  Attachment5.b: Attachment B: 11-16-15 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Regular Meeting November 9, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:25 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. United States Military Veterans Proclamation. 2. Presentation of Award of Accreditation by the American Public Works Association (APWA). Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the August 31, September 9, 15, 21, and 28, 2015 Council Meetings. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to approve the Action Minutes for the August 31, September 9, 15, 21, and 28, 2015 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 11/9/15 Consent Calendar MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-5. 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. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 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. Public Hearing opened at 7:07 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 7:13 P.M. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt the Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 83 Homes Within the Los Arboles Tract. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 7. Discussion and Direction Regarding the Midtown Connector Project (Formerly Known as the Matadero Creek Trail Project). MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff to evaluate both a hybrid alternative that would utilize portions of the Matadero Creek corridor and in parallel, identify the most DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 11/9/15 practical second alternative on a collector street between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to use Council Contingency Funds to continue the Feasibility Study on the hybrid alternative.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to direct Staff to return to the Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund additional studies.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “to request Staff return with a preliminary evaluation of East Meadow Drive as a Class 4 bike lane or as close as possible to a Class 4 bike lane.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion, “in parallel.” MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff to: A. Evaluate a hybrid alternative that would use portions of the Matadero Creek corridor that are usable; and B. Identify the most practical alternative on a collector street between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road; and C. Evaluate East Meadow Drive as a Class 4 bike lane or as close as possible to a Class 4 bike lane; and D. Request Staff return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund the additional studies that have been directed in the Motion. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to remove from the Motion, “a hybrid alternative that would use portions of the Matadero Creek corridor that are usable.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 Berman, DuBois, Holman yes MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 DuBois no DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 11/9/15 8. Proposed Expansion of Palo Alto's Plastic Foam Ordinance (Ordinance 5039). MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to support the proposed Ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 5.30, “Plastic Foam and Non-recyclable Food Service Container and Packing Items”, and direct Staff to return to Council on the Consent Calendar as soon as practical for adoption of the Ordinance. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Wolbach suggested a future discussion of El Camino Real and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along with possibilities to improve service along El Camino Real. He reported his attendance at the National League of Cities Congress of Cities in Nashville, Tennessee last week. He appreciated the opportunity to reconnect with former Mayor Yiaway Yeh at the conference. He reported that Development Services Director, Peter Pirnejad, participated in multiple panels at the conference and represented the City well. A Council Member from Cambridge, Massachusetts suggested Council Members from different cities across the United States could benefit from video conferences between different cities to share knowledge and ideas. Several discussions at the conference related to the sharing economy. Council Member Scharff reported Santa Clara Cities Association is exploring the creation of a marina sub-region. He offered support for holding a meeting to discuss El Camino Real and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Mayor Holman reported her attendance at National League of Cities Congress of Cities and also appreciated reconnecting with Mr. Yeh. Nashville, Tennessee recently elected its first female Mayor. She reported transportation, housing and the sharing economy are issues for most cities across the country. She reported on an incubator-maker space in Nashville. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 6 Special Meeting November 16, 2015 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:03 P.M. Present: Berman arrived at 5:41 P.M., Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Berman absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:05 P.M. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Mayor, CAO Chair or Other Council Members Unrepresented Employees: City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, City Clerk Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a). Council returned from Closed Session at 6:05 P.M. Mayor Holman announced no reportable action. Study Session 2. Potential List of Topics for the Study Session With Senator Jerry Hill. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 11/16/15 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Agenda Item Number 7- Adoption of a Resolution Revising the Citywide Records Retention Schedule… removed from the Agenda at the request of Staff to be heard on December 7, 2015 with changes as outlined in At Place Memorandum. Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the October 5, 13, 19, 26, and November 2, 2015 Council Meetings. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve the Action Minutes for the October 5, 13, 19, 26, and November 2, 2015 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Holman, third by Council Member DuBois to remove Agenda Item Number 9- Approval of a Seven Month Contract With Cypress Security… from the Consent Calendar to become Agenda Item 13A. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Holman, third by Council Member Filseth to remove Agenda Item Number 8- Approval of a Record of Land Use Action… from the Consent Calendar to be heard at a later date. MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-6, 10-13. 4. Approval of Change Order Number Three to Contract Number C15157253 With Daleo, Inc. Extending the Contract Term to January 6, 2016 and Adding $190,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Contract Amount of $4,599,031, to Provide Emergency Water Main Replacement Work on Kingsley Avenue. 5. Resolution 9559 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the City of Palo Alto's Continued Participation in the DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 11/16/15 Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program Through the County of Santa Clara.” 6. Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number S14152214 With Toubar Equipment Company Inc. in the Amount of $600,000 for Closure Maintenance Assistant Services at the City of Palo Alto Landfill (Capital Improvement Project RF-11001, Landfill Closure). 7. Adoption of a Resolution Revising the Citywide Records Retention Schedule and Repealing Resolution No. 8688. 8. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Variance to Allow for a Reduction in the Required Front Setback (Contextual) From 37 Feet 1-1/4 Inches to 32 Feet for a New Two-Story Single Family Residence Located at 224 Churchill Avenue. 9. Approval of a Seven Month Contract With Cypress Security, Inc. Not to Exceed $439,441.84 for "Track Watch" Contract Security Services. 10. Ordinance 5359 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.79 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures (FIRST READING: October 26, 2015 PASSED: 9-0).” 11. Ordinance 5360 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.28.080 (Amendments after Adoption) of Chapter 2.28 (Fiscal Procedures) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (FIRST READING: November 2, 2015 PASSED: 9-0).” 12. Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5361 Entitled, “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Reappropriation of Fiscal Year 2015 Funds to Fiscal Year 2016.” 13. PUBLIC HEARING - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Approval of the Record of Land Use Action to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Structures Totaling 265,895 Square Feet and Construction of Four Two-Story Office Buildings Totaling 265,895 Square Feet of Floor Area With Below and At-Grade Parking and Other Site Improvements Located at 1050 Page Mill Road. Zoning District: Research Park (RP). Environmental Assessment: An Environmental DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 11/16/15 Impact Report has Been Prepared (Staff Requests This Item be Continued to December 7, 2015). MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-6, 10-13 PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 13A. (Former Agenda Item Number 9) Approval of a Seven Month Contract With Cypress Security, Inc. Not to Exceed $439,44 for "Track Watch" Contract Security Services and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance 5362. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to approve a seven-month contract with Cypress Security, Inc. not to exceed $439,441 for “Track Watch” contract security services and adopt a related Budget Amendment Ordinance. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 14. Review and Direction Regarding a Draft Ordinance Regulating Hazardous Materials Users and Sensitive Receptors Such as Residences, Schools, Day Care Centers, Convalescent Homes and Similar Uses in Office, Research and Manufacturing Districts and Making Related Changes to Municipal Code Provisions Related to Non- Conforming Uses, as Well as a Draft Ordinance Regarding Amortization of Uses at Communications & Power Industries, LLC (CPI), 607-811 Hansen Way. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to direct Staff to prepare two Ordinances substantially in the form of the draft Ordinances regulating hazardous materials users and establishing a schedule for amortizing a nonconforming use, to be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and consideration by the City Council at a noticed Public Hearing before the end of February 2016 with the exception that Staff be directed to prohibit Tier 3 uses. And direct Staff to work with neighborhood stakeholders and Communications & Power Industries, LLC (CPI) to explore whether there is a resolution that could add substantial neighborhood protections such as better communication tools and/or a shorter period to eliminate the plating shop from the site while considering CPI’s concerns about the 2026 date. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 11/16/15 AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to replace in the Motion, “that Staff be directed to prohibit Tier 3 uses” with “Staff to review Tier 3 use restrictions and suggest improvements in the Ordinance when it returns to Council.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to evaluate any additional facilities that may fall under the Ordinance and direct Staff to explore amortization for those facilities.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 15. Resolution 9560 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Interim Minimum Standards and Leasing Policies for the Palo Alto Airport” and Resolution 9561 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Revising the Airport Schedule of Fees and Charges.” MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to: A. Adopt a Resolution approving and adopting the Interim Minimum Standards and Leasing Policies for the Palo Alto Airport; and B. Adopt a Resolution amending the Airport Fee Schedule to update the fees to reflect the transfer of Palo Alto Airport operations to the City of Palo Alto; and C. Include discussions with stakeholders as we move towards permanent Minimum Standards. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 11/16/15 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member DuBois reported his attendance today and planned attendance tomorrow at the Regional Community Broadband Workshop. Council Member Kniss stated that she will be attending a League of California Cities orientation for new League Division Presidents on Wednesday and Thursday. Council Member Wolbach reported the City of Mountain View is proposing more than 7,000 additional housing units for the North Bayshore area. The City of Santa Clara is planning to redevelop a golf course with approximately 30,000 jobs and several thousand housing units. These prospective projects were discussed at the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned in recognition of people around the world who have died as the result of terrorism, particularly, but not limited to those in Paris, France at 11:04 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6244) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Transformer Supplier Prequalification Process and Authorization Title: Approval of Transformer Supplier Pre qualification Process and Authorization to Spend up to $1,000,000 per year With any of the Qualified Vendor(s) Over the Next Five Years, Total of Not-to-Exceed $5,000,000 for the Purchase of Electric Distribution Transformers Required to Provide Service to Customers From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff Recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute purchase orders as requested by the Utilities Department of up to $1,000,000 per year from prequalified vendors for the purchase of electric distribution transformers for a total authorized amount of $1,000,000 per year, or $5,000,000 over five years for FY 2016 through 2020. Background The Utilities Department uses various types of electric distribution transformers (pole top, padmount, and submersible) to provide electric service to customers in Palo Alto. Manufacturers who supply transformers to the City must ensure that they comply with the City of Palo Alto transformer specifications and industry standards. Based on historical expenditures, anticipated needs for future projects, and expected price increases due to new materials and technologies required to meet the Department of Energy efficiency standards, staff expects that up to $1,000,000 annually will be needed to cover transformer expenditures for the next five years, totaling up to $5,000,000. Discussion Per the requirements of City of Palo Alto’s Policies and Procedures 1 – 44/ASD, “Prequalification of Contractors,” the Utilities Department solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the prequalification of transformer suppliers in July 2015. The solicitation was sent to seven City of Palo Alto Page 2 suppliers and six responses were received. The process that transformer suppliers go through to prequalify is consistent with the City’s Policies and Procedures (1 – 44/ASD, Part D), which includes an evaluation of the following criteria: (a) ability to meet technical specifications, (b) ability to deliver materials on time, (c) equipment reliability and quality, (d) manufacturing history, and (e) references from other utilities. Any exceptions to the City’s technical specifications are identified up front and if the city finds them acceptable, and other relevant criteria are met, the supplier can be classified as qualified. If not, then the supplier is deemed not qualified to supply that particular type of transformer. From the RFP, four vendors were qualified for consideration of future transformer purchase orders, but any transformer supplier can request to become a qualified supplier to the City of Palo Alto at a later time and will be evaluated by the same criteria. Approved manufacturers are identified by transformer type in the following table: 2015 Prequalified Suppliers by Transformer Type ABB Inc. HD Supply Portland Howard Industries Power Partners Inc. Padmount Yes Yes No No Underground Residential Yes No Yes No Underground Commercial Yes No Yes No Pole top No No Yes Yes As transformers are required, staff issues a request for quotation (RFQ) to the manufacturers that are prequalified for that particular transformer type. Orders are placed with manufacturers based on requirements for capital improvement projects, new customer connections, and replacement of old or failed transformers. All quotes are then reviewed and evaluated by Engineering, and a purchase order is issued to the vendor offering the lowest evaluated price. The lead time for transformers ranges from 12 – 26 weeks to build. It is unknown at this time how many and what types of transformers will be ordered, and the price quote that will be submitted by suppliers, so it is conceivable that the total amount expended with any one supplier could exceed $250,000 in a single purchase. CPAU will be purchasing more transformers in the upcoming years because of new projects and replacement of existing transformers. In addition, there has been an increase in service upgrades to 400 amp services which has reduced a portion of the inventory. Rebuild Underground District 24 project will also require 25 new transformers over several phases. Since staff will be requesting competitive quotes from the qualified suppliers for each purchase, staff requests that Council authorize expenditures in excess of $250,000 with any one of the pre-qualified suppliers, not-to-exceed more than $1,000,000 per year for all transformer purchases, over a 5 year period. Resource Impact Funds for the first year purchase of transformers are available in the FY 2016 Electric Capital City of Palo Alto Page 3 Improvement Program (CIP) budget under projects EL-89028 (Electric Customer Connections), EL-10006 (Rebuild Underground District 24), EL-98003 (Electric System Improvements) and other Electric CIP projects. If additional funds are required in the future, staff will request Council approval through the annual budget process or a Budget Amendment. Policy Implications Authorization of this purchase order limit modification does not represent any change to the existing policy and is consistent with existing City policies including the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan, Strategic Objectives: BP1 - Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources BP2 - Operate the utility system safely. Environmental Review The annual purchase limit for electric distribution transformers does not meet California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of “project” under Public Resources Code section 21065, and environmental review is not required. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6292) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adoption of a Complete Streets Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting a Complete Streets Policy to Maintain the City's Eligibility for Regional Transportation Funding From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution adopting a Complete Streets Policy to ensure the City remains eligible for regional transportation funding. The proposed policy is consistent with the City’s adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the California Complete Streets Act of 2008. Executive Summary AB1358 from 2008 requires that local agencies address the concept of “Complete Streets” in local planning and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has indicated that to remain eligible for transportation funding, local agencies in the Bay Region may comply by adopting their commitment within their general plan (called the Comprehensive Plan in Palo Alto) or by adopting a model resolution provided by the agency. Because the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update is not ready for the Council’s review and approval, the model resolution has been provided for the Council’s adoption and has been amended to recognize the City’s longstanding commitment to the issues it addresses. Background: Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s initial One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG1) established program commitments and policies for investing roughly $800 million over the four- year Cycle 2 period (FYs 2012-13 through 2015-16), funded by federal funds authorized by the United States Congress in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP 21) transportation funding legislation. The One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG1) integrated the region’s federal transportation program with California’s climate law (Senate Bill 375, Steinberg, 2008) and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The funding distribution formula considered progress toward achieving City of Palo Alto Page 2 local land-use and housing policies by:  Rewarding jurisdictions that accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process and produce housing using transportation dollars as incentives.  Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and by initiating a pilot program that will support open space preservation in Priority Conservation Areas (PCA).  Providing a higher proportion of funding to local agencies and additional investment flexibility by eliminating required program investment targets. The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in transportation categories such as Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Priority Conservation Areas. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission set two pre-screening criteria for local agencies to be eligible for funds through OBAG 1, which Palo Alto satisfied at the time. One of these criteria was a complete streets requirement. The Transportation Element of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan (1998-2010) complies with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358), as verified by VTA, and satisfied this requirement for OBAG 1. OBAG 2 The development of a subsequent One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 2) is currently underway. OBAG 2 is the second round of the successful federal funding program designed to support the implementation of Plan Bay Area, the region’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The program will establish commitments and policies for investing roughly $800 million over the five year period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2021-22, funded by federal funds authorized by Congress in the reauthorization of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP 21). Considering the positive results achieved to date in OBAG 1, Metropolitan Transportation Commission staff is recommending only minor revisions for OBAG 2. A proposal for OBAG 2 was presented to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Policy Advisory Council on May 13, 2015 and to the Programming and Allocations Committee on July 8, 2015. Staff has been seeking feedback from stakeholders and technical working groups over the last several months. The preliminary timeline for development and approval of OBAG 2 is included below. A call for projects is anticipated between December 2015 and October 2016. Complete Streets Compliance As a condition to access One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 2) funds, local jurisdictions must comply with California’s Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill 1358, Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008). Jurisdictions have two options for demonstrating compliance, which must be City of Palo Alto Page 3 met by January 31, 2016: 1. Adopt a complete streets resolution incorporating MTC’s nine required complete streets elements. 2. Adopt a significant revision to the circulation element of a General Plan after January 1, 2011 that complies with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008. Agencies may meet the requirement by adopting a resolution by January 31, 2016 that incorporates, at minimum, the elements listed in the sample complete streets resolution developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The general language in the sample gives agencies flexibility to develop their own policy. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop the best policy that fits within the context of their local area, in consultation with affected departments and stakeholders, and to go beyond the required elements to accommodate all users of the roadway network. Jurisdictions may also meet the requirement with an adopted General Plan that complies with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358, Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008). The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has issued guidance in the Update to the General Plan Guidelines: Complete Streets and the Circulation Element. For compliance, a substantial revision of the circulation element, passed after January 1, 2011, shall “…plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan,” while complying with the other provisions of CA Government Code Section 65302 and Complete Streets Act of 2008. According to Metropolitan Transportation Commission staff, self-certification that the general plan meets the complete streets Act of 2008 or adoption of a circulation element update prior to January 1, 2011, does not satisfy this requirement. Summary of Key Issues: In order to be eligible for the One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 2), the City of Palo Alto must adopt a complete streets resolution incorporating MTC’s nine required complete streets elements. The City’s is no long permitted to self-certify the circulation element of its Comprehensive Plan under the newly developed guidelines from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. This resolution must be adopted and submitted to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority by January 31, 2016 to be eligible to receive OBAG 2 funding. Policy Implications: The Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan embraces the concept of complete streets by incorporating goals, policies, and programs regarding the mobility needs of all users. For example: Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling City of Palo Alto Page 4 Goal T-4: An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for suage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, and pedestrians. The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, adopted in 2012, also supports the development of complete streets for all roadway users and is consistent with this resolution. Objectives from the plan that are relevent to this resolution include: Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively). Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities. Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources through integrated design and planning. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that are consistent with this resolution include: Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. Resource Impact: The attached resolution and policy are consistent with both the Bicycle and Pedestrian City of Palo Alto Page 5 Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and will not result in the need for additional resources or require major modification of any existing City policies or procedures. Adoption of the resolution and policy will ensure the City remains eligible for transportation funding. Timeline: This resolution must be adopted and submitted to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority by January 31, 2016 to be eligible to receive OBAG 2 funding. A call for projects under OBAG 2 is anticipated between December 2015 and October 2016. Environmental Review: The proposed resolution is a statement of policy that is consistent with the City’s adopted plans. For this reason, adoption of the proposed resolution is exempt from review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution to Adopt Complete Streets Policy (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 151102 jb 0190001 Complete Streets Policy Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Complete Streets Policy R E C I T A L S A. The term “Complete Streets” describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, emergency vehicles, seniors, children, youth, and families. B. The Palo Alto City Council has long acknowledged the benefits and value for the public health and welfare of reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing transportation by walking, bicycling, and public transportation. C. The City Council also recognizes that the planning and coordinated development of Complete Streets infrastructure provides benefits for local governments in the areas of infrastructure cost savings; public health; and environmental sustainability. D. These concepts are inherent in the adopted Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, although not explicitly stated as desired by the regional transportation agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. E. The State of California has emphasized the importance of Complete Streets by enacting the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (also known as AB 1358), which requires that when cities or counties revise general plans, they identify how they will provide for the mobility needs of all users of the roadways, as well as through Deputy Directive 64, in which the California Department of Transportation explained that it “views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system”. F. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (known as AB 32) sets a mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375) requires emissions reductions through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and land-use policy, and achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel by public transit, bicycling, and walking. G. Numerous California counties, cities, and agencies have adopted Complete Streets policies and legislation in order to further the health, safety, welfare, economic vitality, and environmental well-being of their communities. Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 151102 jb 0190001 Complete Streets Policy H. The City Council therefore, in light of the foregoing benefits and considerations, wishes to improve its commitment to Complete Streets in the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update and desires that its streets form a comprehensive and integrated transportation network promoting safe, equitable, and convenient travel for all users while preserving flexibility, recognizing community context, and using the latest and best design guidelines and standards. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto, State of California, RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. That the City of Palo Alto adopt the Complete Streets Policy provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made part of this Resolution, and that said exhibit is hereby approved and adopted. SECTION 2. That the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update shall incorporate Complete Streets policies and principles consistent with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) and with the Complete Streets Policy adopted by this resolution. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment NOT YET APPROVED 151102 jb 0190001 Complete Streets Policy Exhibit A This Complete Streets Policy was adopted by Resolution No. ______ by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto on __________ 2015. COMPLETE STREETS POLICY OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO A. Complete Streets Principles 1. Complete Streets Serving All Users. Palo Alto expresses its commitment to creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families. 2. Context Sensitivity. In planning and implementing street projects, departments and agencies of the City of Palo Alto shall maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and shall work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues. Improvements that will be considered include sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, paved shoulders, street trees and landscaping, planting strips, accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, public transportation stops and facilities, transit priority signalization, and other features assisting in the provision of safe travel for all users, such as traffic calming circles, transit bulb outs, and other similar features. 3. Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by All Departments. All relevant departments and agencies of the City of Palo Alto shall work towards making Complete Streets practices a routine part of everyday operations, approach every relevant project, program, and practice as an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network for all categories of users, and work in coordination with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to maximize opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation. The following projects provide opportunities: pavement resurfacing, restriping, accessing above and underground utilities, signalization operations or modifications, and maintenance of landscaping/related features. 4. All Projects and Phases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable reasonably safe travel along and across the right of way for each category of users shall be incorporated into all planning, funding, design, approval, and implementation processes for any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations, alteration, or repair of streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system), except that NOT YET APPROVED 151102 jb 0190001 Complete Streets Policy specific infrastructure for a given category of users may be excluded if an exemption is approved via the process set forth in section C. 1of this policy. B. Implementation 1. Plan Consultation and Consistency. Maintenance, planning, and design of projects affecting the transportation system shall be consistent with local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, and other relevant plans, except that where such consistency cannot be achieved without negative consequences, consistency shall not be required if the head of the relevant department provides written approval explaining the basis of such deviation. Palo Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee will be consulted early in the planning and design stage of transportation projects to review deviations from relevant plans. 2. Street Network/Connectivity. As feasible, the City of Palo Alto shall incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of users and to create employment, with the particular goal of creating a connected network of facilities accommodating each category of users, and increasing connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries and for existing and anticipated future areas of travel origination or destination. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Consultation. Palo Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee will be consulted early in the planning and design stage of transportation projects to provide comments and recommendations regarding Complete Streets features to be incorporated into the project. 4. Evaluation. All relevant agencies or departments shall perform evaluations of how well the streets and transportation network of Palo Alto are serving each category of users by collecting baseline data and collecting follow-up data on a regular basis. C. Exemptions 1. Leadership Approval for Exemptions. Projects that seek Complete Streets exemptions must provide written finding of why accommodations for all modes that were not included in the project and signed off by the Public Works Director or equivalent high level staff person. Projects that are granted exceptions must be made publically available for review. Federal guidance on exceptions can be found from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_gu idance/design.cfm City of Palo Alto (ID # 6291) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Concept Plan Title: Review and Approval of Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements along Bryant Street, Redwood Circle, Carlson Court, Ely Place, Duncan Place, Creekside Drive, Nelson Drive, Shasta Drive and MacKay Drive From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Concept Plan Line for the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension project and direct staff to move forward with the Environmental Assessment and Final Design phase. Executive Summary: The Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension is classified as a bicycle boulevard within the City’s adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The extension of the existing bicycle boulevard south of East Meadow Drive via Bryant Street, Redwood Circle, Carlson Court, Ely Place, Duncan Place, Creekside Drive, Nelson Drive, Shasta Drive and Mackay Drive will allow complete access from the northernmost City boundary with Menlo Park to the southernmost City boundary with Mountain View. The proposed enhancements will provide continuous, low- stress on-street bikeways with travel time and safety improvements to support healthy transportation. The proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as STOP sign modifications, repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and abilities. Additionally, the proposed project includes enhanced crosswalks and curb extensions to improve the pedestrian environment along the corridor. The existing tree canopy combined with new landscaping will promote shade and reduce heat island effects for comfortable walking, running, and bicycling opportunities. This project is currently funded through the Concept Plan Line phase with the intention of identifying preferred treatment options and placements. The approved Concept Plan Line will serve as the basis for the Environmental Assessment and Final Design Phase, helping to City of Palo Alto Page 2 determine the level of effort for a contract to complete this additional work, which is a prerequisite to construction. Detailed cost estimates for the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension project will be developed as part of the Environmental Assessment and Final Design phase of work. As part of the approval of the City’s Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. Background: The Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (hereinafter “Plan”) was adopted by the City Council in July 2012. The Plan includes a proposed bikeway network of off-street multi-use paths, bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes, and enhanced bikeway facilities. The plan has stated goals of increasing bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020 by providing improved facilities along the proposed bike network, which facilitates both north- south and east-west connectivity throughout Palo Alto. A copy of the Proposed Bikeway Network is provided in Attachment C. Implementation of the Plan started in 2013 with City Council authorization of up to $1.2M per year over five years as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). With this commitment of funds, 18 projects are currently being studied and designed for implementation. Since award of consultant contracts in April 2014, bike network implementation has focused primarily on Bicycle Boulevards and Enhanced Bikeways, although transportation staff has also been coordinating with Public Works and Community Services staff to deliver transportation projects through public works and parks contracts for street resurfacing and park improvements. Staff has also been working to implement data-driven spot improvements in response to customer requests, and seeks to ensure provide ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance of the bicycle and pedestrian network and incorporation of green infrastructure and storm water treatment where feasible. City staff recently provided City Council with an update on the bicycle and pedestrian program at a Study Session on October 26, 2015. The Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Project, for which concept planning was initiated in 2014, includes improvements to Bryant Street, Redwood Circle, Carlson Court, Ely Place, Duncan Place, Creekside Drive, Nelson Drive, Shasta Drive and Mackay Drive corridors. Bicycle Boulevard Purpose and Benefits The City pioneered the creation of the first “bicycle boulevard” – turning Bryant Street north of Meadow Drive, a residential street, into a street that prioritized bicycle safety and circulation in 1982. The Comprehensive Plan defines a bicycle boulevard as a “low volume through-street where bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are minimized, and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel. The removal of stop signs is especially important in Palo Alto, due to the large number of stop signs on local and collector streets.” Key characteristics that make bicycle boulevards attractive and safer for people who bicycle are: City of Palo Alto Page 3 • Low traffic volumes • Low vehicle speeds • Discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic • Free-flow travel for people on bicycles by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard at intersections wherever possible • Traffic control to help bicycles cross major streets One important feature of bicycle boulevards that greatly improves cycling efficiency is reduction in the number of stop signs; this measure improves travel time and reduces fatigue. Reducing cyclist fatigue increases the feasible length of a trip by bicycle, and is especially important to people who are hauling trailers, carrying children, groceries, and so forth, thereby encouraging more trips by bicycle. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension The Plan identified Bryant Street as an existing Bicycle Boulevard north of East Meadow Drive. The extension of this bicycle boulevard via Bryant Street, Redwood Circle, Carlson Court, Ely Place, Duncan Place, Creekside Drive, Nelson Drive, Shasta Drive and Mackay Drive will allow complete access from the northernmost City boundary with Menlo Park to the southernmost City boundary with Mountain View. The proposed enhancements will provide continuous, low- stress on-street bikeways with travel time and safety improvements to support healthy transportation. The project currently proposes a crossing beacon at Bryant Street and East Meadow Drive, traffic calming devices through the “Circles” neighborhood, including bulb-outs and chicanes on Redwood Circle, along with shared-lane markings (also known as sharrows) and enhanced crosswalks. At Nelson Drive and the rear entrance to Cubberley Center, the current Concept Plan Line includes a raised intersection to calm traffic. In response to community input, staff recommends the extension of bikeway treatments on Nelson Drive to Charleston Road. Staff also recommends the City continue working to advance implementation of the Nita Avenue improvements in Palo Alto, a bikeway project that is being designed and funded by Google as part of a pending development project in the City of Mountain View. This project is currently funded through the Concept Plan Line stage, which identifies preferred treatments and general locations, with more detail to come during the final design phase. The Concept Plan Line serves as the basis for the environmental assessment and future final design phase, helping to determine the level of effort for a contract to complete this additional work, which is a prerequisite to securing funding for construction. Fehr & Peers is the lead consultant team for this project. Summary of Key Issues: Approval of Concept Plan Lines is the first step in the design process for a project. A Concept Plan Line identifies the type and approximate location of improvements but excludes focused design details such as hardscape and landscape measures. The Concept Plan Line identifies the City of Palo Alto Page 4 locations of civil improvements that influence the amount of review required for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Development of a Concept Plan Line normally takes three to four community meetings to help shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Focused traffic data collection is also included as part of the Concept Plan Line development and the results are shared with the community as part of the community outreach process. Following approval of the Concept Plan Line by the City Council, staff will utilize a civil design team to complete the environmental assessment and more detailed design. An implementation plan will be developed as part of the design phase. Community outreach and participation has been instrumental to concept plan development since the initiation of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension project, including a community bike-along in April 2014, farmers’ market outreach on California Avenue in April and May 2014, community meetings in May 2014, November 2014, and May 2015, and presentations to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). Sample outreach materials are enclosed as Attachment A. Traffic data collection for the Bryant Street Extension Bicycle Boulevard Extension project occurred between May 13 and 27 in 2014, using video cameras to track bicycle and pedestrian demand and mechanical tube counters to collect automobile speed and volume data. Highlights of the traffic counts and speed data are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 Bryant Street Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Speed Segment Average Daily Traffic 85th Percentile Speed Bicycle Ped Auto Auto Bryant Street between East Meadow Drive and Redwood Circle 219 56 218 25 Nelson Drive between Tioga Court and Diablo Court 283 223 368 30 Meadow Drive between Alma Street and Emerson Street 906 267 3458 33 Source: City of Palo Alto, May 2014 Bryant Street Extension Proposed Bicycle Boulevard Improvements The following is a summary of the recommended improvements to the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension by segment. This narrative is supported by the Bryant Street Extension project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment B. Bryant Street Proposed Improvements by Segment Meadow Drive to Charleston Road City of Palo Alto Page 5 This section of Bryant Street does not have existing bicycle infrastructure. The street has generous right-of-way, currently used for two-way traffic and on-street parking on both sides of the street. The geometry of the curved streets and large corner radii result in large intersections. The Bryant Street and East Meadow Drive intersection is currently side-street STOP controlled, with traffic on Bryant Street required to stop for traffic on East Meadow Drive. The Concept Plan Line recommends that a bicyclist- and pedestrian-actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) be installed at the intersection. This warning device will alert motorists on East Meadow Drive to yield to bicyclists and pedestrians travelling along Bryant Street. Curb extensions with crosswalks are also recommended at the corners of the intersection to reduce motor vehicle turning speeds and shorten crossing distance for bicyclists and pedestrians. To reduce motor vehicle speeds, the Concept Plan Line recommends restriping the parking lanes to visually narrow the road. Shared-lane markings (also known as sharrows) are shown approximately every 300 feet to both indicate the presence of bicyclists to drivers and provide wayfinding for bicyclists along the bicycle boulevard. It is recommended that the intersection of Bryant Street and Redwood Circle be narrowed and squared-up, using curb extensions to reduce motor vehicle speeds and make the left-turn from Bryant Street to Redwood Circle easier for bicyclists. An impeller traffic calming device and conversion of STOP signs to YIELD signs is suggested at this intersection. The same treatment is recommended at the Redwood Circle and South Court intersection: removing STOP signs and replacing with YIELD control. Curb extensions, enhanced crosswalks and median islands are also planned at this intersection. These treatments will reduce delay for cyclists. An impeller traffic calming device functions similar to a traffic circle in that it reduces motor vehicle speeds when entering an intersection, using horizontal deflection, and allows for the removal of STOP signs. Impellers are particularly effective at T intersections, where there is inadequate right-of-way for a roundabout or traffic circle. The Concept Plan Line shows a new traffic circle with YIELD control at the Redwood Circle and Carlson Court intersection. This treatment will convert the existing STOP control to YIELD control, reducing bicycle delay while still slowing motor vehicles through the intersection. Charleston Road to Adobe Creek Bridge Path Entrance To better accommodate bicycles, it is recommended that traffic signal green time be extended on Carlson Court at the Charleston Road intersection. The Concept Plan Line shows new curb extensions and standard crosswalks at this intersection, which will enhance pedestrian safety and slow turning motor vehicles, thereby reducing the risk and severity of right-hook collisions. Similar to the previous segment treatments, the Concept Plan Line recommends that the parking lanes will be striped to help visually narrow the road and that sharrows be installed City of Palo Alto Page 6 approximately every 300 feet. At the Carlson Court and Ely Place intersection, it is suggested that the existing all-way STOP be replaced with an impeller device and YIELD control. The addition of wayfinding signage and directional sharrows is also recommended at the intersection. This will help bicyclists follow the designated bicycle boulevard southbound via Ely Place and Duncan Place and northbound along Carlson Court. Similar to the intersection of Carlson Court and Ely Place, wayfinding signage and directional sharrows are recommended at the intersection of Ely Place and Duncan Place. Curb extensions, STOP control, a median island and an enhanced crosswalk to control vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety are also shown here. The Concept Plan Line recommends that a STOP sign be added to the eastbound Ely Place approach. Adobe Creek Bridge The existing Adobe Creek Bridge provides a connection between Duncan Place and Creekside Drive for bicyclists and pedestrians. The bridge and connecting paths travel between residential lots and have limited visibility between the roadways and the path. The Concept Plan Line identifies curb extensions on Duncan Place and Creekside Drive to increase the visibility of path users as they approach the two roadways at either end. At Duncan Place, a standard crosswalk is recommended to direct northbound bicyclist to the correct side of the street. Additionally, a raised crosswalk is shown at Creekside Drive to slow vehicle traffic and further highlight the path crossing. Adobe Creek Bridge Exit to Creekside/Nelson Drive Consistent with the rest of the bicycle boulevard, the Concept Plan Line shows striped parking lanes and directional sharrows on Creekside Drive. Impeller devices with curb extensions and median islands will be are recommended at the Creekside Drive and Nelson Drive intersection and the Parkside Drive and Nelson Drive intersection to reduce vehicle speeds and support the removal of STOP signs along the corridor. The Concept Plan Line shows enhanced crosswalks and curb extensions at this location and also recommends that the STOP sign at this intersection be replaced with a YIELD sign, which will decrease cyclist delay. Nelson Drive/Shasta Drive/Mackay Drive The Nelson Drive and Diablo Court intersection includes the entry to the Cubberley Community Center via a well-travelled shared-use path. The pathway and entrance itself is addressed as part of the separate Louis Road-Montrose Avenue-Cubberley Community Center Bicycle Boulevard project. The convergence of pedestrians and cyclists from the path, drop-off traffic for the park and through traffic calls for a unique treatment. The Concept Plan Line recommends a raised intersection at this location, which will slow through traffic, allow pedestrians and cyclists to enter the street visibly, and safely discourage drop-offs within the intersection. The recommended curb extensions and enhanced crosswalks at the Mackay Drive and Ferne City of Palo Alto Page 7 Avenue intersection will narrow the travelway, reduce pedestrian crossing distance, and reduce turning motor vehicle speeds. The similarity in both intersection and segment treatments will make this route safe and recognizable as a bicycle boulevard. Nelson Drive from Charleston Road to Creekside Drive This segment of Nelson Drive was a highly-requested addition to the existing bicycle boulevard as a more direct connection to the Mitchell Park area and adjacent schools. Median islands identified for the curves along Nelson Drive will slow motor vehicles and discourage wide turns (also known as corner cutting), while still maintaining access to residential driveways. Community Review Generally, community feedback has been positive; however the following issues have been identified: • As Alma Street becomes more congested, more motor vehicle traffic will divert to the residential streets along the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension. • Parking loss on Nelson Drive caused by the curb extensions will result in more side street parking on weekends due to the adjacent park’s heavy use and high turnover. • There is a need for additional enforcement along Nelson Drive to discourage double parking and parking on corners during the weekends. • Removal of STOP signs may lead to increased speeds. • Extend the Bryant Bicycle Boulevard Extension on Nelson Drive to Charleston Road. • Bicyclists cutting through Greenmeadow Community Center travel at high speeds that are unsafe for the small children who use the space. Staff have integrated proposed improvements into the final concept plans to respond to these comments, including: (1) impeller treatment and additional curb extensions to control vehicle speeds; (2) extending bicycle boulevard treatments on Nelson Drive to Charleston Road; (3) proposing bulb-outs at locations where vehicle parking should be restricted to improve visibility at intersections; and (4) additional signing and striping to direct bicyclists onto Creekside Drive and not into the Greenmeadow Community Center. Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Review Staff has brought the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension project to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) several times. The project was most recently discussed at PABAC on June 2, 2015. Previous concept plan line iterations were brought to PABAC just before or after the community meetings. In general, the PABAC members provided their thoughts and comments on the treatments proposed, and provided input on individual preferences of certain treatments. Numerous comments and suggestions from PABAC were provided through the meetings. Some of the more significant comments for this corridor include the following:  Add wayfinding signage on East Meadow Drive for eastbound East Meadow Drive City of Palo Alto Page 8  Add high-visibility crosswalks at Bryant Street and East Meadow Drive  Support bicycle detection at rectangular rapid flashing beacon at Bryant Street and East Meadow Drive  Question need for bulb-outs at Bryant Street and East Meadow Drive  Add bicycle left-turn lane on East Meadow Drive for Bryant Street  Reconsider addition of parking edgelines  Add wayfinding signage at Bryant Street and Redwood Circle  Add wayfinding signage at Redwood Circle and South Court  Reduce parking at intersection of Redwood Circle and Carlson Court  Add high-visibility crosswalks at Carlson Court and Charleston Road  Remove high-visibility crosswalks and add wayfinding signage at Carlson Court and Ely Place  Reconsider speed table and rectangular rapid flashing beacon at Adobe Creek Bridge path exit  Consider traffic circle at Nelson Drive and Creekside Drive  Add wayfinding signage to Cubberley Community Center  Remove high-visibility crosswalks and evaluate removal of STOP signs at MacKay Drive and Ferne Drive  Add wayfinding signage on Alma Street to Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Staff received these comments and integrated proposed improvements into the final Concept Plan Line for Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension. Planning & Transportation Commission Review The Planning and Transportation Commission will review this project at a special meeting on November 18, 2015 and their recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council thereafter. Policy Implications: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes the development of the bicycle boulevard network. The Plan objectives that are addressed by the development of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension project are: • Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively). • Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. • Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. • Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities. City of Palo Alto Page 9 • Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources through integrated design and planning. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the development of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension project include: • Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles • Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling • Program T-19: Develop, periodically update, and implement a bicycle facilities improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities. • Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards. • Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. • Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. While it is difficult to estimate the impacts of individual bicycle boulevard projects, the City of Portland, Oregon has recently completed and assessment of its bicycle boulevard program and recorded counts of between 1,000 and 4,000 cyclists per day on its busiest corridors. Increasing the number of cyclists using the bicycle bouelvard network within Palo Alto to these levels would meet many of the objectives and goals listed above and also help the City increase bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020. Resource Impact: Detailed cost estimates for the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension project will be developed as part of the Environmental Assessment and Final Design phase of work. As part of the approval of the City’s Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. For Fiscal Year 2014 and 2015, $0.8 million has been expended in the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project (PL- 04010). Additionally, the CIP set aside $11.6 million in a reserve for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation plan. As part of future CIPs, projects will be identified for use of the reserve. Staff actively seeks regional, state and federal grant funding to offset resources identified for bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. As grant funds are secured or low-cost project improvements identified, Transportation staff will coordinate with Public Works for implementation as part of the Street Resurfacing Program. Minor elements of the Concept Plan City of Palo Alto Page 10 Line may be implemented opportunistically through the Transportation operating budgets for pavement markings, signs and traffic signals. Timeline: The Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension project is recommended for Environmental Assessment and Final Design in Fiscal Year 2016. Staff anticipates presenting a contract award for Environmental Assessment and Final Design to City Council in December 2015 or January 2016. Environmental Review: A Negative Declaration for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on September 4, 2012. Each individual capital improvement project is subject to environmental assessment after there is agreement on a conceptual design (i.e. Concept Plan Line) for further study. In this instance, the level of environmental review is expected to be a categorical exemption. Attachments:  Attachment A: Community Outreach Sample (PDF)  Attachment B: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Concept Plan Line (PDF)  Attachment C: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Proposed Bikeways Map (PDF) Bicycle Boulevard Projects Bike-Along Rides   The City of Palo Alto is hosting four bike‐along rides to help  introduce and solicit information on proposed Bicycle  Boulevard projects. Each of the Saturday rides will include a  bicycle tour of proposed project sites with stops at key  locations to allow residents an opportunity to provide input  on improvements to be presented at future community  meetings.   Saturday, April 26 at 10 a.m., PALY Lot at Churchill  Avenue and Castilleja Avenue. Tour of the proposed Park  Boulevard, Stanford Avenue, and Wilkie Way Bicycle  Boulevard Projects. This ride also includes a tour of the  Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update project between  Palo Alto Avenue and East Meadow Drive.     Saturday, May 3 at 10 a.m., Addison School at Addison  Street Entry. Tour of the proposed Homer  Avenue/Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Project; and  the Greer Road, Ross Road, Moreno Avenue‐Amarillo  Avenue Bicycle Boulevard projects.     Saturday, May 10 at 10 a.m., Barron Park School, 800  Barron Avenue. Tour of the Barron Park Bicycle Routes  project and the Maybell Bicycle Boulevard.     Saturday, May 17 at 10 a.m., Piazza’s at Middlefield/  Charleston. Tour of the South Palo Alto Bicycle Program                   projects, including the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard                   Extension; Alma Street Enhanced Bikeway; and the                   Montrose Avenue, Cubberley Center Trail Route, and San                   Antonio Road Bicycle Routes.    Bring the entire family out for fun bicycle rides and help shape the design of the City’s future  Bicycle Boulevard program projects. Design consultants Alta Planning + Design and Fehr &  Peers Transportation Consultants, and Sandis Engineering will be on hand to guide the tours  and answer questions regarding project development.  EVENT For questions on the bike‐along,    call the City of Palo Alto at                         (650) 329‐2442 or email  transportation@cityofpaloalto.org  For more information on Our Palo Alto, visit  www.cityofpaloalto.org/ourpaloalto  miles km 23 Paly High School (south driveway) Churchill Road Castilleja Ave Stanford Ave Pa r k A v e Wilk i e Way San Antonio Rd Meadow Drive Br y a n t S t r e e t START 10am CALIFORNIA AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW DOWNTOWN (Optional) Addison Elementary School START 10am Homer Ave Cha n n i n g A v e Gr e e r R o a d L o u i s R o a d Moreno Ave Amarillo Ave R o s s R o a d N. California Ave Br y a n t S t r e e t DOWNTOWN MIDTOWN CALIFORNIA AVE Saturday, April 26th Saturday, May 3rd Saturday, May 10th Saturday, May 17th Barron Park Elementary School START 10am Gunn H.S. Terman M.S. E l C a m i n o R e a l Barron Ave La g u n a A v e Los R o b l e s A v e Geor g i a A v e Arastradero Rd Maybell Ave Los Robles Ave Am a r a n t a A v e La D o n n a Josina Ave START 10am Piazza’s Grocery (parking lot) SAN ANTONIO STATION CUBBERLY COMMUNITY CENTER E MEADOW CIRCLE J.L.S. / HOOVER E Meadow Drive Charleston Rd Mont r o s e A v e San An t o n i o A v e Al m a S t r e e t Ma c k a y D r Br y a n t S t Bryant Street E. Meadow Dr to E. Charleston Rd Figure 1 R1-2 YIELD SIGN R1-1 STOP SIGN SIGN CHART BIKE LANE LEGEND SHARROW NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1) EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2) NEW CURB TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITH LANDSCAPE AREA Bryant Street E. Charleston Rd to Nelson Dr Figure 2 R1-2 YIELD SIGN R1-1 STOP SIGN SIGN CHART BIKE LANE LEGEND SHARROW NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1) EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2) NEW CURB Bryant St Nelson Dr to San Antonio Ave Figure 3 R1-2 YIELD SIGN R1-1 STOP SIGN SIGN CHART BIKE LANE LEGEND SHARROW NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1) EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2) NEW CURB Nelson Dr E. Charleston Rd to Adobe Pl Figure 4 R1-2 YIELD SIGN R1-1 STOP SIGN SIGN CHART BIKE LANE LEGEND GREEN-BACKED SHARROW NEW STOP SIGN (R1-1) EXISTING STOP SIGN TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN NEW YIELD SIGN (R1-2) NEW CURB Recommended Facilities and Conditions | 6-3 Alta Planning + Design Chapter 6 Map 6-1. Proposed Bikeway Network CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR November 30, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2015 The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2015. At its meeting on October 6, 2015, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed the report; however, the Committee inadvertently did not take action. After discussion with the Chair of the Committee, it was agreed that the Committee’s approval and recommendation for Council to accept the report was implied. The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (October 6, 2015) (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR October 6, 2015 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2015 RECOMMENDATION The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Policy and Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2015. SUMMARY OF RESULTS In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan and issues quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress towards completion of the work plan. This report provides the City Council with an update on the fourth quarter for FY 2015. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2015 (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 Attachment A Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2015 Office of the City Auditor “Promoting honest, efficient, effective, economical, and fully accountable and transparent city government." Attachment A 2 Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Fourth Quarter Update (April – June 2015) Overview The audit function is essential to the City of Palo Alto’s public accountability. The mission of the Office of the City Auditor, as mandated by the City Charter and Municipal Code, is to promote honest, efficient, effective, economical, and fully accountable and transparent city government. We conduct performance audits and reviews to provide the City Council and City management with information and evaluations regarding how effectively and efficiently resources are used, the adequacy of internal control systems, and compliance with policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements. Taking appropriate action on our audit recommendations helps the City reduce risks and protect its good reputation. Highlights of Activities During the Quarter  We presented the FY 2014 Performance Report, which provides information to the City Council, management, and the public to increase accountability and the transparency of City government. It contains summary information on spending, staffing, workload, and performance results for fiscal years 2005 through 2014. This year’s report used a revised format, which presented information based on the themes of Stewardship, Public Service, and Community, to allow users to understand the performance of cross-departmental programs and initiatives while continuing to provide performance information on each department.  We compiled the results of the 2014 National Citizen Survey™ into data visualization software that allows users to view the results of each question or multiple questions based on selected demographics or geographic areas of Palo Alto.  We published and presented the Police Department: Palo Alto Animal Services Audit. The was well received by City management and regional animal support organizations, which provided representatives to speak at the Finance Committee in support of the audit findings and recommendations and to affirm their commitment to helping Palo Alto achieve its future goals regarding Palo Alto Animal Services.  City Auditor Harriet Richardson gave two presentations at the annual conference of the Association of Local Government Auditors and a presentation at the Silicon Valley Chapter of the Association of Government Accountants. Audits Below is a summary of our audit work for the fourth quarter of FY 2015 (as of June 30, 2015): Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Audit of Utility Meters: Procurement, Inventory, and Retirement Determine if proper procedures were followed with the procurement, inventory, and retirement of utility meters. 03/14 04/15 Complete We completed the report and presented it to the Policy and Services Committee on March 10, 2015. The Council approved the report on the April 27, 2015, Consent Calendar. Key findings were 1) incomplete and inaccurate meter data files in SAP caused data errors and discrepancies that increased the risk of inaccurate customer billings and 2) using technology with its built‐in efficiencies and controls to manage data can transform raw data into usable information for good reporting for decision making and improved performance. Attachment A 3 Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Animal Services Audit Determine 1) appropriate areas of focus for the City Council and management regarding: a) the overall adequacy of Palo Alto Animal Services (PAAS), b) demand for local animal sheltering services, and c) resident willingness to financially support PAAS and improvements, including facilities; 2) opportunities to increase PAAS revenues and decrease expenditures; 3) whether Palo Alto effectively and efficiently planned and executed upgrades to the PAAS facility to meet sheltering goals and objectives; and 4) the appropriateness of PAAS’ organizational structure. 12/14 06/15 Complete We completed the report and presented it to the Finance Committee on April 22, 2015. The Council approved the report on the June 8, 2015, Consent Calendar. The key finding was that Palo Alto Animal Services faces challenges that are unlikely to be resolved if it continues operating as solely a city-managed function without a significant increase in general fund subsidy, donations, and/or revenue-generating contracts. Franchise Fee Audit Determine if 1) the City accurately accounted for and oversaw the Media Center’s use of public, education, and government (PEG) fees, 2) the City established and defined roles and responsibilities to administer its cable communications program and state franchises awarded to Comcast and AT&T, and 3) Comcast and AT&T collected and promptly remitted the appropriate amount of franchise and PEG fees. 02/14 12/15 In Process We have completed planning and field work and have drafted the report for the second and third objectives; a consultant conducted field work for the third objective and provided us with a draft of the results, which we are currently reviewing. The City Attorney reviewed our draft report for the first two objectives, and we are currently updating the draft report based on the City Attorney’s review. We expect to present the report to the Policy and Services Committee in December. Parking Funds Audit Determine if the City’s parking funds are properly calculated, collected, accounted for, and used in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and governing documents. The audit focuses on the Parking in-Lieu Fund and the University and California Avenues and Residential Parking Permit Funds. 05/14 11/15 In Process We have completed planning and field work and have drafted the report, which the City Attorney’s Office is currently reviewing. We expect to present the results to the Policy and Services Committee in November. Attachment A 4 Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Fee Schedules Audit Evaluate City processes for establishing fees to determine if the fees cover the cost of services provided when expected. The specific fees to be reviewed will be narrowed down during the planning phase of the audit. 06/15 02/16 In Process This audit is in the planning phase. Estimated date of draft report is December 2015, and estimated date of final report is February 2016. Disability Rates and Workers’ Compensation Audit Assess the effectiveness of activities to manage and minimize disability retirements and workers’ compensation claims. Review of processes to ensure employee safety, tracking and reporting activities, contract administration, and efficiency of claim processing. 06/15 02/16 In Process The audit is in the planning phase. Estimated date of draft report is December 2015, and estimated date of final report is February 2016. Utilities Customer Service: Rate and Billing Accuracy Audit Evaluate whether the Utilities Department properly implements rates and accurately bills customers. 06/15 02/16 In Process The audit is in the planning phase. Estimated date of draft report is December 2015, and estimated date of final report is February 2016. Citywide Analytic Development and Continuous Monitoring: Procure-to-Pay Develop and implement a continuous monitoring system to increase audit efficiency and coverage through the use of read‐only access to City data. The project will involve developing data analytics to identify high‐risk areas and improvement opportunities in the City’s core processes. The focus of this project is accounts payable. 06/15 01/16 In Process The project is in the planning phase. Estimated date of draft report is November 2015, and estimated date of final report is January 2016. Citywide Analytic Development and Continuous Monitoring: Overtime Develop and implement a continuous monitoring system to increase audit efficiency and coverage through the use of read‐only access to City data. The project will involve developing data analytics to identify high‐risk areas and improvement opportunities in the City’s core processes. The focus of this project is use of overtime. 06/15 01/16 In Process The project is in the planning phase. Estimated date of draft report is November 2015, and estimated date of final report is January 2016. Attachment A 5 Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments National Citizen Survey™ Obtain resident opinions about the community and services provided by the City of Palo Alto and benchmark our results against other jurisdictions that participate in the survey. 07/14 01/15 Complete We published the results of the survey on the City Auditor’s website on January 26, 2015, and presented the results at a Council study session in June, in conjunction with the Annual Performance Report. We demonstrated the results in a web-based data visualization tool. Annual Performance Report Provide summary information on spending and staffing, workload, and performance results, including historical trends and selected comparisons to other cities, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. 11/14 06/15 Complete We sent requests for data to departments and have received responses. We are collecting benchmarking data and formatting the data already collected for the report. We are collaborating with the City Manager’s Office and Office of Management and Budget to identify ways to streamline the data collection process for various reporting efforts and to reorganize the way we present the data in the report to tell a better story about the City’s performance on a citywide basis. Citizen Centric Report This report summarizes highlights from the annual performance report, financial data, and an overview of Palo Alto’s economic outlook in an easy-to-read four-page format. 06/15 06/15 Complete We presented this report in conjunction with the National Citizen Survey™ results and the annual performance report at a Council study session in June. Attachment A 6 Other Monitoring and Administrative Assignments Below is a summary of other assignments as of June 30, 2015: Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews 1) Identify and collect underreported or misallocated sales and use tax from businesses that do business in Palo Alto. 2) Monitor sales taxes received from the Stanford University Medical Center Project and notify Stanford of any differences between their reported taxes and state sales tax information, in accordance with the development agreement. 3) Provide Quarterly Status Updates and Sales Tax Digest Summaries for Council review. Ongoing 1) Total sales and use tax recoveries for FY 2015 were $116,937, which included $81,441 from our inquiries and $35,496 from the vendor’s inquiries. These recoveries included $44,586 related to new businesses. Due to processing delays at the State Board of Equalization, there are 44 potential misallocations waiting to be researched and processed: 12 from our office and 32 from the vendor. 2) The City of Palo Alto received $568,755 for calendar year 2014 as a result of the development agreement with Stanford University Medical Center. 3) Quarterly reports are published on the OCA website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/default.asp. City Auditor Advisory Roles Provide guidance and advice to key governance committees within the City. Ongoing The City Auditor continues to serve as an advisor to various boards and committees: Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration The hotline review committee, composed of the City Auditor, the City Attorney, and the City Manager, or their designees, meets as needed to review hotline-related activities. We did not receive any hotline complaints during the fourth quarter of FY 2015. The chart below summarizes the status of complaints received in each fiscal year. Source: City of Palo Alto hotline case management system as of June 30, 2015 7 3 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Status of Complaints Received by Fiscal Year Closed Complaints Open Complaints Attachment A   Chairpe Commu Present Absent Oral Co Chair B the pub no spea Agenda 1. A Chair B Harriet Commi Quarte June 2 highligh Year 2 Citizen demons second which w organiz pursue animals of Utilit that au caused custom POL TRA erson Cha unity Meet t: Burt : Berm ommunica Burt: Our blic who w aker cards a Items Auditor's O Burt: Welc Richards ttee. Ha rly Report 2015. On hts that w 014 Perfo Centric R strated th that we was well zations. a new bu s while m ty Meter P udit were data erro mer billing LICY A ANSCR air Burt: ting Room (Chair), D man tions first item wish to spe s, so we'll Office Qua come, Har on, City A arriet Ric t for the f n page 2 we have th ormance Report an he survey published received The key usiness m aintaining Procureme that inc ors and d s and tha AND SE RIPT called the m, 250 Ham DuBois, W m is to allo eak on ite move on rterly Rep rriet. Auditor: chardson, fourth qua of the r here. The Report a d the res results u d and pre by City m finding in odel to be g fiscal sus ent, Inven complete discrepanc at using t ERVIC e meeting milton Ave Wolbach ow oral co ems that a to Agend port as of J Good eve City Aud arter of Fi report, I' e first one nd prese sults of th sing an in esented w manageme n that aud e able to stainability ntory and and inacc cies that i technolog CES CO g to orde enue, Palo ommunica are not on ized Item June 30, 2 ening Mr. ditor, pre scal Year ll discuss e is that w nted it a he annual nteractive was the A ent and re dit was t provide m y. We als Retiremen curate me increased gy can tra OMMIT Sp Octo er at 7:00 o Alto, Ca tions from n the agen Number 2015 Chair, Me esenting '15 from s a couple we comple along with l Citizens e web-bas Animal Se egional an that the C modern-da so comple nt. Our k eter data the risk ansform r TTEE Page  pecial Mee ober 06, 2 0 P.M. in lifornia. m member nda. We h 1. embers of the Audit April thro e of the eted the F h our An Survey. sed tool. ervices Au nimal sup City need ay care to eted the A key finding files in of inaccu raw data 1 of 12  eting 2015 the rs of have f the tor's ough key iscal nual We The udit, pport s to o the Audit gs in SAP urate into Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 2 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 useful information for good reporting and decision making. Moving to page 3. We have five audits in progress. As of the end of the quarter, we had drafted a report for the first two objectives of the Cable Franchise Fee Audit. We're reviewing the results provided to us by a consultant who conducted the work to determine if the cable companies paid the appropriate amount of franchise and public education and government fees. We expect to present that report to the Policy and Services Committee in February. We've also drafted the report for the Parking Funds Audit which the City Attorney had for review by the end of the quarter. We expect to present that report to Policy and Services in December. During the quarter we started three new audits listed on page 4, the Fee Schedules Audit, the Disability Rates and Workers' Compensation Audit and the Utility Rate and Billing Accuracy Audit. We're in the planning phases for each of those audits and expect to publish them in late February. Also on page 4, you'll see two projects that we are not calling full audits, but they are analytic development and continuous monitoring projects. One of these will focus on accounts payable, and one will focus on overtime. The purpose of them is to develop scripts that can be run at regular intervals after we complete this work to monitor for things such as duplicate payments and unnecessary use of overtime. We expect to publish the results of those projects in January. On page 6, I already talked about the results of the Citizens Survey and everything that's on page 5. Moving on to page 6. We regularly monitor for misallocation of sales and use tax. In our final quarterly report for the year, we summarize the results for the entire year. During Fiscal Year '15, we received $81,441 as the result of my Staff's inquiries to the State, and $35,496 from the consultant's inquiries. We also have a development agreement with Stanford Medical Center which allows the City to receive the sales allocations directly from those contractors, rather than them going through the County pool which would mean we would only receive a fraction of the amount that we actually get. For Fiscal Year '15, we received $568,755 as a result of that agreement. We continue to serve as an advisor in various roles, including on the Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the IT Governance Review Board and the Information Security Steering Committee. I'm expecting that the Library Bond Oversight Committee will be winding down somewhere around the end of this year or beginning of next year since the projects are finished and they're just kind of wrapping up some final things before they declare that they've completed their role. The last on our report is the report of the fraud, waste and abuse hotline administration. We received two allegations in the first quarter of Fiscal Year '15, but have not received any since then. The chart in the report shows the status of complaints received each fiscal year. All the complaints received through Fiscal Year '15 have been closed. Seven received in Fiscal Year '13, three in Fiscal Year '14 and two in Fiscal Year '15. Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 3 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 That completes my report, so I can now address any questions that you might have. Chair Burt: Thank you. Colleagues, who would like to begin? Council Member DuBois: I can't remember if we pushed this off on the agenda. This is from June, right? Ms. Richardson: Yes, yes. There wasn't a meeting in July, August, and then September's meeting it got pushed out. That's why. This was the first available meeting. Council Member DuBois: We're going to see the previous quarter? Ms. Richardson: In two weeks you'll get September's. Council Member DuBois: That's what I was just looking at and trying to figure out. We have four audits coming in February. Do you really think they're all going to complete in February or are you planning (crosstalk)? Ms. Richardson: We're trying to get them done by then. Once we have the draft report out, sometimes there's issues that come out that are unexpected and it may push them out. As an example, on the Cable Franchise Fee and Parking Funds Audits, we were expecting to have those completed several months ago, but there were some issues that I've actually been working very closely with Molly on. Sorting through those issues has delayed them. Council Member DuBois: It seems like if we could just stagger them so they don't fall all at once. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying about the Stanford money. Does that represent our portion? Ms. Richardson: That is our portion. That $568,000 is our portion. Normally what would happen; when a contractor doesn't have a physical presence in Palo Alto, their sales tax gets allocated to the County pool. The pool gets divided up based on the percentage of each jurisdiction's sales tax allocation within that pool, so we would get a fairly small percentage of that. I think it would be less than 10 percent of that amount if we didn't have that agreement. We've actually had some discussion with Tommy Fehrenbach and Joe Saccio about seeing other large construction projects where we might be able to enter in some development agreements to get that sales tax directly. They're watching for those types of things, but we haven't entered into another agreement. It's definitely a benefit to the City to do that. Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 4 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 Council Member DuBois: I thought you were saying we collected directly, but then we have to pay it out. We actually keep more of it? Ms. Richardson: We keep this. This is our portion to keep. This is City revenue. Council Member DuBois: Is that with the Medical Center? Is that tax on physical things that they use? Ms. Richardson: It's tax on equipment and construction materials. Chair Burt: If I might. It's principally around the construction of the Medical Center. Council Member DuBois: It's only construction; it's not ongoing? Ms. Richardson: No, no. It's just the construction project. Council Member DuBois: That's what I was—yeah, like, ongoing medical care, there's not portions of it that are taxed? Ms. Richardson: No, no. Chair Burt: I mean, it's not inconsequential. Council Member DuBois: No, it's not. It's important to understand it's a one-time. Chair Burt: This is—the big bump is from the construction. Ms. Richardson: Yes, yes. Chair Burt: I meant the ongoing is not inconsequential. I had just a couple of questions. In the Animal Services, we received that report. Is there a follow-up role of the Auditor's Department in that or have you pretty much concluded your portion and it's up to City Manager? Ms. Richardson: You weren't on Policy and Services Committee last year, but when I presented an Ordinance change to them, they requested that we change the process. Normally we would follow up on audits once a year. At the end of the fiscal year, everyone would submit a report, and then we would present the report to Council after doing some verification. They changed the practice and have now asked departments to report directly every six months after an audit. I actually just sent out emails to everyone this week on all the open audits, and we're starting that new process now. I don't know if Ed wants to speak. Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 5 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager: Completed audits. Ms. Richardson: Yes, all completed audits. Then it's going to be a twice-a- year reporting, every six months. The first report will be due six months after Council accepts the audit, and then every six months thereafter. Chair Burt: I don't know whether my concern intersects with specifically what the audit addressed, but it's really about we found that we were having a deteriorating condition over the last couple of years after we thought we had put some measures in place to reverse that. We really didn't capture that deterioration quickly enough. I'm not viewing it as principally the Auditor's Department's responsibility to catch those things unless there's a specific audit. There just happened to be this alignment here. Ms. Richardson: We actually put it on the audit plan initially because I noticed that declining revenue, but then we got asked to move it up and do it quickly. Chair Burt: Within the six-month report-backs on this—this may be more a question for the City Manager's Office—is there going to be this close scrutiny of whether things are getting better, worse, staying the same, while we are trying to figure out a long-term plan? Mr. Shikada: I think what will be instructive as we try this new process will be the volume of reports that the Committee now sees. Previously it had been one annual consolidated report, we'll in principal see at least two reports during a year as a follow-up to any individual audit. As of this morning, we were speaking to potentially eight or so audits that have been completed but with open recommendations. That means 16 reports over the next year. There's some built-in incentive for the departments and City Manager's Office in reviewing the response that the departments put together in order to get those complete, closed and not have to continue to issue semi-annual reports thereafter. I do see some incentive there as well as clearly the Manager's Office will need to do ongoing review and ensure that the description of the follow-up that's happened is consistent with our expectations. Chair Burt: I'm realizing that part of what I'm yearning to see is not necessarily what the follow-ups—there may be an overlap to what the follow-ups to the audit does, but it's really an ongoing scrutiny of something that's, I'll call it a volatile situation in terms of its ability to stay within its budget and not (inaudible). Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 6 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 Mr. Shikada: Sure. I understand. I think largely the phrasing of the recommendations from the audits have been built around sustainable recommendations. Chair Burt: I appreciate that. We'll see the Parking Funds Audit in November. Ms. Richardson: Actually we ... Chair Burt: I'm sorry. December. Ms. Richardson: December. Chair Burt: I think I heard you say that. Ms. Richardson: Right. I have jury duty in November and can't guarantee that I'll be available. Chair Burt: I don't know. I was just thinking about if I was a defense lawyer whether I'd want an auditor on the other side (crosstalk) jury. Ms. Richardson: Auditors typically get rejected, but not always. Council Member Wolbach: You can almost guarantee you'll be available. Chair Burt: I guess—first, I'll say the reason I'm asking this is that we have a convergence of a number of parking-related issues. We have the RPP that's going in place. We're trying to figure out what is the net impact of that and how it is the Parking Assessment District and all of those operations intersect with that. Finally, something that came up under Council Member comments was a request last night to get an update on the infrastructure master plan, that basically we approved late last year and the voters sealed the deal with our Transient Occupancy Tax increase. One of the big components of that was a Downtown garage. We haven't heard anything, and so I'm just wanting to make sure that the information comes together at approximately times that the one will inform the other. This is a piece to that puzzle; it's not the puzzle itself. If you can't answer this, that's fine too. Are the results of that audit determining anything that's real substantive that will potentially affect our considerations or are they more on the margins in technical issues? Ms. Richardson: I would say that there's some issues that you'll definitely want to be aware of as you make your decisions. Chair Burt: Good, thanks. On the National Citizens Survey, you may have mentioned this when you made your presentation, but I couldn't recall. Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 7 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 Have you determined whether there are any changes that you have in store for the 2015 survey to be reported in early 2016? Ms. Richardson: Actually the postcards went out last week or two weeks ago. The first wave of surveys went out last week. I am looking at—the reports that the National Research Centers gives us are, in my opinion, somewhat difficult to follow. There's many reports. We tried to pull some of them together, but it's not like you can see one question and get all of the information you want about that question. You have to look here; you have to look here; and you have to look here. I've actually talked to our representative there about restructuring and seeing what she can do for us. I would like some input from Council about what they would like to see and what they find helpful. Also, probably some discussion with the City Manager's Office. They will need some input from me fairly quickly. I've actually kind of been playing with some layouts to think about what I can possibly give them as something that will work better for us. They forced questions into this structure of three pillars and then eight facets within each pillar. That didn't seem to always fit. It just seemed forced in a lot of ways. I don't know that that's necessarily helpful for us. It doesn't align with the way the survey is laid out in many ways, so you can't look at the survey and then easily find how people responded to it. You have to really dig through. I'm thinking about asking them to do some restructuring. Chair Burt: It sounds like the issues that you have with it are not so much the sorts of questions we ask our residents, but it's how we're able to make good use of the information that comes out of that survey. Ms. Richardson: Correct. We did ask—we did include quite a number of custom questions this year. It's actually about two pages of custom questions, so there are a lot of issues talking with (inaudible), getting some response from Council Members about what interests them. We worked through and made sure the NRC knows what kind of questions work. Getting them in the right format to get the kind of information we need, we spent some time on that. Chair Burt: Final question on the—actually two questions. On the sales and use tax, we have recoveries that included $81,000 from your inquiries. Ms. Richardson: Correct. Chair Burt: When you do that audit, is yours comprehensive or is it a spot check? Ms. Richardson: We aren't actually doing the audit. The State Board of Equalization does the audit. We monitor new businesses coming into the Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 8 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 City, businesses leaving, where we might see a big change. We get a big report where we might see a big change in the sales tax, that might look like something was misallocated. Then we fill out what's called a short form which we submit to the State Board of Equalization. It says we think there's something not right here, and they actually do the audit. We don't have the authority to audit the businesses; they do. Chair Burt: Out of that, do you look at whether there are patterns of misreporting by specific businesses? Ms. Richardson: No, because usually once a misallocation has been caught, the State works with them to make sure they continue to report correctly. Chair Burt: I see. Great. My final question. On the hotline, we've seen a decline—although, this year it's about the pace of last year, because we're a fraction of a year. Do you have any insights on how well it's working? I guess one question would be do you think that there is a comfort with employees using the hotline when they think that's the—a valuable—they have something to report and that'd be the right way to do it. I mean, not every report goes through anonymously, most do not. Second, out of the complaint patterns, are you seeing that it's resulting in either the employee getting a better understanding of what happened and why or a change in the operations in response to something that was legitimate that the employee brought forward? Ms. Richardson: You will see some activity coming up in the next report. Most of the allegations that have come forward have not resulted in a change. They've mostly been unsubstantiated. I don't know what employees are thinking; we haven't asked them. I would guess that the decline represents somewhat their perception of what the hotline is. I'm not sure that they're clear on what the hotline is. I think that we need to— when we talked a few months back about revisiting the protocols, I've talked to some other audit shops that have hotlines. They handle theirs much differently than we do ours. It's definitely worth some discussion. I had a meeting with Molly, Jim and Suzanne about—were you in that meeting too? Mr. Shikada: I was not. Ms. Richardson: I didn't think so. About what, two weeks ago? Where we were talking about how we might readdress the protocols. Chair Burt: One of the things that you said caught my ear which is we really don't know how the employees perceive it. I guess that would be in two buckets. The smaller one which are those who have used it, how do they Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 9 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 feel about how it worked. The broader employee pool in general, where are they and how do they feel about it even if they didn't choose to use it. Ms. Richardson: I can't answer that. I don't know. Most of the complaints ... Chair Burt: I'm just wondering if we should do a survey. Ms. Richardson: Most of the complaints come in—I think all of the complaints that we've received so far have been anonymous, so we don't have a way to go back to those people and say ... Chair Burt: Right. Ms. Richardson: ... "what are your thoughts on that?" Chair Burt: That leaves out that first group. Council Member Wolbach: Is there anything—I'm sorry (crosstalk). Chair Burt: Go ahead. Council Member Wolbach: At the end of this call into the hotline, is there any "how was your service today" kind of question at the end to just get their immediate feedback before they end their anonymous call? Ms. Richardson: We don't have that. They report—we use a third-party consultant that that's their specialty. The calls go in to a third party, and they have a database. They input the initial call, and then we get an email that says there's a new allegation, a new case. Then we go in and we review it and decide how it's going to be investigated. There is a section where the employee who called in can go back and see. They can only see parts of the case file; they can't see the entire case file. If they were to check, we could put a question in there, but getting an answer would be dependent on whether they chose to go back in and check the status or not. We don't have any way of knowing for sure that they even went back and looked. If they did look and chose not to answer the question, we wouldn't know. Council Member Wolbach: There's no way to ask the consultant to add a question at the end, just checking how was your experience dealing with this service today? Ms. Richardson: They could, but it would be basically just the service of receiving the call. Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 10 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 Chair Burt: That's not the main service. Ms. Richardson: The main service is the outcome of the call, right. The investigation process. Chair Burt: Do we do employee surveys of any sort? Ms. Richardson: I'm not aware of any. Mr. Shikada: I don't think that's been our practice. Khashayar Alaee, Senior Management Analyst: Yeah, it's generally not. It's not like an annual cycle. We have done surveys here and there. Chair Burt: I wouldn't necessarily advocate that there's a need to initiate a survey for this purpose, but to put it on a list of, if we have a next survey, this might be a topic to ask a couple of questions about. Mr. Shikada: As a matter of fact, we are kicking off a round of ethics training that would be used Citywide and should touch all employees. I made a note that we should be able to incorporate this into that, at a minimum as a way of ensuring awareness of the resource as well as potentially getting feedback. Ms. Richardson: It is mentioned in the ethics policy. Chair Burt: Good. Any other questions or comments? Council Member Wolbach: Just going back to the Citizens Survey just to make sure I was clear. At this point, is it still possible to offer suggestions about questions or the questions have already been finalized and we're good to go for this coming year? Ms. Richardson: The first round of surveys has already been out, so (crosstalk). Council Member Wolbach: It wasn't just invitations, it was the actual surveys. Ms. Richardson: Right. The notifications, the first round of surveys, the second round. They mail two copies. The second one goes out about two ... Council Member Wolbach: There's still time to think about how we sort through and how we present it? Ms. Richardson: Yes, but not the actual questions. Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 11 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 Council Member Wolbach: If Council Members individually or Council as a whole or this Committee has recommendations or just suggestions about— either suggestions or direction about how it's presented, what would be the best way to share those with you? Ms. Richardson: You can meet with me or you can email me, either way. Council Member DuBois: Just one last question. I guess a lot of the value is being able to compare to prior years. I guess we'll see it when it comes, but when you're talking about reformatting the way the data is delivered, we're still going to have the series-type data to be able to compare? Ms. Richardson: Yes. One of the questions I have, because we do get about ten years of comparison for ourselves. We also get about ten years of comparison of how we compared to—benchmarking comparisons. I'm wondering is it really useful to know how we compared with other jurisdictions ten years ago versus how we compare with ourselves ten years ago and how we compare with other jurisdictions just in most recent years. That would give me—if we reduced the number of years for the benchmark comparisons, that would give me some room with the layout on how to think about how we might ask for data to get more of it altogether in one place. Council Member DuBois: I would generally say—I mean, you're using Tableau or something, right? The more data the better. It would be interesting to be able to see if we've improved or if the benchmarks ... Ms. Richardson: We use Tableau for the interactive, but for the printed portion ... Council Member DuBois: Oh, you're just trying to get data. I mean, we've got (crosstalk) data, you (crosstalk) ... Ms. Richardson: That's the part that's harder to ... Council Member DuBois: ... to put it on the page, right? That's what you're saying? Ms. Richardson: We could get the data and put it in Tableau and have it printed differently. Council Member Wolbach: Interesting. I would just add, just kind of playing devil's advocate, I'm not sure I would necessarily advocate one way or the other. One potential advantage to be able to track ourselves against other cities over time is, especially as we look through economic cycles and political cycles nationally, if changes in our citizens' opinions are changing, Attachment B TRANSCRIPT    Page 12 of 12 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 10/06/15 tracking similar lines as other cities versus divergently from other cities over the last decade. That could be interesting, but again I'm not really advocating one way or another. Ms. Richardson: One of the things that they changed last year in the report was the way they calculated the comparisons. Previously they would compare us within a margin of error of +/- 2 percent. Last year they changed it to within +/- 10 percent. That changed our comparisons quite a bit. It made us look less favorable compared to other cities, so we had them put the two margins of error side by side so we could see. It actually means that if they continue with the 10 percent, that we can't really compare further back and have it be meaningful. Chair Burt: I think that concludes the item. Thank you very much, and thank you to your Staff for a bunch of good audits. No Action Taken Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 6073) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Amendment With Vox Title: Approval of a Contract Amendment with VOX Network Solutions, Contract C12144216 for Additional Phone Equipment and Maintenance in the Amount of $159,899 From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached contract Amendment with VOX Network Solutions, INC for the following items: 1. Additional $145,363 in annual maintenance and support fees due to additional equipment, Fire Station Upgrades, licensing and monitoring software purchased. 2. Allow for additional contingency of the increased contract amount ($14,536) in the event for unforeseen change orders that are required to continue with upgrades and maintenance of the City’s telephone system. Background In January 2012, an RFP was issued for a telecommunications platform and implementation services for the City’s new Voice-over-IP (VoIP) telephone system. VOX Network Solutions, INC was approved by Council and the City entered into a five year contract in June of 2012 (Attachment A). Additional locations that were not upgraded during the initial phone rollout will now be upgraded. These locations are comprised of Fire Stations 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. This project is currently underway. This contract amendment is necessary to fund the rollout of the upgrade project to these final locations and to fund several enhanced services requested by the City, as detailed in this report. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The existing contract authorizes total compensation not to exceed $836,558, of which approximately $773,209 has been spent. The cost of upgrading additional locations is $57,310 and enhanced maintenance and support services will cost $76,406 in both the fourth and fifth years of the contract. In addition to funding for this equipment and additional services, staff is seeking a 10% contingency of the contract increase ($14,536), which will bring the contract total not to exceed amount to $996,457. Discussion Since entering into the initial contract with VOX, the City has requested that several applications be added to monitor and analyze calls made on the City’s network. Those applications are paid annually with the maintenance and support fees and include the following:  Session/System Manager, licensing and user support, $2,400 annually  Sentry LIS E911, support for the software program running on the server dedicated for the 911 services, $5,750 annually  Crisis Connect, E911 call and location data software, $4,036 annually  Various licenses for Utilities Telstrat Voice Recording, Police Van, Police Telstrat Voice Recording and additional user licenses, $1,931.  Fire Stations upgrade, $1,410 The previous amount earmarked for annual maintenance and support was $60,880. With the additions noted above, the total annual maintenance and support cost amounts to $76,406. As part of the Telephone System Replacement project (TIIP); the City was to upgrade the telephone system and network. The fire stations were excluded from the initial effort due to cost and the low number of telephones needing to be replaced. Now that the rest of the City has been upgraded, staff has determined that the time is right to upgrade the fire stations throughout the City. The current state of telephone equipment for the City of Palo Alto’s fire stations is antiquated and must be replaced. All other City facilities that needed to be upgraded have been. VOX will be providing additional licenses, gateways, and telephones for Fire Stations 1,2,4,5, and 6. The table below shows the cost to upgrade as well as the annual maintenance that will be due for each Fire Station. As estimated in the Fiscal Year 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan, the rehabilitation of Fire Station 4 is scheduled to be started in Fiscal Year 2019. Therefore, the Fire Station phone system was included in this upgrade. Fire Station 3 remodel is planned to be completed within the next 12 months so the equipment will be replaced as part of the rebuilt station. Fire Station 8 is only staffed during the summer season, so upgrades and maintenance for this station will be absorbed in the IT Department’s annual budget. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Fire Station: Quote: Annual Maintenance: 1 $ 8,891 $150 2 $ 8,402 $150 4 $ 11,377 $237 5 $ 12,515 $277 6 $ 16,125 $596 Total: $ 57,310 $1,410 Resource Impact The upgrade work to the Fire Stations will be funded by the Telephone Replacement CIP (TE-00010). The annual maintenance increases will be funded by the allocation of the Technology Fund costs to the appropriate departments and factored into the Fiscal Year 2017 base budget. Environmental Review This contract amendment with VOX Network Solutions, INC is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment A: CMR 2760 VOX (PDF)  Attachment B: VOX C12144216 Amendment One Signed (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 2760) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/4/2012 June 04, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2760) Summary Title: Telecommunications Infrastructure Improvement Title: Approval of a Contract with VOX Network Solutions for Implementation Services Relating to Installation of Avaya Telecommunications System From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute contract C12144216 with Vox Network Solutions Inc, a Delaware Corporation for a total contract price not to exceed $760,506.87 for the following items: 1. Purchase and implement an Avaya Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone system. 2. Purchase five years of maintenance and support services for that VOIP system. 3. Select and execute one or more of the options listed in the contract. 4. Negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract not exceeding 10% of the contract price for additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the term of this contract, the total value of which shall not exceed $836,558.00. Background This is one CMR of 3 supporting the TE-00010 Telephone System Replacement Project. In September of 2009, staff contracted with a telecommunications professional services consultant, Communication Strategies, to prepare a feasibility study and needs analysis of the City’s telephone and voicemail systems to determine the direction the City should pursue to upgrade the system and at what estimated costs. In August of 2010, the consultant provided their findings and June 04, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2760) recommended moving in the direction of an industry standard Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone system. It was also recommended that the City first perform essential and requisite infrastructure upgrades to ensure Quality of Service (QoS), Power over Ethernet (PoE) redundancy, and capacity management including:  Cabling (approximately 70% of the City’s cabling is antiquated CAT3 cabling)  Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)  Power (including Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS))  Facility renovations (for cabling closets) The estimated total cost range for this recommendation is $1,990,000 - $2,180,000. Discussion The City’s telecommunications systems (phone system, voicemail, and data) are over 20 years old, in a degraded mode, lack current functionality, and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. The hardware has experienced down-time over the last several years that have led to temporary loss of telephone services. The reliability of the City’s telephone and telecommunications services is critical to City operations and is therefore essential that a new phone system be implemented. Therefore, on January 17, 2012, staff submitted an RFP for a Telecommunications Platform and implementation services. The following 8 vendors submitted proposals: Vendor Location (City/State) Solution Proposed Total Cost of Ownership Amount Altura Communication Solutions Pleasanton, CA Avaya $792,217 Arrow S3 Irving, TX NEC $1,079,597 June 04, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2760) AT&T San Ramon, CA ShoreTel $722,293 NEC Irving, TX NEC $1,030,524 Packet Fusion San Mateo, CA ShoreTel $805,374 Presidio Sacramento, CA Cisco $759,199* Vox Network Solutions South San Francisco, CA Avaya $712,271* Xtelesis Burlingame, CA ShoreTel $693,650* *Vendor selected as shortlist for demonstration/interviews. An evaluation committee comprised of staff from Information Technology, Utilities, Planning, Community Services, Police, City Manager’s Office, Public Works, Administrative Services, and Libraries carefully rated each firm's submittal in response to the RFP relative to the following criteria:  Solution Proposed: Overall design of proposed solution  Compliance: Ability to meet requirements  Capacity to Deliver: Team experience, support  Cost of the Proposal The following top 3 vendors were then selected for vendor demonstrations:  Presidio  Vox Network Solutions  Xtelesis Upon staff’s evaluation of the proposals and vendor interviews, Vox Network Solutions was selected as the recommended awarded vendor. Vox Network Solutions has extensive knowledge in telecommunications and unified communications, has a proven track record implementing Avaya solutions, has worked with other public agencies such as, County of San Mateo, City of Foster City, and Contra Costa County, and has a sound project management methodology for implementation services. Resource Impact Funding for this project is available through CIP TE-00010. Attachments:  EXHIBIT A Scope of Work (DOCX)  EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE (DOCX) June 04, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2760)  EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION and PAYMENT MILESTONES (DOCX)  EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS (DOCX)  SCHEDULE A PRICING (DOCX)  SCHEDULE B MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT (DOCX)  SCHEDULE C PHASE 2 OPTIONAL SERVICES AND COMMODITIES (DOCX) Prepared By: Lisa Bolger, Manager, IT Department Head: Jonathan Reichental, Chief Information Officer City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager C12144216 120521 dm 00710026 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND VOX NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. This Agreement for Professional Services (the “Agreement”), dated as of ______________, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (the “City”), and VOX NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation ("VOX") (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”) in reference to the following: RECITALS A. The City intends to replace its current telephone, call center, and voice mail systems with a unified communications system, including, without limitation, telecommunications equipment (the “Equipment”) which have, among others, telephone, voice mail, messaging and storage, and call center features (the “System”), and also desires to engage a consultant to provide the Equipment and the necessary services (the “Services”) needed for the installation of the Equipment and the implementation of the System and to provide the support and maintenance of the System (collectively, the “Project”). B. VOX has represented to the City that, as of the Effective Date, it has or will obtain the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and the required licenses and/or certifications, if any, to complete the Project, and install the Equipment, perform the Services, and implement the System as well provide maintenance services. “Services” may include the Additional Services, if the City authorizes the Additional Services and VOX agrees to perform those services. C. The City in reliance on VOX’s representations in this Agreement and the Exhibits desires to engage VOX to deliver and install the Equipment and perform the Services in connection with the acquisition of the System. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. EQUIPMENT PURCHASE; SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 VOX shall sell to the City, and the City shall purchase from VOX, a unified telecommunications system, including, without limitation, the Equipment, described in Exhibit “A-2” Equipment List and Pricing. 1.2 VOX shall perform the Services, described in Exhibit “A-1” Scope of Work – Services (and the Additional Services, if any, described in Exhibit “A-4” Scope of Work – Additional Services) in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the Exhibits. The delivery and installation of the Equipment and the performance of the Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 2 120518 dm 00710026 Services (and the Additional Services, if any) shall be acceptable to the City in the reasonable exercise of its discretion. SECTION 2. TERM 2.1 The term of this Agreement shall begin from the Effective Date and continue until October 6, 2017 (the “Term”), unless this Agreement is earlier terminated pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “contract year” used in Section 4 below refers to each twelve-month period or fraction thereof, beginning on the annual anniversary of the Effective Date, during the Term. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE 3.1 Time is of the essence in the delivery and installation of the Equipment, the implementation of the System and the performance of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) under this Agreement. VOX shall deliver and install the Equipment and perform the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) during the Term in accordance with the time table set forth in Exhibit “B-1” Schedule of Performance - Services. Any Services (and the Additional Services, if any) for which specific time periods for performance are not identified in this Agreement or the Exhibits shall be commenced and completed by VOX in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated by the Project Manager to the Project Director. The City’s consent to extend the Term or the time(s) for delivery and installation of the Equipment and/or the performance of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) shall not preclude the City’s recovery of damages for delay by VOX, if the extension of the Term is required to complete the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) and implement the System primarily due to the fault of VOX. 3.2 The City will accept the System by not later than four (4) weeks from the Cutover Date, unless the City first notifies VOX, in writing, during this four-week period, that the System does not meet the Scope of Work – Services requirements or the Equipment, as reasonably defined by the manufacturers’ specifications, does not meet the City’s requirements. Upon VOX’s receipt of the City’s notice that the System and/or the Equipment fails to meet this Exhibit’s requirements and/or specifications, VOX will proceed promptly to correct the performance items that the City believes must be addressed by VOX. VOX will notify the City, in writing, of the resolution of the performance issue(s) and if the City reasonably agrees, the System will be accepted subsequently by the City, in writing. If the City does not reasonably agree with VOX that the performance issue(s) have been remedied, then the City will provide VOX with reasonable detail, in writing, of the issues that still require remediation. This process will continue until the City agrees, in writing, that the System meets the performance standards, as are reasonably defined by the manufacturers’ specifications. For performance issues that are discovered after the four-week period subsequent to the Cutover Date, VOX will perform at its sole cost and expense the remediation under the Warranty service level agreements that address VOX’s obligation to perform Emergency Service and Non-Emergency Service. 3.3 To meet its installation and implementation obligations, VOX shall perform emergency service in order to fully address any major System failure. A major failure occurring during the installation of the Equipment or the implementation of the System shall include, 2 120521 dm 00710026 without limitation: (a) any part of the Equipment or the System that cannot make or receive any voice calls or data calls; (b) any of the operator consoles cannot make or receive calls; (c) fifteen percent (15%) or more of either trunks or stations are inoperable; (d) any of the T1 trunks are inoperable; (e) there is a complete failure (100%) of the voice mail system to perform according to specifications; and (f) such additional System conditions, as may be agreed to by the Parties, in writing. VOX’s response time for Emergency Service will be within two (2) hours on a twenty-four (24) hour by seven (7) days per week by three hundred sixty five (365) days per year basis from the time the City gives VOX a request for Emergency Service. The consequences of any failure of the Equipment or the System occurring after the City has accepted the System and the Services shall be addressed in Exhibit “A-3“ Maintenance and Support. 3.4 Any other failure of performance of the System that is not addressed in Section 3.3 above will be considered a non-emergency service. VOX’s response time for any non- emergency service shall be eight (8) hours based on an 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. business day, Monday - Friday, excepting official holidays of the City. 3.5 VOX warrants for one (1) year following the Cutover Date that the Equipment under normal use and service will be free from defects and that labor will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. The City shall notify VOX of any defect in the Equipment, specifying the nature thereof, within the warranty period. If any of the Equipment is found to be defective during this period, VOX will, at its option, repair or replace the Equipment at its sole cost and expense. This warranty does not cover damage to the Equipment which results from or is associated with the abuse, unreasonable use, unauthorized repair or alteration of the Equipment. 3.5.1 THIS WARRANTY IS NOT TRANSFERABLE AND IS VOID IF CITY TRANSFERS THE EQUIPMENT. EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES SET FORTH ABOVE, VOX DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THE EQUIPMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR OF THE NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES AND THE STATED EXPRESS WARRANTIES ARE IN LIEU OF ALL OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITY ON THE PART OF VOX FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELIVERY, USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT, THE SOLE LIABILITY OF VOX UNDER THIS WARRANTY IS THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT, AT VOX’S OPTION, OF PARTS, WHICH FAIL DURING THE APPLICABLE WARRANTY PERIOD BECAUSE OF A DEFECT, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL VOX BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION 4.1 The City will pay VOX for the delivery and installation of the Equipment and the performance of the Services in accordance with Exhibit “C-1” Compensation and Payment Milestones. The total compensation to VOX under this Agreement shall not exceed Five Hundred Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six Dollars and Eighty Seven Cents ($516,986.87) [NOTE: Total in Ex. C-1 adds up to $516,987.03, so there’s a discrepancy]for contract year one and Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Dollars ($60,880.00) for each of contract years two through five, inclusive. In the event the City authorizes the Additional 3 120521 dm 00710026 Services, the total compensation for the Equipment, the Services, the Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Five Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Six Dollars ($568,686.00) for contract year one and Sixty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight ($66,968.00) for each of contract years two through five, inclusive. 4.2 The Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “A-4”. VOX shall not receive or be entitled to receive any compensation for the Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of the City. The Additional Services refers to any work that the City determines is necessary for the full and complete installation of the System, but which services are not now included in Exhibit “A-1”, as of the Effective Date. 4.3 The cost of Maintenance and Services in the amount of Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty dollars ($60,880) per year for years one through four, inclusive, are not included in Exhibit “A-3”. VOX shall tender separate invoices to the City for such maintenance services. 4.4 The City may request VOX to add to or delete from the Equipment List at any time up to and including the Cutover Date. Other equipment may be added to the Equipment List and Pricing, Exhibit “A-2” during this period. For the deletion of any Equipment, VOX will issue a credit to the City equal to the price paid, less a ten percent (10%) restocking/handling fee for any Equipment that has been delivered to the respective Staging Site. For any Equipment listed in the Equipment List, which the City orders within 24 Months after the Cutover Date, VOX shall sell the Equipment to the City at a discount of twenty eight (28%) off of the published Avaya List price or the prevailing material price on the State of California supply agreement with Avaya on telephone sets, gateways, software and line and trunk circuit packs. SECTION 5. INVOICES 5.1 As a condition precedent to the City’s obligation to pay compensation to VOX, VOX shall send monthly invoices to the City, describing the Equipment and the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) delivered, installed and performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of the Equipment and the personnel, who performed the Services (and the Additional Services, if any), their hours worked, their hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon VOX’s billing rates, described in Exhibit “C-2”. VOX will ensure that each invoice describes the percentage of completion of each task established for the Services (and the Additional Services, if any). The information in VOX’s invoices shall be subject to verification by the City. The Project Director shall send all invoices to the Project Manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of their receipts. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS; STANDARD OF CARE 6.1 The Services (and the Additional Services, if any) shall be performed by VOX and any person under its supervision. VOX represents that its employees and any other person under its supervision possess the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) 3 120521 dm 00710026 assigned to them. VOX represents that its employees, agents, subcontractors and subconsultants, if approved, in writing, by the Project Manager, have and shall maintain during the Term all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services (and the Additional Services, if any). 6.2 The Services (and the Additional Services, if any) to be furnished by VOX and any other person under its supervision hired to perform under this Agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 7.1 VOX shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the implementation of the System, the delivery and installation of the Equipment, and the performance of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) under this Agreement. VOX shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the delivery and installation of the Equipment and the performance of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any). SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS 8.1 VOX shall correct, at no cost to the City, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the System Plan’s plans, specifications and related design documents submitted to the City in connection with the implementation of the System and the performance of the Services, provided that the City first gives notice of its request for clarification to VOX. If VOX has prepared any System Plan’s plans, specifications or other design documents to install the Equipment and implement the System, and there are errors, omissions, or ambiguities within any of the documentation, VOX shall clarify and correct any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of installation of the Equipment, the performance of the Services, and the implementation of the System to the reasonable satisfaction of the City. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES 9.1 If this Agreement pertains to the design of any project, comprising the System or any part thereof, that would constitute a public works project under applicable laws, VOX shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the City’s stated construction budget, VOX shall make recommendations to the City for aligning the System Plan’s design with the City’s budget, incorporate any City-approved recommendations, and revise the System Plan’s design to meet the City’s budget for the System at no additional cost to the City. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 10.1 VOX understands and agrees that in the delivery and installation of the 4 120521 dm 00710026 Equipment, the performance of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) and the implementation of the System under this Agreement, VOX and any person acting under its supervision or responsible to provide the Equipment and furnish labor and/or materials in connection with the performance of the Services under this Agreement, shall act as and be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT 11.1 The Parties agree that the expertise and experience of VOX are material considerations to the City to enter into this Agreement. VOX shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of VOX’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the City’s city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING 12.1 VOX shall not subcontract any portion of the installation of the Equipment, the performance of the Services, or the implementation of the System under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 13.1 VOX will assign Peter Wainwright, Director National Accounts, pwainwright@voxns.com, Telephone: (650) 989-1009 as the Project Director to have supervisory responsibility for the delivery and installation of the Equipment and the performance of the Services. If VOX replaces the Project Director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute Project Director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the Project Manager. The Project Director, at the Project Manager’s request, shall promptly remove any VOX personnel or any person hired by VOX, whom the Project Manager determines is not performing the Services (or the Additional Services, if any) in a manner reasonably acceptable to the Project Manager, is uncooperative, or presents a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the System, the rendering of the Services, or is a threat to the safety of persons or property. 13.2 The City will assign Lisa Bolger, Information Technology Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Email: Lisa.Bolger@CityofPaloAlto.org, Telephone: (650) 329-2654, as the Project Manager. The Project Manager will be VOX’s point of contact with respect to VOX’s delivery of the Equipment and the performance, progress and execution of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any). The City may designate an alternate Project Manager at any time during the Term and inform VOX of the substitution. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION 14.1 Upon its delivery, the System Plan’s documentation, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests directly related to the implementation of the System under this Agreement 5 Macintosh HD:Users:ronaldfong:Library:Caches:TemporaryItems:Outlook Temp:00710026 AGMT C12144216 VOX Network Solutions[1][7].docx120521 dm 00710026 shall be and remain the exclusive property of the City without restriction or limitation upon their use. Neither VOX nor its subconsultants and subcontractors, if any, shall make any of such written documentation available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the city manager or designee. VOX represents the suitability of the System Plan’s documentation relating to the implementation of the System for the purposes and uses contemplated by the Scope of Work - Services (and the Additional Services, if any). SECTION 15. AUDITS 15.1 VOX will permit the City to audit at any reasonable time during the Term and for up to three (3) years thereafter, VOX’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. VOX further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY 16.1 To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, VOX shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (the “Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) by VOX or its officers, employees, agents, sub-consultants or sub-contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding subsection 16.1, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require VOX to indemnify an Indemnified Party from the Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) by the City shall not operate as a waiver of the right to indemnity. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS 17.1 The waiver by either Party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE 6 Macintosh HD:Users:ronaldfong:Library:Caches:TemporaryItems:Outlook Temp:00710026 AGMT C12144216 VOX Network Solutions[1][7].docx120521 dm 00710026 18.1 VOX, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the Term, the insurance coverage, as described in Exhibit "D". VOX and its sub- consultants and sub-contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the “City of Palo Alto” as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all sub-consultants and sub- contractors of VOX retained to perform the installation or implementation of any portion of the Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming the “City of Palo Alto” as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3 Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with the City’s insurance risk manager concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of the insurance risk manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the City’s purchasing manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification, VOX shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to the purchasing manager during the Term. 18.4 VOX’s furnishing of proof of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit VOX's liability hereunder or to fulfill its indemnity obligations under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, VOX will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the Term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES 19.1 The city manager may suspend delivery and/or installation of the Equipment and/or the performance of the Services (or the Additional Services, if any), in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, for cause or without cause, by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to the Project Director. Upon receipt of such notice, VOX will immediately cease the delivery and/or installation of the Equipment not yet delivered and/or installed and/or discontinue its performance of the Services (or the Additional Services, if any). 19.2 Subject to any limitations set forth in the Exhibits, VOX may terminate this Agreement or suspend the installation of the Equipment and/or its performance of the Services (or the Additional Services, if any) by giving thirty (30) days’ prior written notice thereof to the City, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by the City. 19.3 Upon such suspension or termination by VOX, the Project Director shall deliver to the Project Manager immediately any and all written documentation, whether or not completed, prepared by VOX or any of its subconsultants or subcontractors, if any, or given to VOX or its subconsultants or subcontractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such 7 Macintosh HD:Users:ronaldfong:Library:Caches:TemporaryItems:Outlook Temp:00710026 AGMT C12144216 VOX Network Solutions[1][7].docx120521 dm 00710026 documentation will become the property of the City free and clear of all right, title and interest of VOX. 19.4 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, VOX will be paid for the Equipment delivered and/or installed and/or the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) performed and/or the System Plan’s documentation delivered to the City in accordance with the Scope of Work – Services (and the Additional Services, if any) on or before the effective date of the suspension or termination or, if an effective date is not stated, within ten (10) days after notice thereof is given; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by VOX, the City will be obligated to compensate VOX for the Equipment delivered and installed and for the Services performed only for the Equipment and that portion of the Services (and the Additional Services, if any) which the City determines are of direct and immediate benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the city manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 8, 14, 15, 16, 19.4 and 25. 19.5 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will operate as a waiver by the City of any of its rights under this Agreement or by applicable laws. SECTION 20. NOTICES 20.1 All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: City of Palo Alto Office of the City Clerk Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: Purchasing Manager City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 To VOX: Vox Network Solutions, Inc. 250 East Grand Avenue, No. 55 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Ph: (650) 989-1009 Attn: Peter Wainwright, Director National Products 20.2 Notices may be furnished by electronic mail to the persons and their e-mail addresses noted in Sections 13.1 and 13.2. SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 21.1 In accepting this Agreement, VOX covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in 8 Macintosh HD:Users:ronaldfong:Library:Caches:TemporaryItems:Outlook Temp:00710026 AGMT C12144216 VOX Network Solutions[1][7].docx120521 dm 00710026 any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2 VOX further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, subcontractors or persons having such an interest. The Project Director will provide to the Project Manager a list of all subconsultants and subcontractors who will be providing any portion of the Services on behalf of VOX. VOX warrants that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act as set forth in the California Government Code. 21.3 If the Project Manager determines that VOX is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, VOX shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION 22.1 As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, VOX represents and warrants that in the performance of the Services under this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. VOX acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS 23.1 VOX shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies, which can be obtained from the purchasing manager, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. VOX shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include: firstly, minimizing and reducing waste; secondly, reusing waste; and thirdly, recycling or composting waste. In particular, VOX shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: 23.1.1 All printed materials provided by VOX to the City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. 23.1.2 Equipment and goods purchased by VOX on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy, including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the purchasing manager and will be made available to VOX upon request. 9 Macintosh HD:Users:ronaldfong:Library:Caches:TemporaryItems:Outlook Temp:00710026 AGMT C12144216 VOX Network Solutions[1][7].docx120521 dm 00710026 23.1.3 Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by VOX, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. The Project Director shall provide to the Project Manager documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed to the extent pallets are used in connection with the delivery of the Equipment or the installation or implementation of the Services. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1 This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement and the Exhibits. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 25.1 This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2 In the event that an action is brought, the Parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California or the United States District Court, Northern District of California, in Santa Clara County. 25.3 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4 This Agreement and the attached Exhibits represent the entire and integrated agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement and the Exhibits may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the Parties. 25.5 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7 All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 11 Macintosh HD:Users:ronaldfong:Library:Caches:TemporaryItems:Outlook Temp:00710026 AGMT C12144216 VOX Network Solutions[1][7].docx EXHIBIT “C-2” BILLING RATES EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT  “A-­‐‑1”   SCOPE  OF  WORK  -­‐‑  SERVICES     1.0 Introduction     This  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑1”  Scope  of  work  –  Services  is  an  exhibit  to  the  Agreement  for  Professional  Services   between  the  City  of  Palo  Alto  and  Vox  Network  Solutions,  Inc.,  Contract  No.  C12144216  (the   “Agreement”).    Under  this  Agreement  and  the  Exhibits,  VOX  shall  purchase  and  install  the  Equipment,   as  described  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑2”,  and  provide  the  following  installation  and  implementation  Services  set   forth  in  this  Exhibit.     CUSTOMER  CONTACT  INFORMATION   Primary  Contact(s):            NAMES  Lisa  Bolger  /  Ronald  Fong    TITLE  I.T.    Managers    Direct)  650-­‐‑329-­‐‑2624  /650-­‐‑329-­‐‑2250    Cell)    408-­‐‑690-­‐‑7004  /650-­‐‑444-­‐‑8887    EMAIL:  lisa.bolger@cityofpaloalto.org  /  ron.fong@cityofpaloalto.org       EQUIPMENT  LOCATION(S)     Primary  Location  Names:   (a) City  Hall;   (b) Municipal  Service  Center;  and   (c) Gateways  at  14  City  locations,  connected  to  the  City’s  Wide  Area  Network  (the   “City  WAN”),    set  forth  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑5”  Primary  City  Gateway  Equipment   Locations.     SYSTEM’S  CUTOVER  DATE     October  6,  2012   Or  other  date  agreed  to  by  the  Parties  (__________________,  2012)       2.0 SCOPE  OF  WORK  (“SOW”)  FOR  SERVICES     A. VOX’s  Responsibilities.     VOX  will  perform  the  following  Services,  described  below,  in  accordance  with  the  SOW  while  it  installs   the  Equipment,  described  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑2”  Equipment  List  and  Pricing,  net  of  any  change  orders  that  are   mutually  agreed  to,  in  writing,  by  the  Parties.     The  SOW  Services  can  be  summarized,  as  follows:       1. Install  an  Avaya  Communications  Manager,  Avaya  Aura  Messaging  and  Avaya  Contact  Center   with  G450  Core  systems  at  City  Hall  and  the  Municipal  Service  Center  and  14  G430  gateways  at   other  City  facilities.  Other  facilities  may  be  connected  via  carrier  facilities  or  City-­‐‑owned   transport  facilities.     2. Install  T-­‐‑1,  ISDN  PRI,  and  analog  trunking  as  required  for  each  location  by  a  letter  of   authorization  from  the  City’s  telecommunications  service  provider,  if  this  is  authorized  by  the   Project  Manager.   3. Stage  all  Equipment  at  VOX’s  facilities  in  South  San  Francisco  prior  to  deployment,  excepting   telephone  sets,  which  VOX  will  deliver  to  the  City’s  facilities,  as  designated  by  the  Project   Manager.   4. Install  all  Equipment  at  the  City’s  designated  locations  and  connect  to  the  City  WAN  and  the   City’s  designated  common  carriers  in  accordance  with  the  System  Installation  Plan  that  the   Project  Director  and  the  Project  Manager  will  develop.   5. VOX  will  support  programming  and  testing  of  the  private  branch  exchange  (“PBX”)  side  of   connectivity  to  the  existing  interactive  voice  response  (“IVR”)  system  via  four  (4)  analog   ports.    The  City  will  provide  the  routing  information  and  testing  resources  on  the  IVR   side.    Additional  information  on  routing  calls  from  the  IVR  to  the  PBX,  if  applicable,  will  be   provided  by  the  City  to  VOX.    Analog  ports  will  be  drawn  by  the  City  from  the  quantity   indicated  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑2”.   6. On-­‐‑site  installation  services,  including  telephone  set  placement,  will  be  performed  during  normal   business  hours  of  the  City  (8:00  A.M.  to  5:00  P.M.  Local  Time),  Monday–Friday,  official  City   holidays  excepted.    Services  affecting  the  Cutover  Date  activities,  including  the  migration  of   trunking  (as  applicable)  and  analog/digital  endpoints,  will  be  performed  on  OT  per  developed   project  plan  [more  jargon  -­‐‑  explain].   7. During  software  planning  and  discovery  to  be  performed  by  the  City  and  VOX,  VOX  will  work   with  the  City  to  design  and  recreate  existing  call  trees  on  the  new  system.    The  City  will  provide   VOX  with  documented  call  flows  and  menu  structure  as  well  as  any  requested  changes  to  the   existing  structure.    VOX  will  program  the  new  call  trees  in  either  PBX  vectors  or  voicemail  (as   appropriate  upon  review),  and  provide  the  City’s  detailed  documentation  on  the  new  structure   for  the  City’s  resources  to  record  announcements  and  prompts.    The  City  will  be  responsible  for   documenting  the  existing  announcement  scripts  and  recording  in  new  system  in  advance  of  the   Cutover  Date  for  full  testing  of  the  System.   8. VOX  will  provide  support  during  the  implementation  of  the  Unified  Communications  Bundle   products,  described  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑6”  Avaya  Unified  Communications  Family,  that  will  include   the  1X  Communicator  softphone,  stored  on  a  computer,  and  EC500  products.  These   implementation  Services  shall  include  the  following  actions:   (a) VOX  will  program  EC500  cellular  bridging  upon  the  initial  installation  for  all  users   whose  cell  phone  numbers  and  EC500  activation  are  specified  in  the  City-­‐‑provided  instruction   sheet  (“Cut  Sheet”).  Any  additional  EC500  programming  will  be  performed  by  the  City,  and  VOX   will  provide  appropriate  EC500  training  to  the  City.    VOX  will  customize  the  Cut  Sheet  to  include   notation  for  this  programming  option.   (b) VOX  will  configure  and  load  onto  specified  desktops  with  the  City’s  IT  Department   staff’s  support  2  or  3  one-­‐‑X  Communicator  softphones  to  validate  registration  and  functionality   and  demonstrate  to  the  City  the  loading  and  configuration  process.  VOX  will  configure  and   program  up  to  three  (3)  Meet  Me  Conference  bridges  (6  party  reservation-­‐‑less  conferencing,   unlimited  with  system)  with  vector  and  announcement  feature  packages  and  demonstrate  to  the   City  how  to  program  to  meet  the  needs  of  additional  users.   9. VOX  will  design  and  implement  a  contact  center  (or  call  center),  supporting  33  seats,  using  the   EAS  Contact  Center  on  the  CM6  with  the  BCMR  reporting  package  on  a  City-­‐‑provided  server.   The  following  are  included  in  this  design  and  implementation:   (a)  Discovery  sessions  with  various  City  departments,  which  will  be  using  the  call   center  feature,  to  define  the  System’s  call  centers’  goals  and  objectives;   (b)        Call  Flow  Definition  and  Documentation,  prelimary  and  final;    (c)        VDN,  Skills,  Vector  and  Announcement  package  development,  review/approval  by   customer,  programming  and  download;    (d)        Station  programming  for  Call  Center  agent  profiles  and  up  to  4  group  mailboxes;      (e)        Full  testing  of  call  center  package;  and      (f)        Cutover  and  training  support  on  Agent  programming  and  Supervisor  reporting     B. City’s  Responsibilities     1. Provide  proper  site  environment  as  defined  in  the  product  documentation.   2. Provide  floor  plans  and  cabling  schematics  as  applicable.   3. Provide  all  new  cable  and  jumpers  that  may  be  required  and  provide  a  HP  Gigabit  Power  over   Ethernet  (“POE”)  switching  network  to  support  connectivity  of  equipment  listed  in  Schedule  A   and  to  any  additional  equipment  that  is  ordered  in  the  course  of  this  Agreement.   4. Manage  third  party  vendors  providing  services  that  impact  the  outcome  of  this  project   5. Ensure  that  the  installation  of  network  and  data  circuits  is  complete.   6. Ensure  that  demarcation  points  can  be  connected  to  with  the  cables  provided.   7. Provide  access  to  all  installation  locations  and  equipment  being  installed.   8. Provide  an  on-­‐‑site  contact  to  assist  during  installation.   9. Provide  all  IP  addressing  for  the  City’s  network.   10. Provide  Layer  1,  2  and  3  IP  infrastructures  for  both  TLAN  and  ELAN  supporting  Gigabit   connectivity  with  POE  with  Quality  of  Service  (“QOS”)  meeting  the  following    performance   specifications:    The  City’s  network  will  support  the  following  at  a  minimum.    VOX  acknowledges  and   understand  that  the  City  seeks  to  achieve  the  desired  performances  noted  below  in  parentheses,   but  VOX  does  not  guarantee  these  levels  of  performance.            (a)  Latency  <150ms  (80ms)      (b)  Average  Jitter  <80ms  (40ms)      (c)  Packet  Loss  <1%  (0.1%)    (d)  Peak  WAN  utilization  <80%  (50%)   11. Provide  the  Cut  Sheets  that  document  the  telephone  set  layout  and  extension  assignment  in  an   appropriate  format  that  will  be  provided  by  VOX  to  the  City.    Sample  Cut  Sheets  will  be   customized  by  mutual  agreement  of  the  Parties  to  include  special  notifications  of  individual  user   needs.  One  example  would  be  the  requirements  for  special  line  or  handset  cords  or  special   mounting  requirements.   12. The  City  will  provide  POE  equipment  to  support  all  of  the  necessary  number  of  Class  2,  Class  3   devices  as  defined  by  the  IEEE  802.3af  Power  over  Ethernet  standard.   13. The  City  will  be  responsible  for  implementing  a  QOS  policy  that  will  classify  and  prioritize  voice   packets.   14. The  City  will  provide  a  server  for  the  Contact  Center  reporting  package.         C. Definitions       As  used  in  this  Agreement,  the  following  specific  terms   shall   have   the  meanings,  unless  the  context   clearly  indicates  otherwise:     Cutover.      This  will  occur  whenever  the  City  achieves  full  management  and  control  of  the  System  after   testing  and  assessment.         Equipment.  The  items  of  equipment  listed  in  [Schedule  A]  and  any  amendment  subsequently  agreed   upon,  in  writing,  by  the  Parties,  which  results  in  the  addition  or  deletion  of  equipment  to  the  System   covered  by  this  SOW.     Purchase  Price.    An  itemized  list  of  Equipment  and/or  Services  and  their  applicable  prices  under  this   Agreement  described  in  Exhibit   “A-­‐‑2”  and   any   amendment   subsequently   requested   by  the   City  and   accepted,  in  writing,  by  the  Parties.    The  Purchase  Price  includes  applicable  taxes,  as  well  as  the  net   amount  of  any  material  or  additions  or  deletions  that  are  mutually  agreed  upon,  in  writing,  per  the  terms   and  schedule  agreed  to  in  Exhibit  “C-­‐‑1”.       Delivery  Date.  This  refers  to  the  date  on  which  the  Equipment  is  shipped  to  the  City’s  designated  site(s)   or  VOX’s  South  San  Francisco  location,  as  indicated  in  the  shipping  invoice.     Voice  Readiness  Assessment.  A  review  of  the  System  following  VOX’s  completion  of  traffic  performance   testing  of  the  data  network  and  its  documentation  of  four  (4)  locations  to  determine,  among  other  issues,   latency,  jitter,  packet  loss  or  other  performance  issues  arising  in  connection  with  the  data  network.  At  the   completion  of  the  testing  of  the  network,  VOX  will  present  a  report  to  the  City  to  indicate  whether  the   data  network  meets  all  installation  requirements  and  performance  standards  and  is  fully  acceptable  to  the   City,  or  the  network  may  need  specified  improvements.  If  the  data  network  fails  to  meet  the  performance   requirements  and  standards,  then  VOX  shall  perform  follow-­‐‑up  testing  and  testing  of  additional  locations   on  a  Time  and  Material  basis  at  the  hourly  rates  listed  in  the  Labor  Pricing  Schedule,  Exhibit  “C-­‐‑2”.     Failover  Testing.  VOX  will  perform  a  test  of  the  primary  core  components  which  will  demonstrate  the   System’s  ability  to  lose  functionality  of  the  active  core  (DL360G7  SERVER  CM  S/D/MBT/SBC)  and  for  the   phones  to  re-­‐‑register  to  the  backup  core  (DL360G7  SERVER  CM  S/D/MBT/SBC)  and  continue  overall   System  operation.     Cutover  Date.    For  voice  systems,  the  cutover  date  shall  occur  on  the  day  of  the  interconnection  of  the   Equipment  to  the  City’s  public  voice  network  and  its  ability  to  place  and  receive  external  and  internal   telephone  calls.     System  Plan.  The  System’s  detailed  tasks  and  timeline  plan  for  the  completion  of  tasks  and  the  purchase,   delivery,   installation   and   implementation   of   the   Equipment  that  the   Project   Director   and   the   Project   Manager  jointly  develop,  to  which  the  Parties  mutually  agree.     Maintenance  Coverage  Period.    This  one-­‐‑year  period  of  time,  which  covers  VOX’s  obligation  to  maintain   the  Equipment  and  the  System,  described  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑3”,  shall  commence  upon  the  expiration  of  the   Equipment  and  System  Warranty.    The  City  shall  pay  the  annual  maintenance  costs.     D. SYSTEM  ADMINISTRATOR  TRAINING       1. VOX  Responsibilities   (a) VOX  will  provide  basic  System  Administrator  Training  during  the  installation  of  the  System,   including  logging  into  systems,  backup  procedures,  and  maintenance  procedure  information.   (b) VOX  will  provide  System  Administration  Training  documentation  in  the  following  format:   1. Documents  on  CD  format  or  paper  documents  and  training  for  the  System   Administrators  on  the  specific  equipment  and  software  at  their  site.  Additional  training   after  the  system  installation  can  be  provided  at  an  hourly  cost  to  CITY.  VOX  will  provide   training  and  familiarization  with  Avaya  support  processes  including  updating  firmware   on  the  Avaya  system.  In  addition  familiarization  will  be  provided  on  navigation  and   obtaining  support  from  the  Avaya  web  site  and  VOX  Customer  Portal.   2. VOX  will  provide  specific  ACD  supervisor  and  administrator  training  on  the  live  system   on  site  or  remotely.   2.  The  City’s  Responsibilities     (a) Provide  the  City’s  System  Administrators  and  the  time  for  System  Administrators  to  attend   VOX-­‐‑conducted  one-­‐‑on-­‐‑one  or  small  group  training  sessions  on  live  System  administration.     The  City’s  I.T.  technical  personnel  may  participate  in  the  data  entry  and  configuration  of  the   System  during  the  System’s  installation  process.       E. END  USER  TRAINING         1. VOX’s  Responsibilities  for  End  User  Training     VOX  will  provide  end  user  station  training  as  described  below  if  requested:   (a) Number  of  users  or  sessions:    Up  to  852  Users  in  groups  of  15  or  more  as  requested   within  30  days  of  Cutover.  Up  to  50  sessions.   (b) Locations:    City-­‐‑provided  facilities  with  appropriate  space  and  the  City’s  data  network   access  connectivity.   (c) During  the  hours  of  8:00  A.M.  to  5:00  P.M.  local  time.   (d) VOX  will  work  with  the  System  Administrators  to  develop  appropriate  handouts  for  End   Users  as  well  as  provide  electronic  training  aids  that  can  be  saved  and  used  by  CITY  for  future   training  purposes.   (e) System  Administrators  will  schedule  End  User  training  classes  and  be  available  for   managing  the  training  class  logistics:  training  site  location  and  availability,  confirming  End  User   attendance  and  assisting  in  training  remote  system  users.   (f) VOX  will  conduct  training  classes  specific  to  ACD  agents  out  to  the  pool  of  50  classes   included.     2. The  City’s  Responsibilities  for  End  User  Training     (a) System  Administrators  will  work  with  the  VOX  installation  team  to  co-­‐‑ordinate  and  manage   End  User  training  classes.   (b) Provide  an  adequate  training  area  for  End  Users  and  notify  all  End  Users  of  training   schedules.     (c) Provide  additional  data  network  access,  wiring  and  electrical  outlets  that  may  be  needed  in   training  classroom  to  support  temporary  telephone  sets  used  for  training.     F. STAGING  SERVICES     1.  VOX  will  receive  system  electronic  components  at  VOX’s  South  San  Francisco  facility.  Telephone   sets  will  be  shipped  directly  to  the  City’s  location  sites  noted  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑1”;  the  Project   Director  and  the  Project  Manager  will  coordinate  efforts  with  the  City.     2.  VOX  will  perform  the  following  activities  during  staging  services:     (a) Receive  CITY  equipment  at  the  VOX  Staging  facility,  and  unpack  and  inspect  equipment.   (Damaged   or   defective   equipment   will   be   processed   under   provisions   of   the   product   warranty.)   (b) Assemble  equipment  per  design  specifications.   (c) Power  up  and  execute  diagnostic  self-­‐‑tests.   (d) Load  and  test  the  configuration  and  options  according  to  design  specifications.   (e) Label  all  components  and  cables  as  required.   (f) Record  configuration,  model/serial  numbers,  and  shipping  bill  information.   (g) Repackage  equipment  for  shipment  to  installation  site.     3.  When  in  staging,  testing  is  dependent  upon  the  client  providing  network  access  to  complete   testing,  versus  the  standard  bench-­‐‑level  testing  only.  For  the  testing  process,  an  off-­‐‑site  Engineer   configures  and  tests  equipment  before  shipping  it  to  the  installation  site.  Prior  to  shipment  the   configuration  is  recorded,  model/serial  numbers  are  documented,  and  shipping  information  is   provided.     4.  The  City’s  Responsibilities     (a) Provide  secure  facilities  to  receive  telephone  sets  and  other  equipment  that  is  mutually  agreed   upon  to  be  shipped  directly  to  the  City’s  locations.     5. Staging  Address   The  Equipment  should  be  shipped  to:       VOX  Network  Solutions,  Inc.   250  East  Grand  Avenue,  Suite  55   South  San  Francisco,  CA  94080   Attention:  City  of  Palo  Alto   G. DE-­‐‑INSTALLATION  OF  CURRENT  CITY  TELECOMMUNICATIONS  SYSTEM     1. The  Parties  acknowledge  and  agree  that  de-­‐‑installation  is  not  part  of  the  Scope  of  Work  –   Services;  provided,  however,  VOX  will  provide  labor  to  support  this  task  if  requested  by  the   CITY  at  the  hourly  rates  indicated  for  a  PBX  technician  included  in  this  Scope  of  Work.     H. PROJECT  DIRECTOR’S  RESPONSIBILITIES     1. To  effectively  determine  the  degree  to  which  the  System  Plan  is  being  met,  the  Project  Director   will  follow  a  plan  to  control  and  manage  the  System  through  a  communication  plan,  change   control,  and  variance  management.     2. As  part  of  the  communication  plan  the  Project  Director  and  the  Project  Manager  will  jointly   establish  and  memorialize,  in  writing,  the  time  and  frequency  for  status  meetings  (or  conference   calls),  document  meeting  results,  and  distribute  meeting  notes,  including  action  items.    For  the   effective  scheduling  and  cost  control,  progress  measurements  will  start  as  the  SOW  begins  and   continually  be  utilized  throughout  to  measure  the  performance  of  the  Services.    The  System’s   roadmap  shall  provide  a  baseline  from  which  to  judge  the  progress  of  System  installation  and   implementation,  comparing  planned  activities,  in-­‐‑progress  activities,  and  the  actual  completion   of  those  activities.    The  Project  Director  will  identify  variances  to  plan  and  take  action  to  correct   or  limit  its  impact  on  the  System.     3. The  Project  Director  will  utilize  a  change  control  strategy  to  identify  and  document  changes  to   the  original  scope.    The  Project  Director  will  screen  and  assess  the  impact  of  the  change  on  the   project  timelines,  obtain  the  City’s  approval,  implement  the  change  if  required,  and  maintain  a   log  of  all  change  requests  and  their  treatment.    Any  agreed  to  changes  will  be  reflected  in  the   System  Plan.     4. Included  in  the  Project  Director’s  role  is  to  plan,  coordinate,  and  pursue  a  coordinated   implementation  effort.    Working  with  the  Project  Manager,  the  Project  Director  will  coordinate   and  manage  the  following  areas:     (a)  Project  Kick-­‐‑off   (b)  Ordering  and  tracking  equipment   (c)  Developing  milestones  with  customer.   (d)  Coordinating  the  installation   (e)  Performing  network  assessment  of  new  cable  and  IP  switching  facilities  as  is  indicated  in   RFP  response  by  VOX.   (f)  Billing  and  invoicing   (g)  Problem  resolution   (h)  Project  closure  and  acceptance  documentation       I. OPTIONAL  FOLLOW-­‐‑ON  PHASE     At  the  City’s  option,  the  City  may  exercise  one  of  three  options,  described  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑4”,  to   purchase   additional  Equipment,   including,   without   limitation,  hardware  and  software,  and   additional  Services  that  the  Parties  expect  will  provide  an  enhancement  to  the  System,  by  giving   prior  written  notice  to  VOX.    If  the  City  exercises  one  or  more  options  to  purchase,  then  VOX   shall  provide  the  Equipment  requested  at  the  guaranteed  prices  below  for  twelve  (12)  months   from  the  Effective  Date.     Option  1:  $193,689.84     Option  2:  $286,139.21     Option  3:  $47,158.48                   EXHIBIT  “A-­‐‑2”   EQUIPMENT  LIST  AND  PRICING     DATE: BILL TO: CITY of Palo Alto SHIP TO: CITY of Palo Alto MPN QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST EXT COST AVAYA RED 185446 AVAYA COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTION 183441 1 CM S8500 MODEL 225153 852 AVAYA AURATM ENTED R6 101- 1000NEWLIC $102.23 $87,099.96 225185 164 AVAYA AURATM R6 ANALOG NEW LIC $14.10 $2,312.40 225925 33 CC R6 NEW ELITE PER AGT 1-100 $342.42 $11,299.86 227272 1 SAL STDALN GATEWAY LIC R1.5 DWNLD 228490 3 ONE-X AGT R2 LIC FREE-MAX 3 PLD 229379 1 SURVIVABLE CORE SOLUTION 259401 1 MEDIA ENCRYPTION R6+/MBT 262653 1 AVAYA CCCM NEW MODEL 263764 1 DL360G7 SERVER CM S/D/MBT/SBC $3,102.13 $3,102.13 266523 1 R6 LARGE ENT SMPLX SOLUTION TRACKING 269364 852 ENT ED R6 MGMT SITE ADMIN R6 LIC /E 269365 852 ENT ED R6 MGMT NTWK MGMT R6 LIC /E 269366 852 ENT ED R6 SYSTEM MANAGER R6 LIC /E 269367 171 ENT ED R6 SM SIP CONN R6 LIC /E 269407 852 ENT ED R6 PS R6 LIC /E 269408 852 ENT ED R6 PS SFTW DWNLD R6 LIC /E 269423 852 ENT ED R6 B5800 SURV STN R6 LIC /E 269424 852 ENT ED R6 B5800 SIP TRNK R6 LIC /E 269425 852 ENT ED R6 ONE-XC VIDEO R6 LIC /E 270054 852 ENT ED R6 CMM R6 LIC /E 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700477094 1 CM MESSAGING R6 MEDIA KIT 700500751 1 ADMIN TOOLS R6.0 CD $22.83 $22.83 700500752 1 NETWORK MGMT TOOLS R6.0 DVD $22.83 $22.83 700500754 1 PROGNOSIS VOIP MONITORING R3 CD 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $12.87 $12.87 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD NEW SITE USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700406416 1 CABLE ASSY B25A 25FT RHS $16.22 $16.22 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700466642 1 MM716 ANLG MEDIA MOD 24FXS - NON GSA $1,057.54 $1,057.54 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700406416 1 CABLE ASSY B25A 25FT RHS $16.22 $16.22 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700466642 1 MM716 ANLG MEDIA MOD 24FXS - NON GSA $1,057.54 $1,057.54 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD NEW SITE USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700406416 1 CABLE ASSY B25A 25FT RHS $16.22 $16.22 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700466642 1 MM716 ANLG MEDIA MOD 24FXS - NON GSA $1,057.54 $1,057.54 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700406416 1 CABLE ASSY B25A 25FT RHS $16.22 $16.22 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700466642 1 MM716 ANLG MEDIA MOD 24FXS - NON GSA $1,057.54 $1,057.54 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 700383326 41 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $207.46 700480593 37 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $5,934.80 700480601 4 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $831.96 700383326 24 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $121.44 700480593 22 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $3,528.80 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 24 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $121.44 700480593 22 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $3,528.80 405362641 1 PWR CORD NEW SITE USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700406416 1 CABLE ASSY B25A 25FT RHS $16.22 $16.22 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700466642 1 MM716 ANLG MEDIA MOD 24FXS - NON GSA $1,057.54 $1,057.54 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700406416 1 CABLE ASSY B25A 25FT RHS $16.22 $16.22 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700466642 1 MM716 ANLG MEDIA MOD 24FXS - NON GSA $1,057.54 $1,057.54 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $8.10 700466618 1 MM714B ANLG 4+4 MEDIA MOD - NON GSA $352.51 $352.51 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $528.77 $528.77 700383326 41 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $207.46 700480593 37 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $5,934.80 700480601 4 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $831.96 700383326 24 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $121.44 700480593 22 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $3,528.80 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 24 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $121.44 700480593 22 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $3,528.80 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 36 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $182.16 700480593 33 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $5,293.20 700480601 3 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $623.97 700383326 14 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $70.84 700473689 1 SPKRPH 1692IP POE $822.25 $822.25 700473697 1 SPKRPH 1692IP UNVRSL PWR SUPP $79.12 $79.12 700473705 1 SPKRPH 1692IP PWR CORD NAR $15.82 $15.82 700480593 12 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $1,924.80 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 55 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $278.30 700473689 1 SPKRPH 1692IP POE $822.25 $822.25 700473697 1 SPKRPH 1692IP UNVRSL PWR SUPP $79.12 $79.12 700473705 1 SPKRPH 1692IP PWR CORD NAR $15.82 $15.82 700480593 50 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $8,020.00 700480601 5 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $1,039.95 700383326 24 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $121.44 700480593 22 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $3,528.80 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 23 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $116.38 700473689 1 SPKRPH 1692IP POE $822.25 $822.25 700473697 1 SPKRPH 1692IP UNVRSL PWR SUPP $79.12 $79.12 700473705 1 SPKRPH 1692IP PWR CORD NAR $15.82 $15.82 700480593 21 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $3,368.40 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 12 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $60.72 700480593 10 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $1,604.00 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 12 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $60.72 700480593 10 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $1,604.00 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 14 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $70.84 700480593 12 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $1,924.80 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 38 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $192.28 700480593 34 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $5,453.60 700480601 4 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $831.96 700383326 8 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $40.48 700480593 6 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $962.40 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 700383326 14 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $70.84 700480593 12 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $1,924.80 700480601 2 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $415.98 269901 852 ENT ED UCE R6 ONE-X COMM R6 LIC /E 269902 852 ENT ED UCE R6 AES UNFD DSK R6 LIC /E 269903 852 ENT ED UCE R6 AES DMCC R6 LIC /E 269904 852 ENT ED UCE R6 EC500 SM R9 LIC /E 269905 852 ENT ED UCE R6 ONE-X PRTL R5 LIC /E 269906 852 ENT ED UCE R6 ONE-X CES R6 LIC /E 405362641 2 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $16.20 700381254 1 COMPACT FLASH 128MB RHS $56.40 $56.40 700406416 3 CABLE ASSY B25A 25FT RHS $16.22 $48.66 700459456 1 G450 MP80 W/POWER SUPPLY NON- GSA $2,996.37 $2,996.37 700459472 1 80 CHANNEL DAUGHTERBOARD $987.04 $987.04 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700466634 4 MM710B E1/T1 MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $1,057.54 $4,230.16 700466642 3 MM716 ANLG MEDIA MOD 24FXS - NON GSA $1,057.54 $3,172.62 700500929 1 AVAYA AURATM SYSTEM PLTFRM 6.0.3 DVD $17.63 $17.63 700500961 1 AVAYA AURATM R6.0.1 MEDIA DVD $17.63 $17.63 700501182 1 DL360G7 SPR PWR SUPP 460WAC $264.39 $264.39 193806 1 UTILITY TRIGGER REM GATEWAY NEW SITE $0.01 $0.01 263764 1 DL360G7 SERVER CM S/D/MBT/SBC $3,102.13 $3,102.13 405362641 3 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $24.30 700406416 1 CABLE ASSY B25A 25FT RHS $16.22 $16.22 700459456 1 G450 MP80 W/POWER SUPPLY NON- GSA $2,996.37 $2,996.37 700466626 1 MM711 ANLG MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $564.02 $564.02 700466634 2 MM710B E1/T1 MEDIA MODULE - NON GSA $1,057.54 $2,115.08 700466642 1 MM716 ANLG MEDIA MOD 24FXS - NON GSA $1,057.54 $1,057.54 700500929 1 AVAYA AURATM SYSTEM PLTFRM 6.0.3 DVD $17.63 $17.63 700500961 1 AVAYA AURATM R6.0.1 MEDIA DVD $17.63 $17.63 700501182 1 DL360G7 SPR PWR SUPP 460WAC $264.39 $264.39 700383326 440 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $2,226.40 700395445 4 120A CSU CABLE 50FT RHS $30.67 $122.68 700480593 400 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $64,160.00 700480601 40 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $8,319.60 700383326 68 96XX RPLCMNT LINE CORD $5.06 $344.08 700395445 2 120A CSU CABLE 50FT RHS $30.67 $61.34 700480593 65 IP PHONE 9611G $160.40 $10,426.00 700480601 3 IP PHONE 9621G $207.99 $623.97 184048 1 MM MODEL 190930 1 MM SIP ITG 48 CHNL N/ENCRPT N/CARDS 227272 1 SAL STDALN GATEWAY LIC R1.5 DWNLD 244923 1200 MSG R6.X AV STORE SEAT TRACKING 244933 1200 MSG R6.X 1 SEAT MAINSTRM MMIP $17.19 $20,628.00 244936 1 MSG R6.X APPLICATION PLUS STORAGE 259726 1 MSG R6.X NEW SYSTEM TRACKING 264181 3 R610 SRVR AA MSG STD STRG $3,102.13 $9,306.39 405362641 6 PWR CORD USA $8.10 $48.60 700445893 1 MM MMIP SYS RET INSTRUCT OCT250 ARIA 184765 1 BCMR DESKTOP MODEL 183318 1 BCMR DESKTOP R2 USB TEN USER $8,323.44 $8,323.44 212365 1 ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS CATALOG MODEL 407349281 1 ECAS INSTALL ON-SITE 1ST DAY ZONE 2 $1,582.46 $1,582.46 700203615 20 eCAS SFTW ADD 50 EXTENSN LIC:CU $183.57 $3,671.40 700372204 1 ECAS ESSENTIALS CD 1-SITE 250 LIC $724.77 $724.77       Optional  Avaya  Equipment     Pricing  for  additional  Avaya  Equipment  that  was  requested  but  not  included  in  the  initial  proposal  or   Schedule   A:     Twenty   Eight   Percent   (28%)   Discount   or   the   prevailing   material   prices   on   the   State   of   California  supply  agreement  with  Avaya  on  telephone  sets,  gateways,  software  and  line  and  trunk  circuit   packs.       VOX   offers   to   provide   the   Equipment   listed   above   supporting   TDM   telephones   at   a   Twenty  eight  Percent  (28%)  discount  off  the  Published  Avaya  List  Prices  on  the  material   above  for  a  period  of  12  Months  following  Contract  Execution.      Optional  Non  Avaya  Material  Pricing  Schedule:     Available  via  written  change  order  for  12  months  following  Contract  Execution   CAT6  Line  cord  -­‐‑  NWPC6GR14E  –  $  6.45  –  14ft   CAT6  Line  cord  -­‐‑  NWPC6GR25E  –$  7.25  –  25ft   Handset  12ft  -­‐‑  $3.50   Handset  25ft  –  $4.25         Material Codes QTY Description Extended List Price 185446 AVAYA COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTION 212365 1 ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS CATALOG MODEL 407349281 1 ECAS INSTALL ON-SITE 1ST DAY ZONE 2 $2,500.00 700203623 1 eCAS SFTW ADD 1000 EXTENSN LIC:CU $1,375.00 700372204 1 ECAS ESSENTIALS CD 1-SITE 250 LIC $1,145.00 700501048 1 MM717 24PT DCP MEDIA MODULE NON GSA $3,040.00 700394745 1 MM712 DCP MEDIA MODULE RHS $2,030.00 700500205 1 9408 TELSET FOR CM/IE UpN $599.00 700500204 1 9404 TELSET FOR CM/IE UpN $390.00 700476393 1 G430 MEDIA GATEWAY NON-GSA $1,500.00 700476401 1 EM200 BRANCH EXPANSION UNIT NON-GSA $750.00 EXHIBIT  “A-­‐‑3”   MAINTENANCE  AND  SUPPORT     VOX  will  provide  maintenance  services  to  the  City  according  to  this  Maintenance  and  Support  Schedule.       1. TERM                 The  term  of  this  Services  Schedule  begins  on  the  Start  Date  below  and  continues,  for  four  (4)  years.         Start  Date:        October  7,  2013*            Expiration  Date:  October  6,  2017            Payment  Due                      Payment  Amount                       Start  Date:    Year  1    October  7,  2013*            Expiration  Date:  October  6,  2014                          $60,880                                              Year  2              October  7,  2014                  Expiration  Date:  October  6,  2015  $60,880                                              Year  3              October  7,  2015                  Expiration  Date:  October  6,  2016  $60,880                                              Year  4              October  7,  2016                  Expiration  Date:  October  6,  2017  $60,880     *This  schedule  covers  the  maintenance  of  the  Avaya  Communications  Manager  and  related  equipment   that  will  be  provided  under  the  terms  and  conditions  of    this  Agreement  and  this  Exhibit.  The   Agreement  includes  one  (1)  year  of  Warranty  from  the  Cutover  Date,  which  is  scheduled  to  fall  on   October  6,  2012.    If  the  Cutover  Date  changes,  the  new  Start  Dates  of  the  Maintenance  term  will  be   adjusted,  in  writing,  to  commence  one  (1)  year  from  the  revised  Cutover  Date.       2. MAINTENANCE  CHARGES     Maintenance  coverage  will  not  commence  until  VOX  has  received  payment  for  services.  The  charge  for   annual  coverage  of  the  equipment  listed  in  Schedule  A  except  for  the  telephone  sets  is  Sixty  Thousand   Eight  Hundred  Eighty  dollars  ($60,880).     At  the  annual  renewal  date  [what  date  is  this?],  the  City  may  select  optional  telephone  set  coverage  for  a   price  of  six  dollars  ($6.00)  per  telephone  set  per  year.  This  amount  multiplied  by  the  number  of  active  sets   at  the  renewal  date  may  be  added  to  the  annual  price  for  Maintenance.  Failed  Sets  may  be  exchanged  for   replacement  refurbished  sets  of  comparable  type  and  vintage.  The  city  can  mail  failed  telephone  sets  to   the  VOX  service  center  for  exchange  upon  opening  a  ticket  in  the  VOX  customer  portal.    The  City  may   also  collect  failed  sets  in  a  central  location  for  periodic  pickup  by  VOX.  VOX  will  exchange  these  failed   sets  for  comparable  type  and  vintage  and  deliver  to  the  City.  If  the  set  coverage  is  not  selected  by  the   City,  sets  may  be  exchanged  for  refurbished  units  at  the  prevailing  VOX  exchange  price  for  the  applicable   sets.     At  the  annual  renewal  date,  VOX  will  perform  an  inventory  of  components  on  the  System  and  VOX  will   adjust  the  annual  charge  for  that  subsequent  maintenance  year  up  or  down  to  reflect  changes  in   equipment  inventory  and  quantity  that  have  occurred  since  the  initial  installation  and  Warranty  period  or   since  subsequent  years  of  maintenance  coverage.  The  adjustment  in  price  will  be  based  on  VOX’s  most   favorable  current  pricing  for  maintenance  of  similar  equipment  for  VOX  customers  in  the  San  Francisco   Bay  Area.     Pricing  Adjustments:  The  price  for  coverage  of  the  equipment  listed  in  Schedule  A  will  remain  fixed  for   the  term  of  this  Agreement  based  on  continuous  coverage  under  a  VOX  Maintenance  Agreement  by   CITY.     Notification  of  Maintenance  Renewal:  VOX  will  provide  a  renewal  notice  and  invoice  a  minimum  of  forty   five  (45)  days  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the  Warranty  period  or  subsequent  Maintenance  Coverage   Periods.       3.    MAINTENANCE  COVERAGE     VOX’s  Maintenance  Coverage  will  cover  the  Equipment  listed  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑2”  under  normal  use  and   service  except  for  telephone  station  equipment.    The  City  shall  notify  VOX  of  any  defect,  specifying  the   nature  thereof,  within  the  Maintenance  period.    If  any  of  the  Equipment  is  found  to  be  defective  during   this  period,  VOX  will,  at  its  option,  repair  or  replace  the  Equipment.    Maintenance  of  the  Equipment  does   not  cover  damage  resulting  from  or  associated  with  abuse,  unreasonable  use,  unauthorized  repair  or   alteration  of  the  equipment.       VOX  has  included  Avaya  Support  Advantage  and  Avaya  Upgrade  Advantage  for  the  term  of  this   Agreement.     VOX  Monitoring.     VOX  will  monitor  the  System  described  in  Exhibit  “A-­‐‑2”  for  alarm  conditions  on  a  24x7  basis  from  the   VOX  Network  Operations  Center.  VOX  will  attempt  remote  clearance  and  dispatch  a  technician  to  the   appropriate  City  location,  if  remote  clearance  cannot  be  accomplished.  VOX  will  initiate  the  opening  of   an  Avaya  support  ticket  as  required  for  alarm  or  outage  conditions  that  require  manufacturer  support.       Service  Access.   The  City  may  request  service  or  other  support  services  by  calling  the  VOX  service  number,  entering  a   ticket  on  the  VOX  Customer  Portal  or  via  email  to  the  VOX  account  manager  assigned  to  the  Project.  If   the  service  request  is  called  into  the  VOX  service  number,  response  times  will  be  as  indicated  below  for   Emergency  and  Non-­‐‑Emergency  service.       Emergency  Service.    Any  major  System  failure,  where  the  covered  Equipment  cannot  make  or  receive   any  voice  or  data  calls,  any  of  the  operator  consoles  cannot  make  or  receive  calls,  fifteen  percent  (15%)  or   more  of  either  trunks  or  stations  are  inoperable,  any  of  the  T1  trunks  are  inoperable,  complete  failure  of   the  voice  mail  system,  and  additional  conditions  as  agreed  to  by  the  Parties,  in  writing.  Response  time  for   emergency  service  will  be  within  Two  (2)  hours  on  a  twenty  four  (24)  hour  by  seven  (7)  days  per  week  by   three  hundred  sixty  five  (365)  days  per  year  basis  from  the  time  of  notification  by  the  City  of  the   requirement  for  Emergency  Service.  For  Emergency  Service  outages,  VOX  will  remain  continuously   engaged  in  resolution  efforts  from  the  time  of  notification  to  resolution  even  if  the  prime  engineer  needs   to  be  substituted  due  to  duration  of  event  or  shift  change.    Resolution  targets  will  be  to  clear  emergency   outages  within  three  (3)  hours  for  outages  that  can  be  addressed  by  remote  response  and  six  (6)  hours  for   items  that  require  dispatch  to  CITY  locations.  All  reasonable  efforts  will  be  made  to  clear  outages  in  less   time  if  possible.  Resolution  of  outages  are  potentially  impacted  by  carrier,  CITY  data  network  problems   or  the  requirement  to  source  specialty  parts  that  are  outside  of  normal  manufacturer  recommended  spare   parts  inventories.       Non-­‐‑Emergency  Service.    Any  other  malfunction  not  defined  in  Emergency  Service.  Response  times  for   Non-­‐‑Emergency  Service  shall  be  Eight  (8)  business  hours  based  on  an  8-­‐‑5  business  day  Monday-­‐‑  Friday   except  for  holidays  that  are  observed  by  CITY.  Resolution  Targets  for  Non-­‐‑Emergency  service  outages   will  be  five  business  days  from  initial  response.  Resolution  of  outages  are  potentially  impacted  by  carrier,   CITY  data  network  problems  or  the  requirement  to  source  specialty  parts  that  are  outside  of  normal   manufacturer  recommended  spare  parts  inventories.         EXHIBIT  “A-­‐‑4”   SCOPE  OF  WORK  –  ADDITIONAL  SERVICES   OPTIONAL/ADDITIONAL COMMODITIES & SERVICES DATE:5/7/2012 QUOTE #:OPTION 1 EXPIRATION DATE: BILL TO:CITY of Palo Alto SHIP TO: MPN QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST EXT COST 185446 AVAYA COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTION 185840 1 CM MODEL ADDITIONS Presence 259761 1 AVAYA AURATM PS R6.X SP TMPLT DWNLD 263127 1 DL360G7 SRVR PRES SVCS R6.1 $12,765.38 $12,765.38 405362641 5 PWR CORD USA $13.98 $69.90 System and Session Manager 700501093 1 DL360G7 SERVER SYSTEM MANAGER $6,929.78 $6,929.78 700501478 1 AVAYA AURATM SMR6.1 RH KCKST NEW DVD $30.40 $30.40 700501479 1 AVAYA AURATM PS R6.1 MEDIA DVD $91.19 $91.19 700502315 1 AVAYA AURATM SESSION MGR R6.1SP6 DVD $30.40 $30.40 700503262 1 AVAYA AURATM SYS MANAGER 6.1 SP7 DVD $36.05 $36.05 405362641 2 PWR CORD USA $13.98 $27.96 700501092 1 DL360G7 SERVER SESSION MANAGER $6,929.78 $6,929.78 AAC 262710 1 CONF STD MODEL 232157 40 CONF R6.X STD LIC $364.73 $14,589.20 232160 852 CONF R6.X UC CLNT LIC $12.16 $10,360.32 232162 40 CONF R6.X AWC LIC $194.53 $7,781.20 263801 1 R610 SRVR CONFERENCING 6.0 STD ED $13,373.25 $13,373.25 405362641 2 PWR CORD USA $13.98 $27.96 700500055 1 CONF R6 MSFT OCS CD 700500056 1 CONF R6 MSFT OUTLOOK CD SBC 700502767 1 SIPERA R4 UC-SEC APPLNC 500 USR $14,012.35 $14,012.35 License for Apple 260101 1 ONE-X MBL SIP IOS R1/R5 NEW LIC $35.26 $35.26 266632 1 AV FLARE COMM IPAD R1 FOR CMR6 LIC $60.79 $60.79 CES 269373 1 DL360G7 AVAYA ONE-X CES R6.X SRVR $9,422.06 $9,422.06 AES 229360 1 AES 5.X PLDS ENABLE FOR APPL LIC 700501084 1 R610 SRVR AES $4,498.28 $4,498.28 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $13.98 $13.98 TERM ANNUAL TOTAL TERM 191624 1 NETWORK ASSESSMENT - 3RD PARTY 12 Ix Apple Support 232253 1 SA CM MODEL SA 257842 1 SA ESS ONE-X MBL R1/R5.X SIP IOS 3YAN 12 $5.25 $5.25 258092 1 SA ESS FLARE COMM IPAD R1 CM R6 3YAN 12 $7.20 $7.20 UA 252375 1 UPG ADV FLARE COMM IPAD R1 CM R6 3YAN 12 $3.60 $3.60 252205 1 UPG ADV ONE-X MBL R1/R5.X SIP IOS 3YAN 12 $2.10 $2.10 AAC Support 232257 1 SA MX MODEL SA 238078 40 SA ESS CONF R6 S6100 3YAN 12 $2,040.00 $2,040.00 238081 852 SA ESS CONF R6 STD EXT UC CLNT 3YAN 12 $1,533.60 $1,533.60 238084 40 SA ESS CONF R6 STD AWC 3YAN 12 $1,092.00 $1,092.00 UA 238080 40 UPG ADV CONF R6 S6100 3YAN 12 $876.00 $876.00 238083 852 UPG ADV CONF R6 STD EXT UC CLNT 3YAN 12 $639.00 $639.00 238086 40 UPG ADV CONF R6 STD AWC 3YAN 12 $468.00 $468.00 SIPERA 700502767M 1 Annual Premium Support for SBCAE appliance 12 $4,363.35 $4,363.35 EQUIPMENT TOTAL:$112,115.59 DISCOUNT: LABOR TOTAL:$67,524.71 1-YEAR WARRANTY:$4,800.00 SALES TAX $9,249.54 TOTAL PROJECT COST:$193,689.84 City of Palo Alto Option 1 UC Options AVAYA RED SUPPORT - SS/SA DATE:5/7/2012 QUOTE #:Option 2 BILL TO:CITY of Palo Alto SHIP TO: MPN QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST EXT COST ACE 700501838 2 DL360G7 SRVR 2CPU MID11 $8,527.35 $17,054.70 NTBT55RA 1 ACE App Integration Engine $867.19 $867.19 NTBT74BB 1 ACE 3.x Base SW Linux $6,937.50 $6,937.50 NTBT78EA 852 ACE M'soft Lync Bundle (user)$41.63 $35,468.76 NTTK14ABE6 2 PWR Cord 9.9ft 11CM 125VA $28.91 $57.82 GU4300AXU 852 ACE DesktopComEnablement - Partner Assurance Software Support - Plus - Service Line Number AXU $3.63 $3,092.76 GU4300AYX 1 ACE Integration Engine - Partner Assurance Software Support - Plus - Service Line Number AYX $145.69 $145.69 GU4300EA8 852 ACE OCS Integration - Partner Assurance Software Support - Plus - Service Line Number EA8 $3.63 $3,092.76 GU4300EK8 1 ACE 3.0 Base Software (Linux) - Partner Assurance Software Support - Plus - Service Line Number EK8 $1,209.44 $1,209.44 185446 AVAYA COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTION 185840 1 CM MODEL ADDITIONS Presence 259761 1 AVAYA AURATM PS R6.X SP TMPLT DWNLD 263127 1 DL360G7 SRVR PRES SVCS R6.1 $8,040.38 $8,040.38 405362641 5 PWR CORD USA $8.80 $44.00 System and Session Manager 700501093 1 DL360G7 SERVER SYSTEM MANAGER $4,364.78 $4,364.78 700501478 1 AVAYA AURATM SMR6.1 RH KCKST NEW DVD $19.15 $19.15 700501479 1 AVAYA AURATM PS R6.1 MEDIA DVD $57.44 $57.44 700502315 1 AVAYA AURATM SESSION MGR R6.1SP6 DVD $19.15 $19.15 700503262 1 AVAYA AURATM SYS MANAGER 6.1 SP7 DVD $24.80 $24.80 405362641 2 PWR CORD USA $8.80 $17.60 700501092 1 DL360G7 SERVER SESSION MANAGER $4,364.78 $4,364.78 AAC 262710 1 CONF STD MODEL 232157 40 CONF R6.X STD LIC $229.73 $9,189.20 232160 852 CONF R6.X UC CLNT LIC $7.66 $6,526.32 232162 40 CONF R6.X AWC LIC $122.53 $4,901.20 263801 1 R610 SRVR CONFERENCING 6.0 STD ED $8,423.25 $8,423.25 405362641 2 PWR CORD USA $8.80 $17.60 700500055 1 CONF R6 MSFT OCS CD 700500056 1 CONF R6 MSFT OUTLOOK CD SBC 700502767 1 SIPERA R4 UC-SEC APPLNC 500 USR $10,086.10 $10,086.10 License for Apple 260101 1 ONE-X MBL SIP IOS R1/R5 NEW LIC $22.21 $22.21 266632 1 AV FLARE COMM IPAD R1 FOR CMR6 LIC $38.29 $38.29 CES 269373 1 DL360G7 AVAYA ONE-X CES R6.X SRVR $5,934.56 $5,934.56 AES 229360 1 AES 5.X PLDS ENABLE FOR APPL LIC 700501084 1 R610 SRVR AES $2,833.28 $2,833.28 405362641 1 PWR CORD USA $8.80 $8.80 191624 1 NETWORK ASSESSMENT - 3RD PARTY Ix Apple Support City of Palo Alto Option 2 UC Options OPTION  1:  Avaya  Only  UCC   The  Avaya  Aura  architecture  simplifies  complex  communications  networks,  reduces   infrastructure  costs  and  delivers  voice,  video,  messaging,  presence,  web  applications  and  more   to  users.  Using  this  architecture,  organizations  are  able  to  rapidly  and  cost-­‐‑effectively  deploy   applications  from  a  centralized  data  center  to  users  regardless  of  the  device  they  are  using  or   the  network  to  which  they  are  connected.       Option  #1  includes  the  Avaya  core  Unified  Communications  and  Collaboration  infrastructure  with  the   Avaya  family  of  one-­‐‑X  and  Flare  desktop  (PC/Mac),  tablet  (android/iPad),  and  mobile  device  clients.         232253 1 SA CM MODEL SA 257842 1 SA ESS ONE-X MBL R1/R5.X SIP IOS 3YAN $5.25 $5.25 258092 1 SA ESS FLARE COMM IPAD R1 CM R6 3YAN $7.20 $7.20 UA 252375 1 UPG ADV FLARE COMM IPAD R1 CM R6 3YAN $3.60 $3.60 252205 1 UPG ADV ONE-X MBL R1/R5.X SIP IOS 3YAN $2.10 $2.10 AAC Support 232257 1 SA MX MODEL SA 238078 40 SA ESS CONF R6 S6100 3YAN $2,040.00 $2,040.00 238081 852 SA ESS CONF R6 STD EXT UC CLNT 3YAN $1,533.60 $1,533.60 238084 40 SA ESS CONF R6 STD AWC 3YAN $1,092.00 $1,092.00 UA 238080 40 UPG ADV CONF R6 S6100 3YAN $876.00 $876.00 238083 852 UPG ADV CONF R6 STD EXT UC CLNT 3YAN $639.00 $639.00 238086 40 UPG ADV CONF R6 STD AWC 3YAN $468.00 $468.00 SIPERA 700502767M 1 Annual Premium Support for SBCAE appliance $4,363.35 $4,363.35 EQUIPMENT TOTAL:$143,889.61 LABOR TOTAL:$117,616.71 1-YEAR WARRANTY:$12,762.00 SALES TAX $11,870.89 TOTAL PROJECT COST:$286,139.21 DATE:5/7/2012 QUOTE #:Option 3 BILL TO:CITY of Palo Alto SHIP TO: MPN QTY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST EXT COST System and Session Manager 700501093 1 DL360G7 SERVER SYSTEM MANAGER $5,372.03 $5,372.03 700501478 1 AVAYA AURATM SMR6.1 RH KCKST NEW DVD $23.57 $23.57 700501479 1 AVAYA AURATM PS R6.1 MEDIA DVD $70.69 $70.69 700502315 1 AVAYA AURATM SESSION MGR R6.1SP6 DVD $23.57 $23.57 700503262 1 AVAYA AURATM SYS MANAGER 6.1 SP7 DVD $30.52 $30.52 405362641 2 PWR CORD USA $10.83 $21.66 700501092 1 DL360G7 SERVER SESSION MANAGER $5,372.03 $5,372.03 EQUIPMENT TOTAL:$10,914.07 LABOR TOTAL:$23,842.00 1-YEAR WARRANTY:$11,502.00 SALES TAX $900.41 TOTAL PROJECT COST:$47,158.48 City of Palo Alto Option 3 UC Options OPTION  2:  Avaya  Aura  with  ACE  &  Microsoft  Lync  Client   Avaya  Agile  Communication  Environment  (ACE)  for  Microsoft  Lync  Integration  allows  users   to  control  their  Avaya  phones  and  view  telephony  presence  from  within  the  Microsoft   Lync/Communicator  client,  Microsoft  Office,  and  Internet  Explorer.  The  Lync/Communicator   client  can  be  used  as  a  soft  phone  to  drive  calls  through  the  Avaya  Aura  infrastructure  and  both   premise  and  cloud-­‐‑based  Lync  integration  options  are  supported.    Collaboration  and  video   support  is  provided  by  Avaya’s  conferencing  and  video  solutions.   Option  #2  includes  all  of  Option  #1  plus  adds  the  ability  to  use  the  Microsoft  Lync  client  at  the  desktop   acting  as  one  combined  solution.     OPTION  3:  Microsoft  Lync  SIP  Trunk  to  Avaya  Aura   Microsoft  Lync  is  an  enterprise-­‐‑ready  unified  communications  platform.  With  Lync,  users  can   keep  track  of  their  contacts’  availability;  send  an  IM;  start  or  join  an  audio,  video,  or  web   conference;  or  make  a  phone  call—all  through  a  consistent,  familiar  interface.    Lync  is  built  to   fully  integrate  with  Microsoft  Office.  The  Microsoft  Lync  2010  desktop  client  is  available  for   Windows  and  for  Mac  and  mobile  versions  are  available  for  Windows  Phone,  iPhone/iPad,  and   Android  devices.   Option  #3  leverages  Microsoft’s  robust  Unified  Communications  and  Collaboration  infrastructure  (does   not  include  any  Avaya  UCC  components)  and  integrates  to  the  Avaya  core  telephony  via  SIP  Trunks   configured  as  a  separate  PBX.     Option  1  Diagram:                                     Option  2  Diagram:                                         Option  3  Diagram:         EXHIBIT  “A-­‐‑5”   PRIMARY  CITY  GATEWAY  EQUIPMENT  LOCATIONS     1.CITY  HALL   2.MUNICIPAL  SERVICES  CENTRE   3.DEVELOPMENT  CENTRE   4.DOWNTOWN  LIBRARY   5.MAIN  LIBRARY   6.MITCHELL  PARK  LIBRARY   7.LUCIE  STERN  COMPLEX   8.ART  CENTRE   9.CUBBERLEY  COMMUNITY  CENTRE   10.FIRE  STATION  1   11.FIRE  STATION  2   12.JUNIOR  MUSEUM   13.WATER  QUALITY   14.UTILITIES  CONTROL  CENTRE   15.ANIMAL  SERVICES       THIS   LIST   IS   SUBJECT  TO   CHANGE   DURING   THE  DESIGN   AND   PLANNING  PHASE   OF   THE   IMPLEMENTATION  PROJECT.    LOCATIONS  COULD  BE  CONSOLIDATED  AND  NEW  ONES  ADDED.     EXHIBIT  “A-­‐‑6”   AVAYA  UNIFIED  COMMUNICATIONS  FAMILY   one-XTM Desktop SIP Softphone Client to control your phone calls and telephony features from your PC. Allows workers to use their desk phone in tandem with their PC while at the office, direct the voice path to another phone to support virtual or work-at-home, or voice over IP. IP Softphone w/ Microsoft MOC or IBM Sametime Integrated telephony and Microsoft Office Communicator (MOC) instant messaging presence. Click-to-call from an entry in ‘buddy’ list, an email, or a smart tag. Access all Avaya Communication Manager features, gain integrated desktop video, and click-to-call from Internet Explorer. one-XTM Portal A web based interface allowing telephony access (telephony, messaging, conferencing, mobile communications) through a secure, VPN SSL web client. one-XTM Mobile Mobile phone becomes an extension of the desk phone - calls simultaneously ring on both and can be answered on either. Seamlessly shift from desk to mobile phone or mobile to desk phone while a call is in progress. Calls placed from your mobile phone go through the enterprise communication system to take advantage of least cost routing, management, reporting, and single number identity. Maintain a single corporate voice mailbox and access advanced features like visual voicemail, corporate directory, synchronized call logs, and mid-call control (conference, transfer, call park, etc..) via a GUI on the mobile device. one-XTM Speech Speech Access to voice mail, e-mail, calendars, directories, calling and conferencing. Great for use while in transit or away from Internet connection. Modular Messaging Messaging platform enabling migration from traditional voice messaging systems toIP Messaging with the enterprise-class features, scalability, and reliability. This includes multiple telephone user interfaces (AUDIX, Aria, Serenade); and networking using both standards-based and Avaya protocols. For IBM or Microsoft Clients Integrate voice messaging directly into the Microsoft Exchange or IBM Lotus Domino message store and directory infrastructure; or keep voice messages in the Avaya Message Storage Server, and provide unified access to email and voice mail from Microsoft Outlook or IBM Lotus Notes. Meeting Exchange Audio conferencing solution that combines reservation-less, attended, scheduled meet-me, event-based, capabilities; sub conferencing, dial out, blast dial, recording, billing and reporting features. Supports 24 to 14000 TDM or pure IP-based users. For Adobe, IBM, Microsoft Use web conferencing clients like Adobe Acrobat Connect Professional, IBM Sametime, Microsoft Live Meeting and Microsoft OCS to see conference presence and who is speaking. Control audio components such as mute/un-mute lines,, add participants, etc. Web Conferencing Browser-based collaboration solution that allows users to hold productive virtual meetings. Share applications, presentations, white board, or chat. Video Telephony Make video as easy to use as a phone. Includes desktop video, multi-point, telepresence, or high definition option. Integrate with Polycom or Tandberg video conferencing solutions. SIP Enablement A standards-based SIP architecture for telephony, presence, Instant Messaging and other enterprise communications, bridging PSTN and IP on hardphones, softphones and multi-modal devices Application Enablement Application Enablement Services provides an enhanced set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), protocols and web services that expose the functionality of Avaya communication solutions to application developers. Access Services Enable access to calling conferencing, telephony features, call logs, corporate LDAP directory, voice mail, email, for mobile devices, thick clients, web portals, and speech access.       EXHIBIT  “B-­‐‑1”   SCHEDULE  OF  PERFORMANCE  –  SERVICES                  CITY  Telephony  Implementation  Project  -­‐  VOX  Milestone  Summary   Task/Milestone  Date  Range     Contract  Execution  5/25/12  *   Project  Kickoff  -­‐  Weekly  Status  Calls  Commence  6/4/12     Finalize  IP  Address  Schema  for  Staging  6/15/12     Order  Release  -­‐  Ship  From  Factory  6/18  -­‐  6/25/12  *   Pre-­‐Field  Site  Survey  and  Software  Kickoff  6/18/12     Data  Gathering  -­‐  Global/Network/Station  6/22  -­‐  8/23/12     VOX  Staging  of  Server/Gateway  Hardware  6/25  -­‐  7/9/12     Customer  Premise  Delivery  -­‐  Stations/Peripherals  6/27-­‐7/2/12     Network  Assessment  -­‐  Plan,  Execute,  Review  7/2  -­‐  7/16/12  *   Switch  Room  Ready  7/13/12     Onsite  Hardware  Installation  -­‐  City  Hall/MSC  7/16  -­‐  7/23/12     Remote  Building  Gateway  Install/Test  7/23  -­‐  8/3/12     System  Installation  -­‐  All  Components  Up  and  Test   Call  8/8/12  *   Test  and  Failover  Plan  Completion  and  Acceptance  8/9  -­‐  8/16/12  *   Arts  Center  Cutover  and  Go  Live  Support  8/17  -­‐  8/20/12  *   Finalize  Full  Database  and  Software  Freeze  8/27  -­‐  9/7/12     Station  Placement  and  Testing  -­‐  All  Sites  8/15  -­‐  9/15/12     Admin  Training  -­‐  All  Solutions  9/15  -­‐  10/15/12     End  User  Training  9/17  -­‐  9/28/12     Project  Timeline  (Key  Milestones/Critical  Path)   *Payment  Milestones  are  indicated  in  Exhibit  “C-­‐‑1”   Site  Not  Ready/Delays:       The  City  must  provide  VOX  with  48  hours’  advance  notice  if  scheduled  onsite  activities  will  be   delayed  due  to  readiness  issues  outside  of  VOX’s  control.    VOX  will  bill  the  City  for  resources   delayed  onsite  or  for  onsite  activities  rescheduled  with  less  than  48  hours’  notice  due  to   readiness  issues  outside  of  VOX’s  control.       The  billable  amount  will  be  actual  delay  time  onsite,  or  50%  of  the  1-­‐‑day  rate  for  each  resource   scheduled  for  onsite  work.           Go/No  Go  Final  Call  9/27/12     System  Wide  Cutover  10/4     Enterprise  Wide  First  Day  of  Business  Help  Desk   Support  10/4  -­‐10/8     System  Acceptance/  Hand  off  to  Maintenance  11/6/12  *   EXHIBIT  “C-­‐‑1”   COMPENSATION  AND  PAYMENT  MILESTONES     a. Equipment  and  Installation:    For  the  purchases  of  the  Equipment  and  installation  services,   the  City  will  pay  VOX,  the  purchase  price,  plus  applicable  taxes,  net  30  from  the  receipt  of   invoice,  per  the  following  schedule:       Payment  Amount  Due   §  10%  on  the  execution  of  this  Agreement  $51,698.69     §  25%  on  the  Delivery  Date  of  the  Equipment  to  the  City  or  VOX’s    $129,246.87   staging  site   §  10%  on  the  completion  of  the  City’s  Voice  Readiness  Assessment  $51,698.69   §  10%  upon  the  installation  and  demonstrated  functioning  of  Core  $51,698.69    System  at  City  Hall   §  10%  upon  Installation  and  Cutover  of  system  at  the  Art  Center  $51,698.69   §  10%  upon  completion  of  the  Failover  Testing  $51,698.69   §  25%  plus/minus  net  of  any  change  orders  on  System  Acceptance  $129,246.87     b. Equipment  Only:    For  purchases  of  equipment  only  after  the  Cutover  Date,  the  City  will  pay   VOX,  the  purchase  price,  plus  applicable  taxes,  within  thirty  (30)  days  of  the  Equipment’s   delivery.         c. Late  Payment:    Past  due  payments  are  subject  to  late  fees  of  twelve  percent  (12%)  per  annum   or  the  maximum  interest  rate  permissible  by  law  from  the  date  due  until  paid  in  full.         EXHIBIT  “C-­‐‑2”   BILLING  RATES     Labor  Pricing  Schedule  for  work  not  included  in  Scope  of  Work   Valid  for  12  Months  from  Contract  Execution     Labor  rates  for  Warranty  and  Maintenance  Contract  Customers    Hourly  Rate                           Applications:  AVAYA,  CALL  CENTER  APPLICATIONS,  IP  Telephony  Voice  Network   Services.                   Monday  through  Friday  (8:00  am  to  5:00  pm)        $120.00       Saturday  and/or  Monday  through  Friday  (5:00  pm  to  8:00am)    $180.00       Holidays  and  Sundays              $240.00       CISCO  products,  Microsoft  Support   Monday  through  Friday  (8am  to  5pm)                                                                                                              $175.00   Saturday  and/or  Monday  through  Friday  (5:00  pm  to  8:00  am)                                  $262.50   City  Holidays  and  Sundays                                                                                                                                                        $350.00                                                                                                                                                   Remote   support   for   MAC   work   or   other   technical   support   is   billed   in   30   minute   increments  (if  the  question  takes  less  than  15  minutes  =  No  Charge.)       A  Per-­‐‑Trip  Charge  of  $65.00  applies  for  all  on-­‐‑site  activities,  each  site  visit,  for  each   engineer*         EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C12144216 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND VOX NETWORK SOLUTIONS This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C12144216 (“Contract”) is entered into November 30, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and VOX NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC, a Delaware Corporation, located at 250 East Grand Avenue, No. 55, South San Francisco, California 94080, Telephone: (650) 989- 1009 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the replacement of its current telephone system with a Unified Telecommunications System (“Project”) B. The parties wish to amend the Contract by increasing the compensation for continuation of services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Nine Hundred Five Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-nine and Eighty-seven Cents ($905,869.87). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Nine Hundred Ninety-six Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-seven Dollars ($996,457.00). Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Schedule “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 2. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-3” entitled “Maintenance and Support - Amended”. SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. 1 Revision April 28, 2014 DocuSign Envelope ID: BBB443C5-54BD-469D-A36E-B3BCC013111E IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney or Designee Attachments: EXHIBIT " A-3” MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT - AMENDED VOX NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. By:___________________________ Name: Joe Gallo Title: Senior Account Executive 2 Revision April 28, 2014 DocuSign Envelope ID: BBB443C5-54BD-469D-A36E-B3BCC013111E EXHIBIT A-3" MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT - AMENDED VOX will provide maintenance services to the City according to this Maintenance and Support Schedule. 1. TERM The term of this Services Schedule begins on the Start Date below and continues, for four (4) years. Start Date: October 7, 2013* Expiration Date: October 6, 2017 Payment Due Payment Amount Start Date: Year 1 October 7, 2013* Expiration Date: October 6, 2014 $60,880 Year 2 October 7, 2014 Expiration Date: October 6, 2015 $60,880 Year 3 October 7, 2015 Expiration Date: October 6, 2016 $60,880 Year 4 October 7, 2016 Expiration Date: October 6, 2017 $60,880 *This schedule covers the maintenance of the Avaya Communications Manager and related equipment that will be provided under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and this Exhibit. The Agreement includes one (1) year of Warranty from the Cutover Date, which is scheduled to fall on October 6, 2012. If the Cutover Date changes, the new Start Dates of the Maintenance term will be adjusted, in writing, to commence one (1) year from the revised Cutover Date. The payment amounts in Section 1 above amended for additional charges, to read: Payment Due Payment Amount Start Date: Year 2 October 7, 2013 Expiration Date: October 6, 2014 $60,880.00 ADD: Session/System Manager 2,400.00 Sentry LIS E911 5,750.00 Cresis Connect 4,035.12 Year 2 Amended total (includes above services added): $73,065.12 Start Date: Year 3 October 7, 2014 Expiration Date: October 6, 2015 $73,065.12 ADD: Utilities Telstrat Voice Recording 11 - SA TSAPI License @ $0.18/month 23.76 11 - UA TSAPI License @ $0.24/month 31.68 5 - SA DMCC Full license @ $0.49/month 29.40 5 - UA DMCC Full license @ $0.96/month 57.60 Police Van 4 - SA analog @ $0.10/month 4.80 4 - UA Analog @ $0.13/month 6.24 6 - SA EE License @ $0.73/month 52.56 6 - UA EE License @ $0.88/month 63.36 DocuSign Envelope ID: BBB443C5-54BD-469D-A36E-B3BCC013111E Police Telstrat Voice Recording 85 - SA TSAPI License @ $0.18/month 183.60 85 - UA TSAPI License @ $0.24/month 244.80 42 - SA DMCC Full license @ $0.49/month 246.96 42 - UA DMCC Full license @ $0.96/month 483.84 Additional User licenses 26 - SA EE License @ $0.73/month 227.76 26 - UA EE License @ $0.88/month 274.56 Year 3 Amended total (includes the above plus services added on year 2): $74,996.04 Start Date: Year 4 October 7, 2015 Expiration Date: October 6, 2016 $74,996.04 ADD: Annual Maintenance and Support for Fire Station 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6: Fire Station #1 150.24 Fire Station #2 150.24 Fire Station #4 237.36 Fire Station #5 276.60 Fire Station #6 595.08 Year 4 Amended total (includes the above plus services added on year 2 & 3): $76,405.32 Start Date: Year 5 October 7, 2016 Expiration Date: October 6, 2017 $76,405.32 Year 5 Amended total (includes the above plus services added on year 2, 3 & 4): $76,405.32 2. MAINTENANCE CHARGES Maintenance coverage will not commence until VOX has received payment for services. The charge for annual coverage of the equipment listed in Schedule A except for the telephone sets is as amended above. At the annual renewal date [what date is this?], the City may select optional telephone set coverage for a price of six dollars ($6.00) per telephone set per year. This amount multiplied by the number of active sets at the renewal date may be added to the annual price for Maintenance. Failed Sets may be exchanged for replacement refurbished sets of comparable type and vintage. The city can mail failed telephone sets to the VOX service center for exchange upon opening a ticket in the VOX customer portal. The City may also collect failed sets in a central location for periodic pickup by VOX. VOX will exchange these failed sets for comparable type and vintage and deliver to the City. If the set coverage is not selected by the City, sets may be exchanged for refurbished units at the prevailing VOX exchange price for the applicable sets. At the annual renewal date, VOX will perform an inventory of components on the System and VOX will adjust the annual charge for that subsequent maintenance year up or down to reflect changes in equipment inventory and quantity that have occurred since the initial installation and Warranty period or DocuSign Envelope ID: BBB443C5-54BD-469D-A36E-B3BCC013111E since subsequent years of maintenance coverage. The adjustment in price will be based on VOX's most favorable current pricing for maintenance of similar equipment for VOX customers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Pricing Adjustments: The price for coverage of the equipment listed in Schedule A will remain fixed for the term of this Agreement based on continuous coverage under a VOX Maintenance Agreement by CITY. Notification of Maintenance Renewal: VOX will provide a renewal notice and invoice a minimum of forty five (45) days prior to the expiration of the Warranty period or subsequent Maintenance Coverage Periods. 3. MAINTENANCECOVERAGE VOX's Maintenance Coverage will cover the Equipment listed in Exhibit "A-2" under normal use and service except for telephone station equipment. The City shall notify VOX of any defect, specifying the nature thereof, within the Maintenance period. If any of the Equipment is found to be defective during this period, VOX will, at its option, repair or replace the Equipment. Maintenance of the Equipment does not cover damage resulting from or associated with abuse, unreasonable use, unauthorized repair or alteration of the equipment. VOX has included Avaya Support Advantage and Avaya Upgrade Advantage for the term of this Agreement. VOX Monitoring. VOX will monitor the System described in Exhibit "A-2" for alarm conditions on a 24x7 basis from the VOX Network Operations Center. VOX will attempt remote clearance and dispatch a technician to the appropriate City location, if remote clearance cannot be accomplished. VOX will initiate the opening of an Avaya support ticket as required for alarm or outage conditions that require manufacturer support. Service Access. The City may request service or other support services by calling the VOX service number, entering a ticket on the VOX Customer Portal or via email to the VOX account manager assigned to the Project. If the service request is called into the VOX service number, response times will be as indicated below for Emergency and Non-Emergency service. Emergency Service. Any major System failure, where the covered Equipment cannot make or receive any voice or data calls, any of the operator consoles cannot make or receive calls, fifteen percent (15%) or more of either trunks or stations are inoperable, any of the T1 trunks are inoperable, complete failure of the voice mail system, and additional conditions as agreed to by the Parties, in writing. Response time for emergency service will be within Two (2) hours on a twenty four (24) hour by seven (7) days per week by three hundred sixty five (365) days per year basis from the time of notification by the City of the requirement for Emergency Service. For Emergency Service outages, VOX will remain continuously engaged in resolution efforts from the time of notification to resolution even if the prime engineer needs to be substituted due to duration of event or shift change. Resolution targets will be to clear emergency outages within three (3) hours for outages that can be addressed by remote response and six (6) hours for items that require dispatch to CITY locations. All reasonable efforts will be made to clear outages in less time if possible. Resolution of outages are potentially impacted by carrier, CITY data network problems or the requirement to source specialty parts that are outside of normal manufacturer recommended spare parts inventories. DocuSign Envelope ID: BBB443C5-54BD-469D-A36E-B3BCC013111E Non-Emergency Service. Any other malfunction not defined in Emergency Service. Response times for Non-Emergency Service shall be Eight (8) business hours based on an 8-5 business day Monday- Friday except for holidays that are observed by CITY. Resolution Targets for Non-Emergency service outages will be five business days from initial response. Resolution of outages are potentially impacted by carrier, CITY data network problems or the requirement to source specialty parts that are outside of normal manufacturer recommended spare parts inventories. DocuSign Envelope ID: BBB443C5-54BD-469D-A36E-B3BCC013111E City of Palo Alto (ID # 6284) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields Turf Replacement Title: Approval of Contract No. C16159083 with Cleary Bros. Landscape in the Amount of $831,781 for the Mayfield Soccer Complex Synthetic Turf Replacement Project (Stanford Palo Alto Playing Field, Capital Improvement Project PG-13001) From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract C16159083 with Cleary Bros. Landscape, Inc. (Attachment A) for Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields Soccer Turf Replacement in the amount of $831,781. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Cleary Bros. Landscape, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, not to exceed the amount of $ 166,356. Discussion Capital Improvement Project (CIP) PG-13001 (Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields Soccer Turf Replacement) provides funding for replacement of the synthetic turf at Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields. The work to be performed under the contract includes removal and disposal of existing synthetic turf carpet and infill. The contractor will install new synthetic turf carpet and infill. Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields was built in 2006. The fields have been in high demand by youth and adult soccer leagues, and first-come first-served groups and individuals. In order to ensure safe playing conditions, the synthetic turf on the two soccer fields will be replaced. The existing base, drainage, and pad are still in good condition. The turf that will be installed at Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields, Greenfield turf with TPE infill, passed the City's environmental testing requirements for human health standards, City of Palo Alto Page 2 groundwater and surface water quality based on Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California standards. The turf contains no recycled tire products. Synthetic turf design has made improvements in terms of surface temperatures in the last five years. A 2014 study showed that the type of synthetic turf that was installed at El Camino Park, called Edel Grass with TPE infill (which is comparable with the Greenfield turf with TPE infill), is approximately 15 to 22 degrees cooler than typical synthetic turf with black recycled rubber infill. There are a few significant advantages to synthetic turf. The City’s natural turf playing fields (no lights at the field) can accommodate approximately 832 hours of play per year, while the synthetic turf fields (with lights) can accommodate approximately 2,493 hours of play. A natural grass field requires approximately 2,089,111 gallons of water each year, while the City’s synthetic turf fields do not require any irrigation. The City’s four synthetic turf fields (two at Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields, one at Cubberley, and one at El Camino Park) along with the 13 City natural turf fields (and 20 Palo Alto School District natural grass fields), are helpful in meeting the high, and growing, demand for playing fields. On May 14, 2015, an Invitation for Bids (IFB) was posted to the City of Palo Alto website with 26 days to respond to the invitation for Bids (IFB). A non-mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on May 20, 2015. Bids were received from three qualified firms (Cleary Bros. Landscape, Inc., FieldTurf USA, Inc., and Spinturf, LLC) on October 20, 2015 (Attachment B). The delay from the May IFB date to the October bids received date was due to the lengthy process to have each product tested and certified by an independent laboratory in order to meet the City’s environmental requirements. The award is being made to the lowest bidder (Cleary Bros. Landscape) for a not-to-exceed total of $831,781. Timeline This project is scheduled for 45day construction to be immediately followed by a 60 day maintenance period. Estimated construction timeline: mid-December 2015- early February 2016. Resource Impact Funding in the amount of $1,491,803 is currenlty available in the Stanford/Palo Alto Playing Fields Soccer Turf Replacement Project (PG-13001) for construction. Policy Implications Policy C-214: Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Page 3 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Attachments:  Attachment A: Contract C16159083 Cleary Bros. Landscape(PDF)  Attachment B: IFB159083 Bid Summary (PDF)   Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083                        CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT    Contract No. C16159083        City of Palo Alto    Mayfield Soccer Complex Synthetic Turf Replacement  Project       Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT  TABLE OF CONTENTS    SECTION 1  INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6   1.1  Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6   1.2  Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6  SECTION 2  THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6  SECTION 3  THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7           3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7           3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7  SECTION 4  CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8  4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8  SECTION 5  PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8  5.1  Contractor's Co‐operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8  SECTION 6  TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8   6.1  Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8   6.2  Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8   6.3  Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8   6.4  Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8   6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9   6.5  Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9  SECTION 7  COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9   7.1  Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9   7.2  Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9  SECTION 8  STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9  8.1  Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9  SECTION 9  INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10   9.1  Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10   9.2  Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10  SECTION 10  NON‐DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10  10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10  SECTION 11  INSURANCE AND  BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    11.1  Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10  SECTION 12  PROHIBITION AGAINST RANSFERS………………………………………………………………….…11  12.1  Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11  12.2  Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11  SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11            13.1  Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11            13.2  Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11   13.3  Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12  SECTION 14  DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12   14.1  Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12   14.2  Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12  SECTION 15  CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13   15.1  Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13   15.1.1   Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13   15.1.2   Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13   15.1.3   Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13   15.1.4  Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13   15.1.5   Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13   15.1.6   Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13   15.2  Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13   15.3  Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14   15.3.1   For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14   15.3.2   Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14   15.4  Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14   15.4.1  Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14   15.4.2  Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14   15.5  Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14   15.5.1   Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15    15.5.2   Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15   15.6  Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15  SECTION 16  CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16           16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083             16.1.1   For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16           16.1.2   For City's Non‐Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16   16.2  Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16  SECTION 17  ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16   17.1  Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16   17.2  Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17  SECTION 18  INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17  18.1  Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17  SECTION 19  NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17  19.1  Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17  SECTION 20  PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17  20.1  Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17  SECTION 21  WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17  21.1  Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17  SECTION 22  GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18  22.1  Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18  22.2  Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18  SECTION 23  COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18  23.1  Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18  SECTION 24  SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18  24.1  Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18  SECTION 25  PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18  SECTION 26  NON‐APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19  26.1  Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19  SECTION 27  AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19  27.1  Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19  SECTION 28  COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19  28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19  SECTION 29  SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19  29.1  Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19  SECTION 30  STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19  30.1  Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    SECTION 31  WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19  31.1  Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19  SECTION 32  DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20   32.1  General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20   32.2  Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20   32.3  DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20   32.4  Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20   32.5  Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20               Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT      THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT No. C16159083 entered into on __________________ (“Execution Date”)  by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and CLEARY  BROS. LANDSCAPE, INC., a California corporation located at 2671 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583   ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:    R E C I T A L S:    A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of  California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the  State of California and the Charter of City.    B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California,  Contractor’s License Number 778704 and registered with California Department of Industrial Relations  (DIR) under registration number 1000017107.   Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of  California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set  forth in this Construction Contract.    C. On May 14, 2015, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Mayfield Soccer  Complex Synthetic Turf Replacement Project (“Project”).  In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a  Bid.    D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other  services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions.    NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth  and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby  acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:    SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.    1.1 Recitals.      All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.    1.2 Definitions.      Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General  Conditions.  If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General  Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.  SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.    The Project is the Mayfield Soccer Complex Synthetic Turf Replacement Project, located at Mayfield Soccer  Complex, 2700 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA. ("Project").      Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.    3.1  List of Documents.    The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist  of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by  reference.       1) Change Orders  2) Field Orders    3) Contract    4) Bidding Addenda    5) Special Provisions    6) General Conditions    7)    Project Plans and Drawings    8)    Technical Specifications    9) Instructions to Bidders    10) Invitation for Bids    11) Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit    12)   Reports listed in the Contract Documents    13)   Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at  time of Bid)    14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current  version at time of Bid)    15)  City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements    16)  City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations    17) Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐ Qualification Checklist (if applicable)    18) Performance and Payment Bonds    3.2  Order of Precedence.    For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the  provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the  preceding section.  If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City  shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best  interests of the City.      Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY.    4.1 Contractor’s Duties    Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract  Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein.  Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all  things necessary and incidental  for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not  limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless  otherwise specified in the Contract Documents.  Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete  the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards  required by the Contract Documents.  SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.    5.1 Contractor’s Co‐operation.    In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide  professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project.  The Contract  requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other  members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the  Project.    SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.    6.1 Time Is of Essence.      Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.    6.2 Commencement of Work.      Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.       6.3 Contract Time.      Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed    not later than      .   within forty‐five (45) calendar days after the commencement date specified in City’s  Notice to Proceed.    By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early  completion.    6.4 Liquidated Damages.    Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of  the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess  liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion,  based on the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special  Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified  elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial  Completion.  The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable  estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.  The City is entitled  to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor,    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention.  If the total amount of liquidated damages  assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from  Contractor or its sureties.  Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial  Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages.    6.4.1 Other Remedies.  City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may  have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial  Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.    6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.      The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a  Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.    SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.    7.1 Contract Sum.      Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract  Documents the Contract Sum of Eight Hundred Thirty‐one Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty‐one Dollars  ($831,781.00).       [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates     .]    7.2 Full Compensation.      The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor  and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all  Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties  or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by  City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or  discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein.  The Contract Sum may only be adjusted  for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.     SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.    8.1 Standard of Care.    Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised  personnel.  All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a  manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in  providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.    9.1 Hold Harmless.      To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City  Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter  individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal  counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including,  without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or  arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or  omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work  or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the  active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee.  Contractor shall pay City for any  costs City incurs to enforce this provision.  Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract  Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against  City or any other Indemnitee.    Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of  any third‐party claim relating to the Contract.    9.2 Survival.      The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.  SECTION 10 NON‐DISCRIMINATION.    10.1 Municipal Code Requirement.    As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of  this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,  gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,  familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands  the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination  Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section  2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.    SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.    11.1 Evidence of coverage.      Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with  evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all  requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.    12.1 Assignment.    City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of  the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid.  Accordingly, Contractor shall not  assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by  operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or  transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract  and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City.    12.2 Assignment by Law.    The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of  Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor  is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co‐tenancy shall result in changing the control of  Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than  fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.     SECTION 13 NOTICES.    13.1 Method of Notice.      All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in  writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:  (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;  (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and   addressed as hereinafter provided;   (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;   (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or   (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.     13.2 Notice to Recipients.       All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from  Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be  addressed to City at:      To City:  City of Palo Alto     City Clerk     250 Hamilton Avenue     P.O. Box 10250     Palo Alto, CA 94303       Copy to:   City of Palo Alto     Community Services Department  1305 Middlefield Road  Palo Alto, CA 94301  Attn: Daren Anderson        AND    [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.]    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083         City of Palo Alto     Utilities Engineering     250 Hamilton Avenue     Palo Alto, CA 94301     Attn:            In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the  following:    Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office    250 Hamilton Avenue  P.O. Box 10250  Palo Alto, California 94303       All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.    All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:      Cleary Bros. Landscape, Inc.  2671 Crow Canyon Road  San Ramon, CA 94583  Attn: Mike Cleary      13.3 Change of Address.      In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing.  Each  party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which  notice shall be provided.  SECTION 14 DEFAULT.    14.1 Notice of Default.      In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any  of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract  Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of  notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety.    14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.    Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the  Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt  of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will  commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require)  and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which  shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.    15.1 Remedies Upon Default.      If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above  in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without  limitation, the following:    15.1.1 Delete Certain Services.  City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete  certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.    15.1.2 Perform and Withhold.  City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage  others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by  Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to  itself all rights to Losses related thereto.    15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.  City may, without terminating the Construction  Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of  this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,  appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract  Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume  Work.    15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.  City shall have the right to terminate  this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure  any default as required by Section 14.  City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for  default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner  specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.  Any notice of termination given to  Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein.    15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.  City may, with or without terminating the Construction  Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the  Performance Bond.    15.1.6 Additional Provisions.  All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract  are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.   Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s  authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the  Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are  not material.  City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the  Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under  the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties.  No termination or action taken by City  after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or  equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against  Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.    15.2 Delays by Sureties.      Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for  completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the  date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete  the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the  Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City  determines advisable under the circumstances.  Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination.  In addition, City  shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at  the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work.    15.3 Damages to City.    15.3.1 For Contractor's Default.  City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or  equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.     15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default  under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from  monies otherwise payable to Contractor.  If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount  payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City.     15.4 Suspension by City       15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience.  City may, at any time and from time to time, without  cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for  such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time.  The order  shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City.  Upon receipt of a Suspension Order,  Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to  minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order.  During the Suspension or  extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change  Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order.  If a Suspension Order is canceled or  expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work.  A Change Order will be issued to  cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such  suspension.    A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work.    15.4.2 Suspension for Cause.  In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor  fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may  immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension  has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction.  Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in  Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply  with the Contract Documents.  City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to  suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to  Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents.    15.5 Termination Without Cause.      City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole  upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply  with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize.  The  compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive  compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses,  including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other  consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause.   Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their  obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor.       Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    15.5.1 Compensation.  Following such termination and within forty‐five (45) Days after receipt  of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City  shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the  Work :    .1 For Work Performed.  The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the  Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to  Contractor.    .2 For Close‐out Costs.  Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors:  (i) Demobilizing and  (ii) Administering the close‐out of its participation in the Project (including, without  limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a  period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination.    .3 For Fabricated Items.  Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site  which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.    .4 Profit Allowance.    An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of  the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if  the Construction Contract had not been terminated.    15.5.2 Subcontractors.    Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase  orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that  are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against  Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.    15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.     Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice  directs otherwise, do the following:  (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;  (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,  except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not  discontinued;  (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the  notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are  outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,  payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of  the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or  modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine  necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to  terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;  (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions  thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms  reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof,  that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and  (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already  in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in  transit thereto.    Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract  Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees,    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    submittals of as‐built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations  arising prior to the termination date.  SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.    16.1 Contractor’s Remedies.      Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following:    16.1.1 For Work Stoppage.  The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act  or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any  Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City  having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency  making material unavailable.  This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from  the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience.    16.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment.   If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within  ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the  Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to  terminate the Construction Contract.    16.2 Damages to Contractor.      In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in  Paragraph 15.5.1 above.  Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation  and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of  anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental  damages, of any kind.  SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.    17.1 Financial Management and City Access.      Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper  financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting  principles and practices. City and City's accountants  during normal business hours, may  inspect, audit and  copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence,  instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data  relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the  later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such  longer period as may be required by law.      Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    17.2 Compliance with City Requests.      Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent  to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's  right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents.  City many enforce Contractor’s  obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for  inspection or copying by  issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court  of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral  testimony.    SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.    18.1 Status of parties.    Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’  of the other party.  City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or  its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.  SECTION 19 NUISANCE.    19.1 Nuisance Prohibited.    Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in  connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.  SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES.    20.1 Payment of Fees.  Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall  provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government  jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work.  Payment of all costs and expenses  for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation  shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non‐City inspectors or conditions set  forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.    SECTION 21 WAIVER.    21.1 Waiver.    A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be  deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition  contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.        Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.    22.1 Governing Law.    This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of  California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no  other place.    22.2 Compliance with Laws.    Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without  limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract.  SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.    23.1 Integration.    This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all  prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended  only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.  SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.    24.1 Survival of Provisions.    The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction  Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment  obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect  after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.  SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES.          This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the  performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does  not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not  include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance  (collectively, ‘improvement’) work.    Or     Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the  California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code.   Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has  obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work  in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this  Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”).  Copies of these rates may be  obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto.  Contractor shall provide a copy of  prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates  as a minimum.  Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to,  Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages.    Contractor shall regularly provide electronic copies of certified payrolls of the contracted project to the City  of Palo Alto in the following manner: Generate copies of certified payroll in PDF format.  The naming    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    convention of the document must contain at a minimum the contract the acronym “PWCP, number of this  contract document, and the title of project (i.e. PWCP_C16123456_Project Title).  Failure to include the  prescribed naming convention may cause an untimely delay of meeting SB7 compliance of the State Labor  Code, which could impact project payments.  The appropriately named electronic document(s) must be  emailed on the agreed scheduled basis to the following location:    purchasingsupport@cityofpaloalto.org    SECTION 26 NON‐APPROPRIATION.    26.1 Appropriations.    This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto  Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the  event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time  within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds  for this Construction Contract are no longer available.  This section shall take precedence in the event of a  conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.   SECTION 27 AUTHORITY.    27.1 Representation of Parties.    The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and  authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.  SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS    28.1 Multiple Counterparts.    This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,  constitute a single binding agreement.  SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY.    29.1 Severability.    In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,  legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.    SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES.      30.1 Amendments to Laws.    With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents,  the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City,  unless otherwise required by law.    SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION.      31.1 Workers Compensation.    Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows:    Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20  Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083      “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be  insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self‐insurance in accordance with the  provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the  Work on this Contract.”    SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS.    32.1 General Notice to Contractor.    City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854.    32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)    City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which  reads:    “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the  requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract  for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work  pursuant to Section 1725.5.  It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a  bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5  of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to  Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.”      32.3 DIR Registration Required.    City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without  proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of  Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions.    32.4  Posting of Job Site Notices.    City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site  notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854‐compliance monitoring and  enforcement by DIR.    32.5 Payroll Records.    City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code  section 1776, including:    (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security  number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day  and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice,  worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed  subcontractors, in connection with the Project.    (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified  and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office  of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively.          Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package    21                 Rev. April 20, 2015  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT C16159083    (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed  subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection  or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt  of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to  submit the certified payroll records at the end of each week during the Project.    (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within  the 10‐day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject  to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion  thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from  the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor.  This provision  supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof.    (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed  subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the  commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager  within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records.            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the   date and year first above written.       CITY OF PALO ALTO      ____________________________   Purchasing Manager   City Manager      APPROVED AS TO FORM:      ____________________________  Senior Asst. City Attorney      APPROVED:      ____________________________  Director of Community Services    CONTRACTOR:  CLEARY BROS. LANDSCAPE, INC.      By:___________________________    Name: Mike Cleary    Title: Project Manager/Estimator    Date: _________________________        Mayfield Soccer Complex Synthetic Turf Replacement Project IFB NO. 159083 BID SUMMARY BID DESCRIPTION BID BID BID BID ITEM QTY UNIT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT 1 Demolition & Removal: (Remove and Discard Existing Synthetic Turf ) 1 Lump Sum $45,000.00 $51,626.00 $127,770.00 2 Synthetic Turf Playing Fields: Install new synthetic turf to replace existing stripe new synthetic turf to match layout of existing field per Sheet L-1.0 and SF-4) 1 Lump Sum $766,781.00 $987,200.00 $875,211.00 3 Synthetic Turf Playing Fields: (Prepare and install new synthetic turf around field perimeter per Sheet L-1.0)1 Lump Sum $20,000.00 $41,695.00 $21,535.00 * NOTE: Cleary Brothers Bid includes the products from GreenFields. BASE BID TOTAL:$831,781.00 $1,080,521.00 $1,024,516.00 Cleary Brothers Landscape *SprinTurf, LLC FieldTurf USA, Inc. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6262) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: California Land Management (CLM) contract approval Title: Approval of a Contract with California Land Management Corporation in The Amount of $127,434.48 for the First Year of Service for Park Ranger Patrol Services in Palo Alto's Urban Parks, Byxbee Park and Baylands Nature Preserve From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract (Attachment A) with California Land Management Corporation (CLM) in the amount of $127,434.48 for the first year of services for ranger patrol services in Palo Alto's urban parks, Byxbee Park and the Baylands Nature Preserve for the period beginning November 1, 2015 and ending October 31, 2020. 2. Approve and authorize the same compensation for Years 2 through 5 adjusted annually on the first day of November (in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019). These rates adjustments shall be based on the most current published regional Consumer Price Index. BACKGROUND Since 1983, the City of Palo Alto has contracted with California Land Management for ranger services to supplement services provided by Open Space and Park staff. CLM has demonstrated the ability to provide services in the areas of: visible patrol; enforcement of City ordinances and regulations related to parks; emergency first aid and CPR; routine maintenance; and janitorial services. The scope of work is included in Attachment A. The City originally contracted with CLM to provide security patrols to prevent illegal dumping and to check for fires at the refuse area. CLM's services were later expanded to help monitor and potentially prevent dumping and fires in the Baylands Preserve and to provide weekend patrols of Mitchell and Rinconada Parks. In combination with the City's park rangers, CLM has been highly effective in reducing the problems of overuse City of Palo Alto Page 2 and inappropriate behavior in the urban parks. DISCUSSION The attached contract is for park ranger services for the Community Services Department in the urban parks and downtown park restrooms in the amount of $24,271, and Byxbee Park and the Baylands Nature Preserve in the amount of $103,163.48. Because of the unique range of services required by this contract for a combination of security patrol, janitorial service and first aid response, the City has in the past been able to identify only one contractor qualified to perform these services. In 2007 Staff conducted a solicitation process seeking proposals from a variety of security, janitorial, and maintenance firms for the provision of the services provided under this contract. The Request for Proposal was distributed to twenty potential bidders and was advertised for a 30-day period. The only proposal that was submitted came from CLM. With the term ending for the previous contract, staff looked to see if the market place had changed to where there is a company that could also provide a proposal for these services other than CLM. Seeking to find additional proposers who may want to propose on this contract, staff reached out to the City of Mountain View, which also contracts with CLM to provide Ranger service for several of their parks. The City of Mountain View advised that when they under took the same type of review that City Staff was contemplating, they determined that only CLM was available to provide these services. Accordingly, the City of Mountain View entered into a five-year contract with CLM. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds for the proposed contract for ranger services in the urban parks, Byxbee Park and the Baylands Nature Preserve are included in the adopted Community Services Department Fiscal Year 2016 Operating Budget. Cost-of-living increases negotiated for the second through fifth years of the contracts will be recommended in the budget process for Fiscal Years 2017-2020. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations in this report are consistent with current City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT These contracts are not projects as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and are not subject to CEQA requirements. Attachments:  FINAL---C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation -SIGNED1 (PDF) Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16161687 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CALIFORNIA LAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RANGER PATROL AND PARK MAINTENANCE SERVICES This Agreement No. C16161687 is entered into on this 30th day of November, 2015, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CALIFORNIA LAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, a California corporation, located at 675 Gilman Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301- 2528 (PH) 650-322-1181 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to patrol and maintain its Urban Parks, Refuse Area, Baylands Nature Preserve, Byxbee and Downtown Parks (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide both Ranger Patrol Services and Park Maintenance Services, in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through October 31, 2020 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 2 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty-seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-four Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($127,434.48) for Year 1. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty-seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-four Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($127,434.48) for Year 1. Compensation for Years 2 through 5 shall be adjusted annually on the first day of November (in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019). These rates adjustments shall be based on the most current published regional Consumer Price Index. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 3 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. Section Not Applicable. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 4 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Eric Mart, President, as the project director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Mike Escobar, Operations manager, as the project coordinator to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Lisa Myers, Community Services Department, Open Space and Parks Division, 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-617-3156. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 5 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 6 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 7 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 8 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.  Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office.  Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 9 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 10 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney or Designee CONSULTANT: CALIFORNIA LAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION By:_________________________________ Name: Eric Mart Title: President Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: Scope of Services + Ranger Job Descriptions EXHIBIT “B”: Schedule of Performance EXHIBIT “B-1”: Urban Parks Hours EXHIBIT “B-2”: Baylands Parks Hours EXHIBIT “C”: Compensation EXHIBIT “C-1”: Schedule of Rates EXHIBIT “C-2”: Baylands Compensation EXHIBIT "C-3: Urban Parks Compensation EXHIBIT “D”: Insurance Requirements DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 11 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES I. Purpose The City of Palo Alto is contracting ranger services for patrol and maintenance of parks, open space areas and of the landfill. The area to be covered is approximately 2,000 acres and covers diverse facilities such as the refuse area, the former yacht harbor, Byxbee Park Hills, Baylands Preserve, Mitchell Park, Rinconada Park and Jordan Middle School. II. Special Provisions The Contract Rangers shall serve in a supportive capacity to Palo Alto Open Space Rangers for patrol and maintenance at the Palo Alto Baylands area and other areas as assigned. The Contractor's Contract Coordinator shall represent and provide overall supervision of the progress and execution of Contractor's obligations as specified under this Contract and shall work with the CITY's Contract Coordinator to ensure the successful implementation of this Contract. The Contractor's Contract Coordinator shall offer general management advice, and be present at both public and staff meetings as requested. III. Services to be Provided by Contractor under this Contract. The contract rangers are required to handle a wide variety of situations in a timely and professional manner. Examples of the duties include enforcement of park regulations and park related City ordinances; visible uniformed patrol; maintenance; first-responder first aid; and security at the refuse disposal area. Maintenance activities include trash pickup; weed control; and other park-related maintenance. IV. Scope of Work 1. SPECIFICATIONS FOR PARK RANGER SERVICES The contract rangers are required to handle a wide variety of situations in a timely and professional manner. Examples of the duties include enforcement of park regulations and park related City ordinances; visible uniformed patrol; maintenance; first-responder first aid; and security at the refuse disposal area. Maintenance activities include trash pickup; weed control; and other park-related maintenance. 1. Job Sites The area to be covered is approximately 2,000 acres and covers diverse facilities such as the Refuse Disposal Area, the former yacht harbor, Byxbee Park Hills, and Baylands Preserve. 2. Field Services to be provided During the hours of service being provided as specified above, the specific DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 12 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx tasks performed by the contractor shall include the following: A. Patrol: Contractor shall provide daily patrol surveillance of the Baylands Area using both vehicle and pedestrian methods. Coverage of specific areas within Baylands area shall be adjusted as use and problems dictate. Rangers shall keep daily logs documenting this activity. B. Regulation Enforcement: Safety of the rangers is the primary concern. Where appropriate, Contract rangers shall issue verbal warnings for the following Palo Alto Municipal Code violations: smoking, animal feeding, dogs off leash, littering, and collection of flora and fauna. Unless there is a genuine concern for the ranger's safety, all visitors with unrestrained dogs will be verbally warned. Contract rangers shall use an educational approach in every possible instance and will always be polite to violators. C. First-Responder First Aid: Provide emergency first aid to visitors upon request and promptly notify Palo Alto Communications when necessary. Contract Ranger shall inform the CITY of any first aid performed and will include the following information: the patient's full name, address, phone number (home and work), date of birth, and the nature of the medical problem(s). Rangers shall also inform CITY of the disposition of the case, i.e., taken to a hospital, released on the scene and the type of first aid performed. This information will be submitted to the CITY within four calendar days of the aid being given. Forms already in use by the Contractor will be adequate if they include all of the above information. D. Fire Suppression/Response: Contract Ranger shall report any fire to Palo Alto communications. The ranger shall respond to the area safely and within the posted speed limit, following all traffic laws. The ranger shall attempt to secure the scene to prevent further damage or injury. The Contract Ranger may use a fire extinguisher, on small non-structural fires, only when such use will not place the ranger or any other person in potential jeopardy. The rangers will cooperate with, and obey the commands of, any public safety officials on the scene. E. Public Contact: Contract Rangers shall maintain a current knowledge of Baylands features, activities (including programs provided by the CITY) and applicable CITY ordinances and regulations. Contract Rangers shall provide information assistance to visitors on request and distribute any Baylands-related information CITY might wish to provide. Contractor's staff shall at all times relate to the public in a courteous and professional manner. F. Roads and Trails Maintenance: Contract Ranger shall help keep all roadways, parking lots and trails open and clear of major debris (i.e., trash, logs, rocks, etc.). DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 13 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx G. Roads and Trails Maintenance: Contract Ranger shall help keep all roadways, parking lots and trails open and clear of major debris (i.e., trash, logs, rocks, etc.). H. Signs Maintenance: Routinely, and as needed, Contract Rangers shall clean signs, especially at the Refuse Area entry. I. Litter Collection: Contractor shall provide general litter pickup within Baylands on a daily basis. All collected litter shall be deposited by Contractor at the City of Palo Alto Sanitary landfill except any item deemed hazardous, in which case shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with CITY policy and all laws and regulations. Contractor will provide garbage bags and litter sticks for litter collection. J. Disposal of Wild Birds and Animals: Contract Rangers shall remove dead wild birds and animals quickly to avoid spreading of illness to other wildlife or domestic pets. Disposal shall be done in such a manner to safeguard employees and the public by wearing disposable rubber gloves, placing bird or animal in a twisted tied shut plastic garbage bag and placing in a covered trash container, out of reach of pets or scavengers. City’s Ranger shall be notified if abnormal or increased frequency of dead birds and animals are found. K. Maintenance and Repair of Miscellaneous Fixtures: Contractors shall perform routine minor repairs to various fixtures including, but not limited to fencing, gates, and benches. If a facility or amenity is unsafe, and the ranger is unable to restore to a safe and functional condition, the ranger will cone off the area or use caution tape to ensure that no one is injured using the facility or amenity. L. Reporting of Maintenance Problems: Contractor shall report promptly to the CITY’s Supervising Park Ranger any needed maintenance repairs that either exceed Contractor's capabilities or are beyond the scope of tasks described in this proposal. Reports shall be in the manner directed by the City’s Supervising Park Ranger. M) Update posted park closure sign: Contractor shall change posted park closure sign (1 block type) at the end of shift on the day prior to the scheduled change. City will provide block inserts as needed. N) Training: Contractor shall provide all necessary training for its own staff and will be responsible for ensuring that its staff maintains current certification. Contractor will provide the CITY with rangers who have current certification in adult, child and infant cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) techniques as taught by the American Red Cross or the American Heart Association. Contractor shall provide CITY with rangers who have current certification in Standard First Aid or higher level of emergency first aid training. If a ranger has a certificate other than that listed above, acceptance of such certification is at the discretion of the CITY's Contract Coordinator. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 14 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx Contractor shall train its own staff in general maintenance and security procedures. The CITY may require Contract Rangers to attend an annual training session, to last no longer than eight (8) hours per staff member, consisting of public contact skills, customer service philosophy, conflict resolution, and review of City park rules and regulations. This will be done at the contractor's expense. 2. SPECIFICATIONS FOR URBAN PARKS PATROL SERVICES The following Services shall be provided by the contract park ranger† in the City of Palo Alto's Urban Parks Patrol program. 1) Portable barbecues are not allowed in Mitchell and Rinconada Parks when patrolled by the Contractor. 2) Noise levels shall be kept to a minimum and noise ordinances specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall be adhered to by visitors to Mitchell Park, Rinconada Park (including along the adjoining Hopkins Avenue), and Jordan Middle School Fields. 3) Dogs shall be kept leashed and under the control of their attendants at all times within Mitchell Park, Rinconada Park, and Jordan Middle School Fields when patrolled by the Contractors. 4) Garbage cans shall be regularly emptied and loose garbage shall be picked up by the Contractor from Mitchell Park, Rinconada Park grounds (and the adjacent Hopkins Avenue between Newell and Harriet Street), and Jordan Middle School Fields. 5) The Contractor shall regularly clean and restock Mitchell and Rinconada restrooms. 6) Park restrooms (Mitchell (two restrooms) and Hoover) will be unlocked at the beginning of each day worked, as directed. 7) All private vehicles, except City emergency or maintenance vehicles, will be prohibited from entering or remaining in the parks. 8) The reservation of picnic tables will be enforced in Mitchell and Rinconada Parks by the Contractor. 9) Adopted “Park Rules & Regulations” will be enforced by the Contractor at Mitchell Park, Rinconada Park, and Jordan Middle School fields to ensure the safety of park and field visitors, the proper use of the park and fields for the protection of park resources and the well-being of the adjoining neighborhood. 10) Patrol staff shall be vigilant in enforcing alcohol consumption rules in Mitchell and Rinconada Parks. 11) The permitted use of athletic fields and related park rules will be enforced at Jordan Middle School. † The term “park ranger” has traditionally been used to describe the person performing park patrol services. This term is synonymous with security agent, safety officer, or park attendant. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 15 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx 12. Job Sites Urban Parks Patrol services will be provided at the following Locations: Mitchell Park Rinconada Park Jordan Middle School 13. Field Services To Be Provided A) Regulation Enforcement: The Contractor shall provide the following regulation enforcement related services: 1) Enforcing the provisions of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (relating to parks) and the adopted “Park Rules and Regulations,” specifically those sections dealing with animal feeding, smoking, portable barbecues, dogs off-leash, noise, the control of alcohol consumption, and the reserved use of picnic tables. This is the main function of this Contract. 2) Providing such enforcement in an educational manner whenever possible, consistent with positive customer service. 3) Provide visible patrol to all areas assigned and to be vigilant for violators. 4) Dealing with minor violations in a safe manner whenever possible, but calling for a City park ranger or police assistance whenever necessary. B) Reservation System: 1) The Contractor rangers will familiarize themselves with the system for reserving individual picnic tables, group areas, Jordan Middle School athletic fields and other park facilities. Contractor rangers will pick up reservations each Friday at the Lucie Stern Community Center. 2) The contractor shall assist in the implementation and enforcement of the City's reservation system as directed by the Project Manager. C) Radio Use: Contractors' personnel will at all times carry the provided radio and will follow the procedures dictated by the City. D) Maintenance and Cleaning: 1) The Contractor shall empty garbage cans and collect litter as directed by the City's Project Manager at Mitchell Park, Rinconada Park, and Jordan Middle School playing fields (turf). Garbage cans should be emptied as frequently as possible so that the bins do not become overfilled and burdensome to empty. If the cans are too heavy for one person to safely lift, the rangers from Mitchell and Rinconada Parks should coordinate their schedules so that they can work together to empty the over-weight cans. 2) The Contractor shall open and close restrooms as directed by the Project Manager. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 16 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx 3) The Contractor's staff shall check the restrooms on an hourly basis and shall clean the facilities to the standards set by the City's Project Manager. Such cleaning shall include removal of paper and other debris from the floors, the wiping down of sinks and other equipment and the restocking of toilet paper, sanitary napkin bags, and paper towels. The Contractor shall log such cleaning on forms that they provide. At a minimum the Contract shall log the time and name of the person doing the cleaning. 4) The Contractor shall report all safety hazards and maintenance needs to the City's Project Manager on the day that the hazard or problem is observed. 5) The Contractor shall replace signs and do other maintenance tasks as directed by the City's Project Manager. 3. General Services Provided by Contractor A. Specifications CONTRACTOR shall provide the personnel services, maintenance and operations services as follows: 1. Type of Positions All contract personnel shall be designated as Ranger, and shall meet the minimum employment standards contained in the job description attached as Attachments 1. The contractor shall make every effort to hire bilingual (English and Spanish speaking) personnel. 2. Vehicles A) Truck: Contractor shall provide one (1) compact pickup truck for use by its own personnel. The truck will be equipped with a yellow light bar, a 50 gallon pump unit, a flashlight, ABC chemical fire extinguisher and first aid kit. The CITY will provide the Contractor with a list of the required contents of the first aid kit. The truck shall be a maximum of six years old with a maximum of 200,000 miles on the odometer and kept clean and in good operating condition. All required equipment will be kept in operating condition. The Contractor shall provide its employees with daily checklists and supervise the employees to ensure that the truck and required equipment is checked before each Baylands shift. The CITY reserves the right to inspect the vehicle at reasonable intervals to ensure compliance and to require that appropriate repairs be made to defective equipment within five (5) working days. The truck will be marked in a manner consistent with CITY policy as identified by the CITY's Contract Coordinator. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 17 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx 3. Uniforms and Personal Equipment Uniforms and Personal Equipment: Contractor shall ensure that its staff meets the stated uniform standards. Such uniforms shall be in accordance with CITY standards as identified by Contract Coordinator. Contractors shall present a neat and clean appearance at all times. The following standards shall apply to the uniform: 1) Personnel must wear a badge indicating the name of the Contractors' company. 2) Personnel must wear a nametag that states the person's first and last name, or first initial and last name. 3) Personnel must wear a belt that is suitable for carrying a radio. 4) Personnel must wear leather boots while involved with garbage collection activities. 5) Personnel may wear short pants, in the same color as the regular uniform pants, at their discretion. The inseam must between 3" to 6". 6) Personnel must carry leather gloves and must wear them while involved with garbage collection, or wear latex gloves for restroom cleaning. 7) Uniform pants will be brown. 8) Uniform shirts will be "Flying Cross," or similar brand and will have a badge tab. 9) The contractor shall ensure that all personnel working in Mitchell Park, Rinconada Park, and Jordan Middle School appear in full uniform. The following standards shall apply to the uniform: The City’s Contract Coordinator must approve significant changes to the uniform standards. Supplies: The Contractor shall provide its personnel with leather and latex gloves, litter sticks and garbage bags and any other tools necessary for the collection of loose garbage. 4. Tools CONTRACTOR shall provide a basic complement of non-specialized, tools for use by its staff in the performance of their duties. Such tools shall include such items such as hammers, screwdrivers, wrenches, shovels, garbage bags, litter sticks, and similar equipment. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 18 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx 5. Contractor's Contract Coordinator The Contractor's Contract Coordinator shall represent and provide overall supervision of the progress and execution of Contractor's obligations as specified under this Contract and shall work with the CITY's Contract Coordinator to ensure the successful implementation of this Contract. The Contractor's Contract Coordinator shall offer general management advice, and be present at both public and staff meetings as requested. A supervisor titled "Ranger," shall be assigned by the Contractor to work with the CITY's Ranger to implement the day to day operations of this contract. 6. Completion of Services Contractor shall be responsible, at its own expense, for the selection and employment of such staff as will enable Contractor to perform its services diligently and skillfully in order to complete the tasks under this proposal without delay. 4) Services and Materials Provided by CITY A. Services 1. Radios and Service CITY shall provide a 2-way radio system to the Contractor. The Ranger will have a portable or mobile radio for routine and emergency communication purposes. The radios will remain the property of the CITY and will be immediately returned upon dissolution of this contract. The CITY is responsible for routine maintenance of the radio(s). The contractor is responsible for any repair or replacement of the radios or associated parts and devices, due to negligence, abuse or unwarranted wear and tear. Such a decision, as to nature of the cause of the problem, will be the sole prerogative of the CITY's Contract Coordinator. The contractor will immediately report any problems with the radios, or their use, to the CITY's Contract Coordinator or his designee. The Contractor is responsible for monitoring its staff use of the CITY radio. Contractor must follow the radio procedures specified by the CITY. 2) Access To Dumpsters For Waste Disposal: CITY shall provide for access to City of Palo Alto dumpsters at the end of Geng Road at the Baylands Athletic Center for disposal of all garbage, litter and debris collected within Baylands and other areas as assigned. 3) Training: CITY shall provide all specialized training, required by the CITY, of Contractor's staff specifically for the operation of Baylands. CITY may, at the DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 19 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx discretion of the Contract Coordinator, train Contractors supervisors. Contractors supervisors shall then be responsible for training Contractor's line staff. 4) Garbage Collection: The City shall provide dumpsters and garbage cans in Mitchell and Rinconada Parks and shall arrange for timely removal of garbage fom the dumpsters. B. Materials and Equipment 1) Equipment - CITY shall provide the following equipment, materials and services: A) Tools: CITY shall provide any specialized hand or power tools needed by Contractor to perform its assigned tasks. B) Machinery: CITY shall provide machinery (i.e. mowers, trimmers, etc.) required by Contractor to perform assigned tasks. C) Materials: CITY shall provide all materials needed by Contractor to perform the tasks specified above, excluding gasoline, oil, and all other expenses related to the operation and maintenance of the vehicle specified above. CITY provided materials shall include all lumber, toilet paper, signs and other similar items required for the operations of Baylands, unless otherwise specified herein. D. Fixtures: CITY shall provide, both initially and on a replacement basis, all fixtures such as, but not limited to garbage cans, benches, fencing, gates and signs required to maintain the Baylands. E. Janitorial Supplies: The City shall provide toilet paper, paper towels and sanitary napkin bags to the Contractor. F. Signs: The City will provide all necessary signs for Mitchell and Rinconada Parks. G. Keys: The City shall provide the Contractor with such keys as are necessary to access facilities associated with this Contract. 3. Priorities Within the limits of the hours of service provided and within the general scope of the tasks to be performed, CITY shall reserve the sole and exclusive right to adjust Contractor's routine work performance. 4. Standards DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 20 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx All tasks performed by Contractor under this proposal shall be in conformance with normal CITY standards. 5. Payment of Services A) A payment schedule will be negotiated with Contractor at the time of award. The hourly rate and season base fees for each Monthly Service Period shall be adjusted each July 1st in accordance with the provisions outlined below. B) Contractor shall present monthly invoices to the CITY within five (5) working days after the end of each month. C) CITY shall pay all invoices on or before the thirtieth (30th) day of the month following each Service Period. 6. Payment Adjustments As per the terms of the contract, should Contractor fail to provide the specific hours required above on any specific day, those hours not provided may either be rescheduled at CITY's discretion or deducted from the appropriate service period. Should the CITY request, in writing (at least 72 hours in advance), additional temporary hours of service that exceed the standards specified above, Contractor agrees to provide these additional hours at an hourly rate above the normal payment specified for the particular service period affected. Should CITY wish to permanently add additional hours of service to the base established above, Contractor and CITY agree to amend the contract and scope of work in writing. The rates of payment shall be adjusted annually on the first day of July (in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019). These rates adjustments shall be based solely on a negotiated and mutually agreed to cost of living increase based on the regional Consumer Price Index. Said increase must be agreed in writing by January 30 of each year and the term hereof, or this Contract shall terminate. In any event, in accordance with the terms of the contract (Section 15.11) the Contract shall terminate with 30 days advance notice to Contractor if the City Council does not budget adequate funds for services. 7. City Contract Coordinator The Open Space, Parks and Golf Division Manager of the CITY, or his or her designee, shall be the CITY Contract Coordinator and shall represent the CITY and render overall supervision of the progress and execution of this Contract. All services to be performed hereunder by Contractor shall be subject to approval and acceptance by the CITY Contract Coordinator. CITY Contract Coordinator shall make periodic reviews of Contractor's operations and report any findings to the Contractor's Contract Coordinator. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 21 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx The Palo Alto Supervising Park Ranger, or his/her designee, assigned to the Baylands, shall supervise the day to day operations of this Contract. END OF SCOPE DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 22 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 23 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 24 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 25 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Baylands Hours of Service: The contractor shall provide basic levels of service in the Baylands (Nature Preserve, Bybee Park, and Refuse Area) as outlined below: Summer Season The first Sunday in April, to the Saturday before the last Sunday in October, referred to as the Summer Season the ranger(s) will work a schedule that will vary each year, in reflection of the City of Palo Alto Open Space calendar. This varied schedule will allow the ranger to close the landfill and close the harbor gate at the Baylands at the appropriate time close to sunset. April 1 to April 30 * coverage will be 4 ½ hours (3:45-8:15) - 135 hours May 1 to May 31 * coverage will be 5 hours (4:15-9:15) - 155 hours June 1 – June 30 * coverage will be 5 hours (4:15 – 9:15) – 150 hours July 1 – July 31 * coverage will be 5 hours (4:15 – 9:15) – 155 hours August 1 – August 31 * coverage will be 5 hours (3:45-8:45) – 155 hours September 1 to September 30 * coverage will be 4 hours (4:15-8:15) – 120 hours October 1 to October 31 * coverage will be 4 hours (3:45-7:45) - 124 hours * Dates are approximate and will change slightly to reflect sunset times. Winter Season The last Sunday in October to the Saturday before the first Sunday in April, referred to as the Winter Season. November 1 to November 30 *coverage will be 3 hours per day (2:45-5:45) – 90 hours December 1 – December 31 *coverage will be 3 hours per day (2:45-5:45) – 93 hours January 1 – January 31 *coverage will be 3 hours per day (2:45-5:45) – 93 hours February 1 – February 28 *coverage will be 3 hours per day (3:15-6:15) – 84 hours March 1 – March 31 *coverage will be 3 hours per day (4:45-7:45) – 93 hours Urban Parks Hours of Service: The contractor shall provide basic levels of service at Mitchell, Rinconada/Jordan, and Hoover as outlined below: Summer Season – May 1 – October 31 Mitchell Park – 4 hours of coverage (8 -12) on Saturdays, Sundays, Memorial Day, the 4th of July, and Labor Day. Rinconada/Jordan Park - 8 hours of coverage (8-5) on Saturdays, Sundays, Memorial Day, the 4th of July, and Labor Day. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 26 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx (The intent of the Jordon Middle School field service is that the staff person working at Rinconada Park will make brief (15 min) sporadic inspections of the Jordan field- making note of activity, noise, on or off leash dog use, and trash. They will also check and enforce rules and regulations and permitted use of athletic fields and pick up loose trash.) Restroom Opening (Mitchell, Rinconada,and Hoover Parks) – 1 hour (8-9) on Saturdays, Sundays, Memorial Day, the 4th of July, and Labor Day Winter Season – November 1 – April 30 Riconada/Jordan Park – 4 hours (8-12) of coverage on Sundays, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Restroom Opening (Mitchell, Rinconada and, Hoover,) – 1 hours (8-9) on Saturdays and Sundays DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 27 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx EXHIBIT B-1 Urban Park Hours Urban Park November 1, 2015 - April 30, 2016 Hours of Service (4 hours per date) Hours of Service Holidays Total Hours Riconada/Jordan-(Sundays Only Plus Holidays) Nov-15 16 4 Dec-15 16 4 Jan-16 20 Feb-16 16 Mar-16 16 Apr-16 16 Total Hours 100 8 108 Restroom Service (Saturday and Sunday plus Holidays) Hours of Service (1 hour per date) Holidays Nov-15 9 1 Dec-15 8 1 Jan-16 10 Feb-16 8 Mar-16 9 Apr-16 9 Total Hours 53 2 55 Urban Parks May 1, 2016- October 31, 2016 Riconada/Jordan (8 hours per date) Hours of Service Holidays May-16 72 8 Jun-16 64 Jul-16 80 8 Aug-16 64 Sep-16 64 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 28 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx Oct-16 80 Total Hours 424 24 448 Mitchell Park (4 hours per date) May-16 36 4 Jun-16 32 Jul-16 40 4 Aug-16 32 Sep-16 32 4 Oct-16 40 Total Hours 212 12 224 Restrooms (Saturday and Sunday plus Holidays) Hours of Service (1 hour per date) May-16 9 1 Jun-16 8 Jul-16 10 1 Aug-16 8 Sep-16 8 1 Oct-16 10 Total Hours 53 3 56 891 DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 29 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx EXHIBIT B-2 Baylands Hours November 1, 2015 thru October 31, 2016 Month Hours Nov-15 90 Dec-15 93 Jan-16 93 Feb-16 87 Mar-16 93 Apr-16 135 May-16 155 Jun-16 150 Jul-16 155 Aug-16 155 Sep-16 120 Oct-16 124 Total 1450 DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 16 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty-seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-four Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($127,434.48) for Year 1. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty-seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-four Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($127,434.48) for Year 1. Compensation for Years 2 through 5 shall be adjusted annually on the first day of November (in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019). These rates adjustments shall be based on the most current published regional Consumer Price Index. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 17 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx EXHIBIT C-1 Schedule of Rates Palo Alto Hourly Compensation Rates Baylands - $71.24/hour Urban Parks - $26/hour Additional Hours: Ranger - $26/hour Ranger OT - $39/hour Senior Ranger - $29/hour Senior Ranger OT - $43.50/hour Supervising Ranger - $46.00/hour Other: Trash Bags - $0.35 each Mileage - $0.575 per mile DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 18 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx EXHIBIT C-2 Baylands Compensation November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016 Month Total Hours Regular Holiday Monthly Total Nov-15 90 87 3 $6,411.60 Dec-15 93 90 3 $6,625.32 Jan-16 93 93 $6,625.32 Feb-16 84 84 $5,984.16 Mar-16 93 93 $6,625.32 Apr-16 135 135 $9,617.40 May-16 155 150 5 $11,042.20 Jun-16 150 150 $10,686.00 Jul-16 155 150 5 $11,042.20 Aug-16 155 155 $11,042.20 Sep-16 120 115 5 $8,548.80 Oct-16 124 124 $8,833.76 Total Compensation $103,163.48 Regular Rate-Per hr. $71.24 Holiday Rate-Per Hr. $71.24 DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 19 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx Exhibit C-3 Urban Park Compensation November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016 Urban Park November 1, 2015 - Ail30 2016 Hours of Service (4 hours per date) Hourly Hours of Service Hourly Total Riconada/Jordan-(Sundays Only Plus Holidays) . Nov-15 16 $26 4 $39 $572 Dec-15 16 $26 4 $39 $572 Jan-16 20 $26 $520 Feb16 16 $26 $572 Mar-16 16 $26 $572 Apr-16 16 $26 $572 Restroom Service (Saturday and Sunday plus Holidays Hours of Service (1 hour per date) Holidays Nov-15 9 $26 1 $39 $273 Dec-15 8 $26 1 $39 $247· Jan-16 10 $26 $260 ·· Feb-16 8 $26 $208 Mar-16 9 $26 .$234 Ap r-16 Urban Parks May 1, 2016- 10ctober 31, 2016 9 $26 $234 Riconada/Jordan Hours of Service (8 hours per date) Holidays May-16 72 $26 8 $39 $2,184 Jun-16 64 $26 $1,664 Jul-16 80 $26 8 $39 $2,392 Aug-16 64 $26 $1,664 Sep-16 64 $26 8 $39 $1,976 Oct.-16 80 $26 $2,080 Mitchell Park May-16 36 $26 4 $39 $1,092 Jun-16 32 $26 $832 Jul-16 40 $26 4 $39 $1,196 Aug-16 32 $26 $832 Sep-16 32 $26 4 $39 $988 Oct16 40 $26 $1,040 Restrooms Mav-16 9 $26 1 $39 $273 Jun-16 8 $26 $208 Jul-16 10 $26 1 $39 $299 Auo-16 8 $26 $208 Sep-16 8 $26 1 $39 $247 DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 20 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx Oct-16 10 $26 $260 TOTAL COMPENSATION $24,271 Rate Ranger Regular per hour $26 Ranger Holiday per hour $39 DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 18 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 19 E:\TEMP WORK - PURCHASING\WORKING FOLDER\CSD - JOSE\161687 CLM New 5-year Contract\C16161687 California Land Management Services Corporation.docx B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 EMAIL: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: 8641183E-D8C9-4871-9125-9986421C4E42 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6183) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Wastewater Treatment Plant Chemical Blanket Purchase Order - Magnesium Hydroxide Title: Approval of Blanket Purchase Order with Hill Brothers Chemical Company in an Amount Not to Exceed $536,461.03 for the Purchase of Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide for the Water Quality Control Plant and Approval of Two One Year Extensions From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve a blanket purchase order (BPO) with Hill Brothers Chemical Company (Hill Brothers) for a period of one year not to exceed $536,461.03 for bulk magnesium hydroxide slurry delivered and off-loading at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Attachment A); and 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise the option to renew the BPO for up to two additional years with funding not to exceed $552,554.86 in the second year, and $569,131.51 in the third year. Background Due to the drought-related ammonia concentration increase in incoming sewage at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) must be added to consistently meet discharge permit requirements. Without this chemical addition, violations of pH and ammonia limits would be expected. These violations would result in mandatory fines and state regulatory action against the City. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The plant discharges treated wastewater to San Francisco Bay. The discharge is regulated through a discharge permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the principal regulatory agency. Although a gradual increase in the plant’s incoming wastewater strength has been occurring over decades, the more rigorous water conservation efforts in recent years has resulted in more rapid increases. Due to the lower flow and increased sewage strength, the plant must augment the treatment process with Mg(OH)2 to consistently meet permit limits. The plant oxidizes ammonia, resulting in the production of nitric acid. The creation of nitric acid reduces the pH of the plant’s effluent and also impacts the effectiveness of ammonia oxidation. In the past, the influent sewage contained enough buffering capacity to counteract the nitric acid. Unfortunately, due to the increase in sewage strength and decrease in influent flows, the buffering capacity is not great enough to counteract the acid production. This has resulted in pH levels below the plant’s permit limit of a minimum pH of 6.5. These violations occurred once in November 2014 and again in December 2014. Staff received a Cease and Desist Order (Attachment B) from the RWQCB on February 11, 2015. This Order established tasks and time schedules for the City to complete a more permanent chemical addition system. As a result of the pH violations, City staff: 1. Provided the RWQCB with monthly progress updates; 2. Studied various changes to the treatment process and found adding Mg(OH)2 to be the most effective and cost efficient option; 3. Installed a temporary system to add Mg(OH)2 thereby mitigating nitric acid production; 4. Hired a contractor to install a permanent Mg(OH)2 addition system, which is under construction and scheduled for startup by January 1, 2016. Staff consulted with industry experts, chemical suppliers and technical experts regarding alternative chemical treatment methods. Mg(OH)2 is the most safe and cost effective product available at this time. Additionally, Mg(OH)2 has no negative impacts on the recycled water produced at the plant. Staff will review alternative chemical addition methods and return to Council, as necessary, if a safe and more cost effective alternative becomes available. Staff anticipates that City of Palo Alto Page 3 the need for chemical addition will continue even when drought conditions subside. Discussion A Request for Quotation (RFQ) for the purchase of bulk Mg(OH)2 slurry was issued on September 3, 2015. The solicitation was sent to six vendors. Three responses were received: one bid and two no bids. These bids and no bids are included in Attachment C. The responsive bidder quoted a unit price of $2.55 per gallon of Mg(OH)2 for bulk deliveries (3,875 gallons) and $3.74 per gallon of Mg(OH)2 for mini-bulk deliveries (1,600 gallons). These unit prices were based on an estimated usage quantity of 111,600 gallons. Staff has revised this estimate upwards to an annual usage of 193,450 gallons. This revision was necessary as chemical demand is seasonal (i.e., more in late dry season and less in wet season). The revision does not have any impact on the unit price. Per the RFQ specifications, the quantities stated in the RFQ and BPO are approximate and may be increased or decreased to conform to the needs of the plant. Based on the RFQ, the price for the first year of the BPO is fixed. If needed the plant has the option to extend the purchase order at an increase of 3% per year per unit for two 12-month periods. The Mg(OH)2 purchased under this order will help the plant comply with regulatory limits. Summary of Request for Quotation Process Proposal Name/Number Request for Quotation (RFQ161027) Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide Proposed Length of Blanket Purchase Order One year; options for additional two years thereafter Number of Bidders Contacted 6 Total Days to Respond to RFQ 19 Pre-Quotation Meeting No Number of Quotations Received 1 Quotation Price Range $2.55 per gallon bulk delivery $3.74 per gallon mini-bulk delivery Staff reviewed the quotation submitted on September 22, 2015. The quotation evaluation resulted in the selection of Hill Brothers. Hill Brothers has a record of reliable performance with the plant, having supplied both Mg(OH)2 and City of Palo Alto Page 4 ammonium hydroxide. Resource Impact Funds for the first year of the contract have been appropriated in the FY 2016 Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund. Funds for contract years two and three are contingent upon Council approval of the budget for each subsequent year. Original estimates for chemical addition were $250,000 per year. Given the severity of the drought and the increased concentration of ammonia in the influent, the Wastewater Treatment Fund may require a budget amendment in Fiscal Year 2016 to ensure adequate funds for operating expenses. Policy Implications Authorization of this project does not represent a change in existing City policies. Environmental Review The recommended action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (b), which includes operation of publicly-owned wastewater facilities involving negligible or no expansion. Attachments:  Attachment A - Bid Summary (PDF)  Attachment B - Cease and Desist Order (PDF)  Attachment C- Bid Results (PDF) Bid Item Description City Estimate Hill Brothers  Chemical Company 1 193,450 Gallons Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide Delivered 516,511.50$   493,297.50$          45,194.76$      43,163.53$            561,706.26$   536,461.03$          8.75% Sales Tax Bid Total Attachment A City of Palo Alto Bid Summary For Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide RFQ 161027 City of Palo Alto 1 Cease and Desist Order Regional Water Quality Control Plant No. R2-2015-0011 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Cease and Desist Order No. R2-2015-0011 City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Palo Alto, Santa Clara County WHEREAS the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Water Board), finds that: Background 1. The City of Palo Alto (Discharger) owns and operates the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant located at 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto. The plant treats domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater from the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Stanford University, and the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. It has a dry weather design capacity of 39 million gallons per day (MGD). 2. Plant treatment processes consist of screening, grit removal, primary sedimentation, and two- stage secondary treatment with fixed film reactors and activated sludge aeration basins, followed by clarifiers, dual-media filtration, and ultraviolet disinfection. 3. On June 11, 2014, the Regional Water Board adopted Order No. R2-2014-0024, which reissued NPDES Permit No. CA0037834 (Permit) that regulates plant discharges to South San Francisco Bay and Matadero Creek. 4. The Permit authorizes discharges subject to certain effluent limitations and other requirements, including limitations on ammonia and pH, among other parameters. 5. Nitrification to remove ammonia occurs in the activated sludge aeration basins and is necessary for the Discharger to comply with the Permit’s ammonia effluent limitations. Nitrification also serves as a basis to justify the Discharger’s exception to Basin Plan Discharge Prohibition 1 (Basin Plan Table 4-1), which is necessary if the plant is to continue discharging to the shallow waters of South San Francisco Bay and Matadero Creek. 6. Influent ammonia concentrations and total ammonia loads arriving at the plant have increased. From 2005 to 2014, influent ammonia concentrations have increased 58 percent, from 24 to 38 mg/L, and influent ammonia loads have increased by 17 percent, from 2,300 to 2,700 kg/day. From 2009 through 2014, ammonia concentrations increased in all trunklines. Correlated data suggest that the ammonia increases can be attributed to a combination of increased water conservation, population growth, and increase in employment in the service area (Trunkline Ammonia Evaluation and Impact on Treatment Plant Process, 2009-2014, December 8, 2014). 7. Nitrifying micro-organisms in the activated sludge aeration basins produce nitric acid as a byproduct of nitrification. This acid lowers aeration basin pH and, consequently, the final City of Palo Alto 2 Cease and Desist Order Regional Water Quality Control Plant No. R2-2015-0011 effluent pH. As influent ammonia concentrations and loads have increased, the pH of the final effluent has decreased. Purpose of this Order 8. A discharge is taking place or threatening to take place in violation of the Permit’s pH effluent limitations; therefore, this Order requires the Discharger to take specific actions to comply with the Permit. 9. The Permit contains an instantaneous minimum pH effluent limitation of 6.5 and an instantaneous maximum pH effluent limitation of 8.5. 10. On both November 30 and December 1, 2014, the Discharger reported that the effluent pH was 6.4, twice violating the minimum effluent limitation of 6.5. 11. During the 365 days from January 1 through December 31, 2014, the effluent pH equaled the instantaneous minimum effluent limitation of 6.5 56 times (15 percent of the time). The number of recent violations and near-violations suggests a worsening trend. In November 2014, the pH equaled or was less than the minimum effluent limitation more than 50 percent of the time. Future pH effluent limitation violations appear likely. Cease and Desist Order Authority 12. Water Code section 13301 authorizes the Regional Water Board to issue a cease and desist order when it finds that a waste discharge is taking place, or threatening to take place, in violation of Regional Water Board requirements. 13. Pursuant to Water Code section 13385(j)(3), mandatory minimum penalties required by Water Code sections 13385(h) and (i) do not apply when a discharger complies with a cease and desist order issued on or after July 1, 2000, pursuant to Water Code section 13301 if all of the following conditions are met: a. The cease and desist order specifies actions the discharger must take to correct the violations that would otherwise be subject to mandatory minimum penalties; b. The discharger is unable to consistently comply with the effluent limitations for at least one of the following reasons: i. The limitations are new, more stringent, or modified regulatory requirements, and new or modified control measures cannot be put into operation within 30 calendar days; ii. New methods for detecting or measuring a pollutant demonstrate that new or modified control measures are necessary and cannot be put into operation within 30 calendar days; iii. Unanticipated changes in the quality of the water supply available to the discharger cause unavoidable changes in the composition of the waste discharge, the changes in the composition of the waste discharge cause the inability to comply with the limitations, no alternative water supply is reasonably available, and new or modified City of Palo Alto 3 Cease and Desist Order Regional Water Quality Control Plant No. R2-2015-0011 measures to control the composition of the discharge cannot be designed, installed, and put into operation within 30 calendar days; or iv. The discharger is a publicly-owned treatment works located in Orange County that meets certain requirements; c. The Regional Water Board establishes a time schedule of no more than five years for bringing the discharge into compliance (The time schedule must be as short as possible, taking into account the technological, operational, and economic factors that affect the design, development, and implementation of the control measures necessary to comply with the effluent limitations. If the time schedule exceeds one year, it must include interim requirements and the dates for their achievement. The interim requirements must include effluent limitations for the pollutants of concern and actions and milestones leading to compliance with the limitations.); and d. The discharger is required to prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan pursuant to Water Code section 13263.3. 14. Provided that this Order is complied with, Water Code section 13385(j)(3) criteria for mandatory minimum penalties are met as follows: a. This Order establishes tasks and time schedules for the Discharger to complete necessary investigative, preventive, and remedial actions to address its imminent and threatened violations. b. The Discharger cannot consistently comply with the pH effluent limitations due to unanticipated and unavoidable changes in influent quality. Providing an alternate water supply is infeasible and would not affect ammonia loads. New or modified measures to control the effluent pH cannot be designed, installed, and put into operation within 30 calendar days. c. The time schedule in this Order is as short as possible, accounting for uncertainty in how quickly measures necessary to achieve compliance can be implemented. The time schedule is based on reasonably expected times needed to test, select, and implement plant improvements. The Regional Water Board may revisit these assumptions as more information becomes available. The time schedule exceeds one year but provides less than five years to achieve compliance. This Order requires the Discharger to comply with interim requirements by specified dates and includes an interim effluent limitation to ensure that the Discharger maintains at least its existing performance while completing required tasks. d. The Discharger has prepared and currently implements a pollution prevention plan in accordance with Permit requirements. The plan contains the elements listed in Water Code section 13263.3(d)(3). This Order requires continued implementation of the existing pollution prevention plan. City of Palo Alto 4 Cease and Desist Order Regional Water Quality Control Plant No. R2-2015-0011 15. This Order is an enforcement action and, as such, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) in accordance with California Code of Regulations title 14, section 15321. 16. The Regional Water Board has notified the Discharger and interested persons of its intent to consider adoption of this Order and provided an opportunity to submit written comments and appear at a public hearing. The Regional Water Board, in a public hearing, heard and considered all comments. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with Water Code section 13301, that the Discharger shall cease and desist from discharging and threatening to discharge wastes in violation of the Permit (Order No. R2-2014-0024) and comply with the following provisions: 1. Interim Effluent Limitation and Requirements. The Discharger shall comply with the following interim effluent limitation and requirements: a. The Discharger shall comply with an interim instantaneous minimum pH effluent limitation of 6.0. Compliance shall be measured at Monitoring Location EFF-001 as described in Permit Attachment E. b. The Discharger shall complete the prescribed actions listed in Table 1, below, in accordance with the time schedule provided therein to achieve compliance with Permit requirements. The Discharger shall revise deliverables to incorporate any comments the Executive Officer may make to ensure that the deliverables are adequate and acceptably comply with the requirements of this Order. The Discharger shall implement all actions set forth for each deliverable. c. The Discharger shall continue to implement the pollution prevention plan as required by Permit section VI.C.3. Table 1 Time Schedule and Prescribed Actions Task Compliance Date a. Submit pH Control Plan: Submit a plan for controlling pH and complying with the pH effluent limitation of the Permit using chemical addition through a chemical delivery system, or using alternate means, and report on performance efforts to date. April 1, 2015 b. Submit Preliminary Engineering Report and Schedule: Develop engineering plans to implement the actions in Task “a” and submit a Preliminary Engineering Report describing them. The Preliminary Engineering Report shall include preliminary design details, cost estimates, and a schedule for each action. The schedule shall include dates for completion and descriptions of at least the following milestones: i. Secure funding ii. Complete bench tests, if necessary iii. Complete final design details iv. Commence construction v. Complete construction vi. Complete pilot tests, if necessary vii. Commence full scale operation June 1, 2015 City of Palo Alto 5 Cease and Desist Order Regional Water Quality Control Plant No. R2-2015-0011 Task Compliance Date c. Implement Plan and Report on Progress: Implement the plan described in Task “a” in accordance with the report and schedule described in Task “b” and incorporate any changes the Executive Officer may provide. Submit monthly and annual status reports that describe progress and summarize planned changes. Reports shall evaluate whether the Discharger is on track to successfully bring the discharge into compliance with the Permit’s pH effluent limitations. If not, the Discharger shall identify additional measures to further control pH and implement them. Report with Permit-required self-monitoring reports beginning July 30, 2015 d. Achieve Compliance with pH Effluent Limitations: Submit documentation confirming complete implementation of the plans required by tasks “a” and “b” and achieve full compliance with the pH effluent limitations as established in Permit section IV.A. April 1, 2017 2. Consequences of Non-Compliance. If the Discharger fails to comply with the provisions of this Order, it may be subject to enforcement action(s), including, but not limited to, administrative or judicial civil liability. 3. Force Majeure. If the Discharger is delayed, interrupted, or prevented from meeting the provisions and time schedule of this Order due to a force majeure*, the Discharger shall notify the Executive Officer in writing within ten days of the date that the Discharger first knows of the force majeure. The Discharger shall demonstrate that timely compliance with the Order or any affected deadlines will be actually and necessarily delayed and that it has taken measures to avoid or mitigate the delay by exercising all reasonable precautions and efforts, whether before or after the occurrence of the force majeure. 4. Mandatory Minimum Penalties. Violations of the Permit instantaneous minimum pH effluent limitation shall not be subject to the mandatory minimum penalties required by Water Code sections 13385(h) and (i) as long as the Discharger complies with the requirements of this Order. If the Discharger fails to comply with this Order, including, but not limited to, the interim pH effluent limitation, the Discharger shall be subject to mandatory minimum penalties for all Permit pH violations for the entire calendar month during which the non-compliance occurs. If the Discharger returns to full compliance with this Order, Permit pH violations shall again not be subject to mandatory minimum penalties as of the first day of the month following the return to full compliance. 5. Effective Date. This Order shall be effective immediately upon Regional Water Board adoption. * A “force majeure” is an event that could not have been anticipated by and is beyond the control of the Discharger, such as an act of God; earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster (not including the ongoing drought, which is a known condition); civil disturbance; fire or explosion; declared war within the United States; or embargo. “Force majeure” does not include delays caused by funding, contractor performance, equipment delivery and quality, weather, permitting, other construction-related issues, CEQA challenges, initiative litigation, or adverse legislation. City of Palo Alto 6 Cease and Desist Order Regional Water Quality Control Plant No. R2-2015-0011 I, Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, on February 11, 2015. Bruce H. Wolfe Executive Officer Line Totals (Unit Price * Quantity) Item Num Section Item Code Item Type Description Unit of Measure Quantity Sierra Chemical  Co.Univar USA Inc Hill Brothers  Chemical Company 1 Section 1 Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide(truckloads, approx.3875 gallons)GL 110000 $0.00 $0.00 $280,500.00 2 Section 1 Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide(Minibulk Truckloads approx.1600 gallons) GL 1600 $0.00 $0.00 $5,984.00 3 Section 1 8.75% Sales Tax LT 1 $0.00 $0.00 $25,067.35 Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $311,551.35 Total $0.00 $0.00 $311,551.35 Unit Price Item Num Section Item Code Item Type Description Unit of Measure Quantity Sierra Chemical  Co.Univar USA Inc Hill Brothers  Chemical Company 1 Section 1 Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide(truckloads, approx.3875 gallons)GL 110000 $0.00 $0.00 $2.55 2 Section 1 Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide(Minibulk Truckloads approx.1600 gallons) GL 1600 $0.00 $0.00 $3.74 3 Section 1 8.75% Sales Tax LT 1 $0.00 $0.00 $25,067.35 Attachment C City Of Palo Alto  Bid Results for Bulk Magnesium Hydroxide (RFQ161027) CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY November 30, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Authorization to Amend the Legal Services Agreement with the Law Offices of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai to Add $45,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $95,000 for Litigation Defense Services The City Attorney's Office requests authorization to amend the existing contract with the law firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai, Attorneys at Law (Renne Sloan) by increasing the not to exceed amount of the compensation by an additional $45,000. This amendment will bring the not to exceed amount of the contract to $95,000. The City retained Renne Sloan in October 2014 to represent the City in the appeal of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decision in the matter of IAFF, Local 1319 AFL-CIO v. City of Palo Alto, Sixth Appellate District, H041407. The matter is pending before the Court of Appeal. An additional $45,000 is needed to fully fund briefing and oral argument before the Court of Appeal. Funding for this contract amendment does not require additional budgetary authority as it can be accommodated within the Office of the City Attorney’s FY 2016 legal services budget. Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY November 30, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Authorization to Amend the Legal Services Agreement with the Law Offices of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai to Add $45,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $95,000 for Litigation Defense Services The City Attorney's Office requests authorization to amend the existing contract with the law firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai, Attorneys at Law (Renne Sloan) by increasing the not to exceed amount of the compensation by an additional $45,000. This amendment will bring the not to exceed amount of the contract to $95,000. The City retained Renne Sloan in October 2014 to represent the City in the appeal of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decision in the matter of IAFF, Local 1319 AFL-CIO v. City of Palo Alto, Sixth Appellate District, H041407. The matter is pending before the Court of Appeal. An additional $45,000 is needed to fully fund briefing and oral argument before the Court of Appeal. Funding for this contract amendment does not require additional budgetary authority as it can be accommodated within the Office of the City Attorney’s FY 2016 legal services budget. Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6369) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Caltrain Go Pass Reauthorization for 2016 Title: Approval of a Contract with Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in the Amount of $89,490 for 2016 Caltrain Go Pass Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign an agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for continuation of the Caltrain Go Pass program for City employees for the 2016 calendar year. Background: On February 24, 2014, Council directed staff to move forward with several Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives, including the authorization for City staff located in Downtown Palo Alto offices to participate in the Caltrain Go Pass Program for a 9 month trial. The trial period resulted in 51 employees participating in the program. On November 11, 2014, the City Council reaffirmed the action by approving the extension of the program through December 2015. The program cost $80,280 for 446 employees at $180 per employee. The cost of the program was funded out of the General Benefits Fund, an internal service fund that collects funds from City departments to pay for various employee benefits, such as health insurance, pension contributions, and commuter benefits. As of October 31, 2015, 127 employees have participated in the program with an average of 13.3 round trips per month. Discussion Staff is returning to Council for re-authorization of the program as parking and traffic remain a concern in Downtown Palo Alto. The City is focused on developing a commuter incentive program to encourage employees to use sustainable transportation modes. Staff recommends that all employees located at Civic Center (City Hall, Development Center, Palo Alto Police Department and the Downtown Library) receive a Caltrain Go Pass through 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 2 In preparation for the 2016 program year, staff conducted an employee location audit, as per the Caltrain program policy. The cost of the program is based on the number of employees at each eligible site, not the number who actually use it. The results indicated 471 employees work at the Civic Center sites. Therefore, with Caltrain’s new rate of $190 per employee, the total cost for 2016 will be $89,490. Staff members who receive a Go Pass will be required to complete a quarterly reporting of usage in order to keep their Go Pass active throughout 2016. Staff will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Go Pass at all City work sites in the coming year and will be promoting increased use of the Go Pass in conjunction with other TDM initiatives currently being considered. Staff will return to Council in November 2016 with an update on the program and recommendations for 2017. Resource Impact: As part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Operating Budget, $85,000 was budgeted in the General Benefits Fund in anticipation of staff recommending an extension of the Go Pass Program through the end of calendar year 2016. No additional funding is needed to cover the additional $4,490 as it will be funded through other savings within the General Benefits Fund. Attachments:  Attachmemt A: Caltrain Go Pass 2016 Program Information (PDF)  Attachment B: Staff Report 11-10-14 (PDF) Go Pass Process Introduction Overview of the Program The Go Pass is an annual pass purchased by companies, residential complexes and educational institutions for all of their eligible Go Pass users regardless of how many users are going to take advantage of the Go Pass benefit. Go Pass user definitions are as follows: Businesses: All staff working more than 20 hours per week excluding contractors, consultants, interns and temporary employees. Companies have the option to include interns and employees working less than 20 hours per week. Residential Complexes: All residents five years old and older Educational Institutions: All students per selected group (i.e. Part-time, Full-time, Post graduates) A Go Pass sticker is affixed to an identification badge, and the user presents it on the train as proof of payment. The Go Pass is good for travel on Caltrain between all zones, seven days a week, for one low annual cost per user. The Go Pass is valid through the last day of the calendar year. The Go Pass is not available for purchase by individuals and it cannot be used on other transit systems. Parking is not included with the Go Pass and must be purchased separately. To participate in the Go Pass program, participants sign a written agreement with Caltrain, have an acceptable photo identification badge where the participant can affix the Go Pass sticker and track the distribution of Go passes to its users. Due to the fare enforcement crew notification, Go Pass participants may start the program on the 1st or 15th of the month. Go Pass users receiving a Go Pass sticker are required to complete an online survey and agree with the Go Pass Use Acknowledgement. Sign-Up Process Step 1 – Letter of Intent A Letter of Intent (LOI) to participate in the Go Pass Program must be submitted to Caltrain. The LOI must be written on participant company letterhead and should include the participant’s interest in participating in the {XXXX} year Go Pass Program, the total number of eligible Go Pass users, the total cost of the program and total number of participating sites in the program. If there are multiple sites, the LOI must include the site addresses and number of eligible users at each location. The LOI must be signed by a Human Resources Director, Officer of the Participant Company or Development Manager. LOI requirements are listed in the agreement (Page 2, Item 4). The Go Pass participant may e-mail the LOI and mail the original. Note: If a company is including part-time employees (all staff working less than 20 hours per week excluding contractors, consultants, temporary employees and interns) and/or interns, the total number must be included in the LOI. Step 2 –Identification Badge A sample identification badge must be submitted to Caltrain for approval. Participant should first e-mail the badge to Caltrain for review prior to sending the actual sample in case changes have to be made. The physical sample must be received and approved eight business days prior to the program effective date (1st or 15th of month). Badges should be big enough (typically the size of a business card) to display the following required information:  Company/Development logo, name or both  A clear user headshot (Minimum 1.25” in height) Go Pass Process Introduction  User’s first and last name  1” square blank space for Go Pass sticker It’s preferred that the badge is one-sided and be a minimum of .023 mil thickness. If the Go Pass participant is making badges specifically for the Go Pass program, they should send the badge to Caltrain for review prior to having them all made. Step 3 – Agreement and Invoice Caltrain will e-mail the agreement and invoice to the Go pass participant within five business days of receiving the Letter of Intent. Caltrain requires two original signed sets of the agreement and payment of the invoice (Please note that Caltrain doesn’t accept electronic signatures at this time). The agreements must be signed according to the signing requirements below the signature line on page one of the agreement. To expedite the process, the executed agreements may be sent to Caltrain separate from the payment. Step 4 – Survey All the Go Pass users must complete a one-time survey and the Go Pass Participant administrator must receive the automated confirmation e-mail from no-reply.6ydd@zapiermail.com indicating the user completed the survey and agreed with the “Go Pass Use Acknowledgement”. Caltrain will e-mail the Go Pass participant the survey link so it can start to notify its users. Survey responses will be used for statistical purposes only. Step 5 – Distribution of Go passes Caltrain will contact the participant when the agreements have been fully executed and all items have been received to schedule a delivery or pick-up of the Go passes. Caltrain requires a five-business day turnaround time to deliver the Go Pass package upon receiving all Go Pass sign-up items. The following pages include a sample agreement, tracking log, Letter of Intent and survey information. Also, below is a sign-up checklist that you may utilize during the sign-up process. Thank you for your consideration in participating in our Go Pass program! Sign-Up Checklist Item 1. Send Letter of Intent to Caltrain 2. E-mail ID badge sample to Caltrain * 3. Send actual ID badge sample to Caltrain once e-badge is approved 4. Receive agreement and invoice from Caltrain 5. Return two signed original agreement sets to Caltrain 6. Send payment to Caltrain 7. Receive survey link and information from Caltrain 8. Send survey link to users 9. Receive Go Pass package * Renewing Go Pass participants must submit an e-badge sample to Caltrain even if the ID badge is not changing for the new program year. S A M P L E 1 11374379.1 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 2016 CALTRAIN GO PASS AGREEMENT Participant Name: Address: Billing/Notice Address (if different from above): Contact Person: Email: Phone: Fax: Total Payment: $X Number of Participating Sites: X Number of Go Pass Users as defined below: X Go Pass Eligibility Business All staff working more than 20 hours per week, excluding temporary employees, interns, contractors and consultants, are considered “Go Pass Users” for the purpose of this Agreement. Temporary employees, interns, contractors and consultants are not eligible to participate in the Go Pass Program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if one or both of the Options offered below is selected, employees working less than 20 hours per week and/or interns will be considered “Go Pass Users” under this Agreement. Options Include staff working less than 20 hours per week: X Include interns: X Residential All residents five years old and older are considered “Go Pass Users” for the purpose of this Agreement. Employees of residential developments are excluded from the Go Pass Program. Educational All students per selected group (i.e. Part-time, Full-time, Post graduates) are considered “Go Pass Users” for the purpose of this Agreement. Agreement Term: January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 Participant agrees to the attached terms and conditions XXX* By: Print Name: Its: By: Print Name: Its: PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD By: Print Name: Rita P. Haskin Its: Executive Officer, Customer Service and Marketing * If Participant is a corporation or limited liability company, two corporate officers must sign on behalf of the corporation as follows: 1) the chairman of the board, president or vice-president; and 2) the secretary, assistant secretary, chief financial officer, or assistant treasurer. In the alternative, this Agreement may be executed by a single officer or a person other than an officer provided that evidence satisfactory to the JPB is provided demonstrating that such individual is authorized to bind the corporation (e.g. a copy of a certified resolution from the corporation’s board or a copy of the corporation’s bylaws). S A M P L E 2 11374379.1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Go Pass Agreement (“Agreement”) is made between the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, a public agency ("JPB") and the Go Pass Participant (“Participant”) identified on page 1 of this Agreement. 1. PAYMENT: Full payment for all Go Pass stickers shall be due prior to JPB issuing stickers. The total cost of participating in the Go Pass program will be the greater of $15,960.00 or $190 per eligible Go Pass User, which includes a non-refundable Administration Fee (the “Administration Fee”) of $3 per Go Pass User. If the number of Users increases during 2016, the cost of additional Go Pass stickers will be a pro-rated per amount based on Exhibit A on page 5 of this Agreement. Go Pass Participant may share the cost of participation in the Go Pass program with its Users, but the cost to a particular User cannot be higher than the first-time replacement rate stated in Section 10 below. Participant must submit payment for any invoices within 30 days of the date shown on the invoice. Payments after 60 days will be charged a late fee of $5 per day. The return of a check (electronic or paper) issued to JPB will result in a $25 returned check fee being placed on the account of the Participant. 2. PROGRAM: JPB operates the “Caltrain” rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy, California, and Participant desires to provide a transit benefit for use on Caltrain to all of the Go Pass Users as defined on Page 1, in the form of a sticker affixed to a valid Participant-issued, JPB-approved, Go Pass User photo identification card (hereafter referred to as "Go Pass"). In order to facilitate the Caltrain Go Pass Program (“Program”) JPB shall provide the necessary stickers and accept the Go Pass as valid fare media for travel on the Caltrain system. Participant is responsible for any stickers in its possession. Failure to comply with the terms in this Agreement may result in termination pursuant to Section 12. 3. ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS: Only individual Participants are eligible to participate in the Program. Participants with multiple locations, branches or campuses are eligible to participate in the Program and must provide a Go Pass User count for each individual Participant site. However, such Participants must enroll in the Program under a single Go Pass Agreement and designate a single contact and administrator. Such Participants’ employees/students/residents at non- participating locations are not eligible to participate in the Program. 4. ELIGIBLE GO PASS USER VERIFICATION: Go Passes must be purchased for each and every Go Pass User at each Participant work site participating in the program (“Participating Site(s)”). Participant will be required, prior to the JPB issuing the Go Pass stickers, to provide JPB with a Letter of Intent (“Letter”) signed by the Human Resources Director, an officer of the Participant or Development Manager verifying the then-current number of Go Pass Users of the Participant at each Participating Site. If a Business Participant selects an Option identified on Page 1, the letter must indicate the number of Users working more than 20 hours per week, working less than 20 hours per week and/or interns. If there are multiple Participating Sites, the Letter must indicate the individual site addresses and the number of then-current Users at each site. Neither Participant nor any of its affiliates shall be required to participate in the Program with respect to other sites other than the Participating Site(s) identified in the Letter. 5. GO PASS IDENTIFICATION: Participant must have an official Participant-issued photo ID card in order to participate in the Program and must supply a hard copy of that ID card to the JPB for review. Any Participant that doesn’t have a photo ID card must create one. The ID card must display a clear Go Pass User headshot, Go Pass User first and last name, have a 1” x 1” square space for the Go Pass sticker and display the Participant name or logo. The ID cannot contain Caltrain’s logo as part of the design. If the ID changes, it is the Participant’s responsibility to submit the new version to the JPB three weeks in advance for approval. Participants may only use one JPB-approved ID card. The JPB will produce and issue serialized Go Pass stickers which will be distributed to Participant so that Participant can affix them to the Participant-issued Go Pass User ID card. Participant’s designated administrator shall place the Go Pass sticker on each eligible Go Pass User’s ID card, preferably on the front. Participant shall not distribute the Go Pass stickers to Users, as this practice may lead to unauthorized use of the sticker. Participant shall be responsible for retaining the Go Pass User’s ID card or removing the Go Pass sticker from a Go Pass User’s ID card when a Go Pass User leaves the employment of the Participant or relocates to non-participating location. Returned ID cards or stickers shall be presented to the JPB for verification upon request. A photocopy of the identification card with the Go Pass sticker attached is acceptable as proof that the Go Pass is no longer in use by a Go Pass User who has left the employment/residential complex of Participant. All Go Pass stickers allotted to the Participant at the beginning of the Participant’s participation in the Program that are not issued to Users are to be returned to the JPB by December 15 of the Agreement year. Go Pass sticker is JPB’s property. 6. PROGRAM RECORDS: Participant will create and maintain a file of documents to be available for review upon JPB request (“Go Pass File”). The Go Pass File must include a log (Go Pass Log) of its Users who currently hold Go Passes. The Go Pass Log shall include the Go Pass User’s first and last name, unique serial number for the individual pass each Go Pass User holds, pass status (i.e. active, lost, damaged, etc.), date of issue, date of Go Pass User separation, if applicable, and any other pertinent information. The file must also include all separated Go Pass User’s ID cards or Go Pass stickers. S A M P L E 3 11374379.1 7. SURVEY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Prior to affixing the Go Pass sticker to the Go Pass User’s Participant-issued ID card, Participant shall require each Go Pass User receiving a Go Pass, for the first time, to complete an online questionnaire ("Survey"). Once the Survey is complete, Participant administrator will receive an e-mail confirmation from the Go Pass User via the JPB. As part of completing the survey, the Go Pass User will be required to acknowledge that he or she understands the proper use of the Go Pass. The Surveys may be used to analyze the success of the Program and develop ridership projections for the Program. However, the Surveys are subject to disclosure under requests made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Prior to disclosing Surveys, any identifying information concerning the Participant and/or the Go Pass User shall be redacted. 8. PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND AUDIT: JPB reserves the right to audit Participant’s Go Pass Program at any point during the Program year with five (5) working days' notice. The purpose of the audit is to ensure that appropriate accounting, sticker distribution and security procedures are in place. JPB has the right to audit any internal Participant Go Pass-associated records, including Participant’s Go Pass File. A current list of qualifying Users shall be provided to the JPB upon request. Within 10 working days of receipt of any audit report from the JPB, Participant must, in conjunction with JPB staff, develop a mutually agreeable action plan to satisfy any audit findings. If no mutually agreeable plan can be developed, JPB may terminate the Program upon 10-days’ notice pursuant to the terms of Section 12, Termination. 9. PARKING PERMITS: Monthly parking permits for Caltrain lots may be purchased through any Caltrain station ticket machine. Go Pass Users will be required to complete an application for an access code in order to purchase the permit through the machine. 10. LOST, STOLEN, DAMAGED AND REPLACEMENT GO PASSES: For lost or stolen Go Passes, JPB will charge a $190 first-time replacement fee. Participant must submit to the JPB documentation including the Go Pass User first and last name and Go Pass serial number. For stolen Go Passes, the JPB will replace the Go Pass at no additional charge provided that a police report is supplied to the JPB which describes the Go Pass as stolen. If the same Go Pass User loses the Go Pass or has the Go Pass stolen a second time, the replacement fee will be 2x the first-time replacement fee regardless of whether a police report is provided to the JPB. If a replacement Go Pass is issued and then the original is found, JPB will not provide a refund. Participant may not resell the Go Passes to Users at a rate higher than the replacement fee. A Go Pass will not be issued as a replacement for lost or stolen Go Passes a third time. For Damaged Go Passes: If the Participant or a Go Pass User damages a Participant-issued ID card and thus renders the Go Pass sticker unusable, or if the sticker itself is damaged, a replacement Go Pass sticker may be issued to the Go Pass User or taken from the Participant’s Go Pass inventory, provided that the Participant documents that the Go Pass sticker has been taken out of circulation in its Go Pass File. Participant must retain the damaged ID card or Go Pass sticker in its Go Pass File. If no additional stickers remain in the Participant inventory, the Participant shall return damaged Go Pass stickers or ID cards, or a photocopy, with complete documentation to the JPB prior to the JPB issuing a replacement Go Pass sticker to Participant at no charge. This courtesy will be extended no more than two times per Go Pass User per calendar year, after which the replacement cost for a damaged Go Pass sticker will be $190. For Separated Users: If the Go Pass User separates with the Participant, Participant shall retain the separated Go Pass User ID card or Go Pass sticker in its Go Pass File and document that the Go Pass sticker has been taken out of circulation in its Go Pass Log (See Section 6 above). If no additional stickers remain in the Participant inventory, the Participant shall return separated Go Pass stickers or ID cards, or a photocopy, prior to the JPB issuing a replacement Go Pass sticker to Participant at no charge. For Missing Go Passes: Participant shall be responsible for safeguarding the Go Pass stickers prior to issuing them to Users and shall be liable for any loss of Go Pass stickers. Replacement Go Pass stickers shall be issued under the lost terms above. 11. QUARTERLY REPORTING: Participant must submit a quarterly report to JPB by 3/1/16, 6/1/16, 9/1/16 and 12/1/16. The quarterly report must list all lost, stolen, damaged and replacement Go Passes issued and separated Users. It must include the reason for replacement, if applicable, Go Pass User first and last name and corresponding Go Pass serial number and the current number of Users working at the work site(s) /residing in the development enrolled in the program. Participant may submit its Go Pass Log (See Section 6 above) in lieu of the quarterly report. 12. TERMINATION: Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving the other party written notice at least 90 days prior to the desired termination date, which shall be the last day of a calendar month. If either party terminates the Agreement pursuant to this provision, JPB shall refund to Participant a pro-rata portion of Participant’s total payment in accordance with the Proration Schedule attached to and incorporated in this Agreement as Exhibit A, less the Administration Fee, as listed on Page 1, within 30 days of the termination date, provided that within 10 working days of the effective termination date: (a) all S A M P L E 4 11374379.1 undistributed Go Passes issued to Participant are returned to JPB and (b) Participant verifies in writing that it has made every Good faith effort to collect or destroy all Go Passes that have been distributed to Users. In the event Participant fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, JPB may terminate this Agreement with 15 days’ notice. Non-compliance by Participant may make Participant ineligible to participate in the Go Pass program in subsequent years. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if Participant discontinues its business at the Participating Site(s). 13. MISUSE OF GO PASS: The Go Pass constitutes a Go Pass sticker affixed to a valid, Participant-issued, JPB-approved Go Pass User photo ID card. Any other use of the Go Pass sticker is prohibited and will not be valid as fare payment on Caltrain. Go Pass Participant – JPB agrees not to pursue any claims or demands against Participant for a Go Pass User's unauthorized use of the Go Pass, unless the unauthorized use is the result of Participant's failure to follow the sticker issuance procedures in Section 5, gross negligence or willful misconduct. The transfer of the Go Pass sticker constitutes fare evasion, a violation of California Penal Code 640. At the time of Go Pass issuance, Participant shall (1) notify its Users that Go Pass stickers are non-transferrable and that transferring a Go Pass constitutes fare evasion under the law, and (2) shall remind Users of their agreement to the terms of usage provided in the Survey. Go Pass User - All Go Pass Users shall be subject to JPB's fare inspection regulations. JPB may confiscate and/or destroy the Go Pass sticker and pursue claims or demands against, or seek prosecution of, anyone who duplicates, alters, transfers, sells or commits unauthorized use of the Go Pass. Unauthorized use of the Go Pass includes, but is not limited to, allowing a non-eligible person to use a Go Pass or affixing a Go Pass sticker to any form of identification other than a valid Participant- issued, JPB-approved, Go Pass User ID card. JPB may cancel any individual Go Pass if it has reason to believe that the Go Pass was issued and/or used in a manner that fails to comply with the requirements herein. JPB will notify Participant if it has any such concerns and, after appropriate investigation, revoke those passes in question. Participant agrees to cooperate with JPB in such an investigation, including assisting the JPB in determining the identity of the Go Pass User(s) who are alleged to have misused the Go Pass. Participant waives all remedies and rights to refunds for any Go Passes revoked for misuse. 14. PROTECTION OF PRIVACY: JPB acknowledges that it may review documents in the Go Pass File or other materials that contain personal or confidential information about the Participant or the Go Pass User (“Information”). Except as required to administer the Go Pass Program in accordance with this Agreement or as otherwise required by law, JPB agrees not to use or to disclose to third parties the Information. JPB may use Participant’s name in a list showing Go Pass Program participants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, JPB shall be free to use and disclose to third parties information in an aggregate format that does not personally identify a Go Pass User. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This contract contains the entire Agreement between the parties hereto for the term specified on Page 1 of this Agreement and cannot be changed or altered except by written agreement signed by both parties hereto. Neither party shall be bound by any oral agreement or other understandings contrary to or in addition to the terms and conditions as stated herein. 16. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: The terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of Participant and JPB and, except as otherwise provided herein, their personal representatives and successors and assigns. 17. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES: There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement. 18. NO JOINT VENTURE: It is expressly agreed that Participant is not, in any way or for any purpose, a partner of the JPB in the conduct of JPB’s business or a member of a joint enterprise with JPB, and does not assume any responsibility for JPB’s conduct or performance of this Agreement. It is expressly agreed that JPB is not, in any way or for any purpose, a partner of the Participant in the conduct of Participant’s business or a member of a joint enterprise with Participant, and does not assume any responsibility for Participant’s conduct or performance of this Agreement. 19. ATTORNEYS’ FEES: In the event that either JPB or Participant fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement or in the event a dispute arises concerning the meaning or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, the defaulting Party or the Party not prevailing in such dispute, as the case may be, shall pay any and all costs and expenses incurred by the other Party in enforcing or establishing its rights hereunder, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 20. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action relating to, and all disputes arising under, this Agreement shall be instituted and prosecuted in a court S A M P L E 5 11374379.1 of competent jurisdiction in the State of California. 21. NOTICES: All notices, payments, requests, demands and other communications to be made or given to Participant under this Agreement shall be addressed as shown on page 1 of this Agreement. All notices, payments, requests, demands and other communications to be made or given to JPB shall be addressed as follows: To JPB: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 Attn: Rita Haskin, Executive Officer, Customer Service & Marketing S A M P L E 11374379.1 Exhibit A Proration Schedule New Participants Effective Date (falling in month) Portion of Total Fee per Go Pass More than Minimum (includes administration fee) Portion of Total Fee per Go Pass Less than Minimum (includes administration fee) February $174.42 $14,651.00 March $158.83 $13,342.00 April $143.25 $12,033.00 May $127.67 $10,724.00 June $112.08 $9,415.00 July $96.50 $8,106.00 August $80.92 $6,797.00 September $65.33 $5,488.00 October $49.75 $4,179.00 November $34.17 $2,870.00 December $18.58 $1,561.00 Terminating Participants Effective Termination Date (falling in month) Portion of Total Fee Returned per Go Pass More than Minimum (less administration fees) Portion of Total Fee Returned per Go Pass Less than Minimum (less administration fees) February $171.42 $14,399.00 March $155.83 $13,090.00 April $140.25 $11,781.00 May $124.67 $10,472.00 June $109.08 $9,163.00 July $93.50 $7,854.00 August $77.92 $6,545.00 September $62.33 $5,236.00 October $46.75 $3,927.00 November $31.17 $2,618.00 December $15.58 $1,309.00 S A M P L E Go Pass Participant Letterhead Date Caltrain Attn: Melissa Wicklow 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Dear Melissa, This letter expresses [company/development name] interest in participating in the [year of the program] Caltrain Go Pass program beginning [commence date (i.e. Jan. 1, 2015)]. Business Participant body: We would like to enroll [number of participating worksites] worksites located at [worksite address, city, state and zip code (Note: If there are multiple sites, you must list the addresses and employee counts at each location)]. Currently, we have [number of total employees for all worksites] staff working more than 20 hours per week, excluding temporary employees, interns, contractors and consultants. We [are or aren’t] going to include staff working less than 20 hours per week, interns or both (Note: If you are including one or both of these options, please indicate how many of each per worksite enrolling). Residential Participant body: We would like to enroll [number of participating developments] developments located at [development address, city, state and zip code (Note: If there are multiple developments, you must list the addresses and resident counts at each location)]. Currently, we have [number of total residents for all developments] residents age five years and older. Educational Participant body: We would like to enroll the [enter group of students, for example, undergrads, part-time, full- time, etc.)] at [number of participating worksites] worksites located at [worksite address, city, state and zip code (Note: If there are multiple sites, you must list the addresses and employee counts at each location)]. Thank you, X [signature] Company Officer or Development Manager Date of Issue Go Pass User First & Last Name Go Pass Serial # Go Pass Status (Active, Lost, Damaged, Stolen, etc.) Survey Complete Date of Separation/ Vacating Property Notes 1/5/2013 John Jones 1233 Active Yes 1/5/2013 Michelle Rodriguez 1235 Separated Yes 7/13/2013 1/14/2013 Melissa Lahey 1800 Active Yes 1/6/2013 Jamie Gomez 1360 Lost Yes 9/2/2013 Jamie Gomez 1445 Active N/A 1/5/2013 Mary Snow 1234 Active Yes 1/5/2013 Jill Smith 1238 Lost Yes 8/1/2013 Jill Smith 1802 Active N/A 7/1/2013 Melissa Kwong 1301 Active Yes 10/1/2013 Wayland Chan 1804 Damaged Yes 10/1/2013 Wayland Chan 1805 Active N/A 10/2/2013 N/A 1602 Damaged N/A Damaged by employer Reminders Every Go Pass sticker number must be accounted for. If a Go Pass user receives a replacement, they should be listed again on the log with the new Go Pass number as active. Caltrain Go Pass Tracking Log Before the Participant's Go Pass administrator places the Go Pass sticker on the ID badge, the Go Pass user must have completed the survey. Surveys should only be filled out once when they receive their first Go Pass; No survey is required when issuing a replacement Go Pass. Sample 2016 Online Go Pass Survey Instructions    • The company, educational institution or residential complex (“Go Pass  Participant”) will send Caltrain its designated Go Pass administrator e‐mail  address (e.g.,  GoPass@CompanyX.com).  This administrator will receive a  confirmation e‐mail when an employee, student or resident (“Go Pass  User”) completes a survey. It is recommended that a distribution list be  created to allow multiple recipients to receive the confirmation. This  process will ensure proper notification in the event that the designated Go  Pass administrator is not available (e.g., training, vacation).   • Each Go Pass Participant will receive a unique web address for the Go Pass  User to complete the survey through SurveyMonkey. Upon completion, a  web application called Zapier will process the e‐mail confirmation.  • The Go Pass administrator will be responsible for sending the instructions  and survey link to Go Pass Users and will not issue a Go Pass sticker until an  e‐mail confirmation is received from no‐reply.6ydd@zapiermail.com. Go  Pass Participant shall take precautions by adding Zapier to your safe sender  list to ensure its receipt.  • The e‐mail confirmation will display the Go Pass User’s name and date of  completion for your records.  • Go Pass Users need to complete the survey only once. If a Go Pass  replacement is needed due to badge loss or damage, Go Pass Users are not  required to complete the survey a second time.   • All survey questions are to be answered with the exception of the optional  section.  Incomplete surveys will not trigger an e‐mail confirmation to the  Go Pass administrator.     Note:   • The Go Pass administrator may request a backup file with the names of the  Go Pass Users who completed the online survey.  Such requests may take  up to a week to be processed.   • By completing the survey, the Go Pass User agrees with the Go Pass Use  Acknowledgement terms & conditions.  • If Go Pass User is 18 year or younger a parent must acknowledge  understanding and agreement with the Go Pass Use Acknowledgement  terms & conditions.        Online Go Pass Survey Workflow        8/27/15 ‐ pbt  Go Pass Administrator Receives e‐mail confirmation from no‐reply.6ydd@zapiermail.com Go Pass User Completes survey and  agrees with Go Pass Use Acknowledgement terms and conditions Go Pass Administrator Sends instructions and survey link to Go Pass User Caltrain Market Research Specialist Sends Go Pass survey link Caltrain Market Research Specialist Creates online questionnaire Go Pass Participant  Sends Go Pass Administrator e‐mail address to Caltrain Welcome to the 2016 Caltrain Go Pass program. The Go Pass is an annual Caltrain pass that is offered by the Go Pass Participant site (company, educational institution or residential complex) to its eligible Go Pass User (employee, student or resident). This is an exclusive benefit that allows you to travel through any zones at any time on Caltrain regularly scheduled trains for the entire calendar year while you are an eligible Go Pass User. If you leave the Go Pass Participant site, you are required to surrender the Go Pass. Before starting the survey, you are required to read and agree with the Go Pass Use Acknowledgement terms and conditions. After you complete the survey, a confirmation e-mail will be forwarded to your Go Pass administrator who will issue your Go Pass sticker to be placed on your ID card. The Go Pass sticker must be affixed by your Go Pass administrator on your pre- approved ID card. A citation may be issued if the Go Pass sticker is not affixed to a valid ID card. Read the following instructions carefully: You need to complete this survey only once per calendar year. Incomplete surveys won't be processed by the system. Please provide your work e-mail address at the end of the survey and a confirmation e-mail will be sent to you. Please forward this confirmation e-mail to your Go Pass Administrator IF they require you to do so. Enjoy the ride! Caltrain Market Research & Development 1. Introduction 1. I understand that as a Go Pass User I am eligible to receive and use a Go Pass of my participating company, educational institution or residential complex enrolled in the program. 2. I understand that the Go Pass is valid only as proof of payment for the year shown on the sticker and will expire on December 31 at midnight. I also understand that use of an expired Go Pass is subject to citation and I will be responsible for paying any fines related to such citation. 3. I understand that the Go Pass is only valid for use when the Go Pass sticker is affixed to my valid ID card issued by the Go Pass Participant. If my Go Pass sticker is affixed to any other form of identification, it will not be accepted as fare on Caltrain and will be confiscated. Further, such use will be subject to citation and I will be responsible for paying any fines related to such citation. 4. I understand that I may not sell or transfer the Go Pass sticker to any other person. I also understand that allowing the use of my Go Pass by anyone other than me is not permissible and may result in my Go Pass being revoked and/or destroyed. 5. I understand that if my Go Pass User status terminates for any reason, I must present my issued ID card to the Go Pass administrator so that the Go Pass sticker can be removed and/or destroyed. 2. Go Pass Use Acknowledgement As a Go Pass User it is required that you agree with the Go Pass terms and conditions.* I certify that I read, understand, and agree with the Go Pass Use Acknowledgement terms and conditions. 3. Go Pass User First Name Middle Name Last name 1. Go Pass User Name* 2. In which fare category do you belong?* Adult Youth (18 years and younger) Eligible Discount (Senior age 65 years old and older/Disabled/Medicare Cardholder) Other (please specify) 3. Is this the first time you have been issued a Go Pass?* Yes No - If NO, what year did you join? 4. Did you ride Caltrain before having a Go Pass sticker?* Yes No Complete the following section about your use of Caltrain prior to the first time being issued a Go Pass. 4. Use of Caltrain prior to Receiving Go Pass 5. Prior to the Go Pass, what ticket type did you use most often? If you utilized Clipper/Translink, choose the ticket type available on your card. * One way or Clipper e-cash Day Pass 8-ride Ticket (former 10-ride Ticket) Monthly Pass Other (please specify) days/week days/month OR days/year 6. Prior to the Go Pass program, how often did you ride Caltrain? Please answer only one of the options below. * 7. Prior to the Go Pass, what was your most common trip purpose on Caltrain?* Work Sporting events Shopping Social/recreational Other (please specify) "ON" station "OFF" station 8. Prior to the Go Pass, which TWO Caltrain stations do you use for your most common trip? * Complete this section about your plans to ride Caltrain after you receive your 2016 Go Pass. 5. Use of Caltrain after receiving Go Pass days/week days/month OR days/year 9. How often do you plan to ride Caltrain after receiving your 2016 Go Pass? Please answer only one of the options below. * 10. After receiving your 2016 Go Pass, what will be your most common trip purpose?* Work Shopping Sporting events Social/recreational Other (please specify) "ON" station "OFF" station 11. Which TWO Caltrain stations will you use for your most common trip?* 6. Demographics (Optional) 12. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnic background? (Please check all that apply) Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White/Caucasian Other (please specify) 13. Annual household income (before taxes): Less than $30,000/year $30,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - 199,999 $200,000 or more 14. Were you born in the United States? Yes If No, in which country? ZIP: 15. What is your home ZIP code? 7. E-mail Confirmation 16. Please enter your work e-mail address and you will receive an e-mail confirmation that you have completed the survey. Please forward the e-mail confirmation to your Go Pass Administrator IF they require you to do so. If you do not have a work email address please enter a personal email address or name@xyz.com if you have no email address at all. Make sure you add noreply.6ydd@zapier.com to your safe sender list to receive the e-mail confirmation. * After you click Done, your Go Pass Administrator will receive an e-mail confirmation that you have read the Go Pass Use Acknowledgement and responded to the questionnaire. You will then be eligible to receive your Go Pass sticker from your Go Pass Administrator. For any questions or concerns please contact your Go Pass Administrator. If you are interested in a Monthly Parking Permit, click here Thank you for riding Caltrain. 8. Thank you City of Palo Alto (ID # 5148) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/10/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Caltrain Go Pass Progam Update Title: Approval of Extension of the Trial Caltrain Go Pass Program for City Employees and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $80,280 for the 2015 Go Pass program From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for continuation of the Caltrain Go Pass program for City employees for the 2015 calendar year, and approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $80,280 in the General Benefits Fund. Executive Summary: In order to address parking and traffic concerns in Palo Alto’s Downtown, the City has initiated a number of programs aimed at reducing overall traffic demand, more effectively utilizing existing parking resources, and encouraging alternative modes of transit. Although many employees of Downtown businesses already use Caltrain for their commute, the City wanted to offer an incentive for City employees working at the Downtown Civic Center locations (City Hall, Main Library and Development Center) to ride the train and free up more parking spaces in the Civic Center garage. The requested action would continue the 2014 Go Pass trial program for City employees for another year with a modification aimed at increasing Caltrain ridership by City employees. Background: On February 24, 2014, Council directed staff to move forward with several Transportation, Demand Management (TDM) initiatives, including the following: (1) solicit proposals to establish a non-profit Transportation Management Authority (TMA), (2) solicit proposals to provide car share services at city-owned lots, (3) Evaluate Rideshare Tools, Including a Trial of the “Twogo” Rideshare App, for Coordination and Marketing By The TMA; and (4) to authorize the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to City of Palo Alto Page 2 participate in the Caltrain Go Pass Program for a 9-month trial. Figure 1 provides an update on the other components of the motion: Figure 1: Update on Current Transportation Demand Management Initiatives TMA Formation The City engaged with MIG consultants in August 2014 to launch the TMA. The consultants provided an update to the Planning and Transportation Commission on October 29 and are in the process of engaging the steering committee for the TMA. Carshare The City entered into a contract with Zipcar in August 2014 and Zipcar currently provides ten cars for use in Downtown lots and garages; utilization is between 7% - 40% so far depending on the location. The City is working with Zipcar to monitor the program and increase utilization of the vehicles. Rideshare Tools Evaluation Staff also marketed the TwoGo mobile app to city employees and employees of Downtown businesses during the spring and summer of 2014. Caltrain Go Pass City engaged with the Joint Powers Board (JPB) to provide Caltrain Go Passes to all regularly-benefited Downtown City employees beginning in April 2014. Summary of Key Issues: One of the key reasons for implementing the Go Pass program at City Hall was to incentivize City employees to give up their parking passes so that their permits could be made available to non-City employees. Another was for city employees to “lead by example,” using public transportation for their commute and forgoing the City-provided benefit of free parking. As of October 2014, 50 Civic Center employees had rescinded their city-issued parking permit in favor of a Go Pass and have been riding the train for their commute. The City has also been able to raise the permit cap on the Civic Center parking garage from 820 to 875 permits since the inception of the Go Pass program, meaning that in addition to the 50 parking permits made available to non-City employees by the program, another 55 permits have been offered to non- City employees. The City continues to monitor occupancy and permit sales at the Downtown garages as maximizing the usage of parking supply is a top priority. In order to further assess how the implementation of the Go Pass program has impacted employee commuting habits, and to inform the direction of future City-sponsored transportation programs, Staff conducted a short commute-focused survey of Civic Center City of Palo Alto Page 3 employees. Based on the survey responses received at the writing of this report, about 50% of the City employee Go Pass participants had already been riding the train prior to the City’s participation, but the other 50% had switched to riding it more regularly or had never ridden Caltrain before. Of the respondents who did not choose to give up their parking permit and participate in the program, 29% stated that they lived too far from a Caltrain station to participate, 24% felt reluctant to give up their parking pass because their schedule was too sporadic, and 20% said that they had to run additional errands either to or from work. The survey also asked non- participants whether, if they didn’t need to give up their parking permit, would they participate in the program and ride the train at least occasionally; 70% of the non-participants stated that they would ride the train at least one day per week if this option were available, with 26% stating they would ride it 3 days or more per week. The Go Pass program received a 100% satisfaction report from all participants who responded to the survey, and elicited success stories from some. For example, one city employee used to drive from San Francisco and now takes the train, saving hundreds of gallons of gas per year. Staff recommends continuing the trial for another year, and modifying the trial to provide the Go Pass to all eligible City employees working in the Civic Center. Offering a GoPass to all eligible employees at Civic Center would not cost the city any extra money because the cost of the program is based on the number of eligible employees, not the number who actually use it. Making permits available to all employees with no requirement to turn in a parking permit will allow staff to determine whether there is an additional mode shift towards transit over single- occupant trips if more employees ride the train some of the time (i.e. rather than having a smaller number of employees ride the train all of the time). Although staff doesn’t anticipate a shift to transit every day for all employees, employees may choose to take transit on multiple days. As a condition of receiving the Go Pass, employees would have to agree to report on how many times they use the pass each month. Staff would review ridership patterns and determine at the end of the calendar year whether the calendar year 2015 trial or the calendar year 2014 trail yielded more mode shift. The City could then decide to proceed with the program in the same way or go back to the original program design (requiring employees to give up their parking passes in order to receive a Go Pass). Regardless of the strategy, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016 budget process, staff will evaluate providing ongoing funding to the Go Pass program. Policy Implications: Supporting TDM policies is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals: Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental and social cost issues in local transportation decisions; City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levele; Program T-8: Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives and impacts… The implementation of the Go Pass program also aligns with the TMA’s objective of reducing single-occupant-vehicle use by 30% in three years. Resource Impact: For calendar year 2014, the cost of the Go Pass program was 124.50 per eligible employee (i.e. full time regularly-benefitted employees working at downtown locations such as the Civic Center) for a nine-month period because the City initiated the program in April. The annual cost would have been $165. The cost of the program ($58,017) was funded through the City’s General Benefits Fund. Caltrain has raised the prices per employee for the Go Pass program in 2015; the cost to participate in the 2015 Go Pass program is now $180 per employee. Based on the City’s current staffing at the downtown location (446 eligible employees), the renewal cost to the City will be $80,280. Staff is requesting Council approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) for additional funding in the amount of $80,280 in the General Benefits Fund to cover the cost of the 2015 Go Pass program offset with a reduction in the General Benefits Fund ending fund balance. As part of the development of the FY 2016 Proposed Budget, staff will evaluate providing ongoing funding for the Go Pass program. Timeline: Caltrain will make Go Passes available to City employees for the 2015 calendar year available for use by December 1, 2014 if the program is approved. The passes will also be eligible for the month of December and the entire calendar year of 2015. Attachment B includes a copy of the agreement with Caltrain and the invoice for the 2015 calendar year. Attachments:  Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance XXXX - GoPass (DOCX)  Attachment B: Caltrain Agreement and 2015 Invoice (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6366) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment to Contract S13149754 with Renne Sloan Hotlzman Sakai LLP Title: Approval of Amendment Number Four to Contract Number S13149754 to Add $120,000 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $336,000 and Amendment Number Two to Contract Number S15155809 to Add $25,000 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $50,000 with Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP Public Law Group for Labor Negotiations Services and to Extend both Contract Terms to June 30, 2016 From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve an amendment adding $120,000 to the existing contract S13149754 with Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP for labor negotiations consulting services with the Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU) and the public safety groups, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1319 (IAFF) and Palo Alto Police Officer’s Association (PAPOA) for a total amount not to exceed $336,000 through June 30, 2016; and approve a contract amendment adding $25,000 to the existing contract S15155809 with Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP for contract for labor negotiations consulting services with Utilities Management Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA), for a total amount not to exceed $50,000 through June 30, 2016. Background In April 2013, the City entered into an agreement with Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP (RSHS) to provide labor negotiation services for a focused bargaining process with the Palo Alto Police Managers’ Association (PMA) for $30,000 through December 31, 2014. Following a successful process with PMA, the City amended the contract in August 2013 through June 30, 2014 for RSHS to provide labor strategy and bargaining services for the City’s 2013-2014 negotiations with SEIU for $60,000. In May 2014, the contract with RSHS was amended a second time for additional bargaining support in the City’s negotiations with the two public safety labor groups, IAFF and PAPOA for $90,000. In June 2015, the City Council approved an additional amendment City of Palo Alto Page 2 by adding $36,000 and extending the contract through December 2015 for ongoing labor negotiations with the IAFF and PAPOA. In addition to negotiations with SEIU, PAPOA and IAFF, in August 2014, under the City Manager’s authority level, entered into a specific contract with RSHS to provide labor negotiations services for UMPAPA in the amount of $25,000. Discussion Negotiations with SEIU, UMPAPA, IAFF and PAPOA continue with the utilization of RSHS. Given RSHS’s previous negotiations and their effective and practical labor strategy advice, continuing the City’s contracts will provide important continuity in the bargaining process. RSHS is familiar with labor issues in the City and the issues on the bargaining table with Palo Alto’s labor groups. Resource Impact Costs associated with contract S13149754, for negotiations with SEIU and public safety are estimated to equal $120,000 ($60,000 for SEIU and $60,000 for both public safety groups). Amending the current contract will increase the total not to exceed to $336,000. No additional funding is need at this time, as the funding is budgeted in the Human Resources Department General Fund and Human Resources Contingency allocations. However, should the negotiation process of with any bargaining unit reach the mediation or fact finding stages, staff may have to return with additional contract amendments and funding requests to the City Council. Contract S15155809 with RSHS for Utilities Management Professional Association negotiations will also be increased. The current not to exceed amount for this contract is $25,000. Staff recommends an additional $25,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $50,000. No additional funding is needed, as this contract will be funded from existing funds within the Utilities Department’s various enterprise funds. Attachments:  Attachment A: S13149754 Contract Amendment No. 4 (PDF)  Attachment B: S15155809 Contract Amendment No. 2 (PDF) 1 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. S13149754 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI, LLP This Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. S13149754 (“Contract”) is entered into November 30, 2015 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI, LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, located at 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94104, Telephone (415) 678-3800 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of labor negotiation services between CITY and labor unions; and WHEREAS, CITY intends to extend the term and increase the compensation From $216,000.00 by $120,000.00 to $336,000.00 for continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Thirty Six Thousand Dollars ($336,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.” DocuSign Envelope ID: D046354E-466C-470D-9A58-37AD09EB6E9B 2 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI, LLP Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: D046354E-466C-470D-9A58-37AD09EB6E9B Managing Partner 3 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Scope of Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $336,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: D046354E-466C-470D-9A58-37AD09EB6E9B Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 1 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. S15155809 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI, LLP This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. S15155809 (“Contract”) is entered into 30th day of November, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI, LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, located at 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94104, Telephone (415) 678-3800 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of labor consulting services for the Utilities Management and Professional Association (“UMPAPA”). B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the compensation from $25,000.00 by $25,000.00 to $50,000.00 for continuation of services per EXHIBIT “A” Scope of Services. C. The parties wish to amend the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.” SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: DocuSign Envelope ID: 6E2F875A-1460-41A2-B5AB-B51116E8AB01 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI, LLP Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 6E2F875A-1460-41A2-B5AB-B51116E8AB01 Managing Partner Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 3 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $50,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6E2F875A-1460-41A2-B5AB-B51116E8AB01 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK November 30, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: 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 (FIRST READING: November 9, 2015 PASSED 9-0) This was first heard by the Council on November 9, 2015 and is now on the agenda for the second reading. Below is the motion and vote, and the ordinance is attached. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt the Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 83 Homes Within the Los Arboles Tract. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Pages from los arboles (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 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 min o R eal University Oregon Page Mill Alma 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 (ID # 6223) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 429 University Avenue Title: PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-Foot, Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-Foot Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District located at 429 University Avenue; and Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. This hearing is continued from May 4, 2015 *Quasi Judicial From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion Discuss and take an action on the appeal of the Architectural Review by directing staff to prepare a Record of Land Use Action reflecting one of the following decisions: 1. Deny the appeal and approve the project based on the Director’s findings and conditions; 2. Uphold the appeal and approve the project with modifications or new conditions needed to make the required findings; or 3. Uphold the appeal and deny the project based on its failure to meet the required findings. Executive Summary This report provides salient background and supporting information to summarize the activities since the last council meeting, including the applicant’s response to the council motions, the discussions of the HRB and ARB on the project. Staff seeks the City Council direction to draft a Record of Land Use Action to approve or deny the project. Background This matter involves the City Council’s consideration of an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (Director) tentative decision to adopt a Mitigated Negative City of Palo Alto Page 2 Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program and approve an Architectural Review application for a new mixed use commercial building at the subject address. On February 19, 2015, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the project to the Director on a 4-0 vote after three public hearings1. The Director tentatively approved the project with conditions on February 25, 2015 to reflect the ARB recommendation. An appeal was received within the prescribed appeal period. On April 6, 2015, the City Council voted to hear the appeal2. The City Council considered the matter at the public hearing on May 4, 20153. Following testimony and deliberation, the City Council voted 5-4 to continue the appeal and requested the applicant redesign the project and that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the ARB address the following, respectively: Historic Resources Board a. The Preservation Architecture report focuses on whether there are criteria for a historic district. There is no need for existence of a district for there to be historic considerations. The HRB should determine whether there are other factors that should be considered. b. What is the applicable “area of potential effect” under CEQA analysis? 1 The relevant ARB reports, with all attachments, initial study and appendices thereto, and project plans are viewable on the City’s website at the links provided below: ARB November 7, 2013 Preliminary Review report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37588 ARB November 20, 2014 report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44755 ARB January 15, 2015 report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45512 ARB February 19, 2015 report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45974 Project plans recommended by the ARB and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37684 2 The relevant Council report, with all attachments, including the appeal letter, are viewable on the City’s website at the links provided below: Council April 6, 2015 report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46619 3 The relevant Council report, with all attachments, including the appeal letter, are viewable on the City’s website at the links provided below: Council May 4, 2015 report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47015 Council May 4, 2015 Verbatim Transcript: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49301 City of Palo Alto Page 3 c. There are a number of historic structures near (e.g. on Kipling), one next to the proposed project and several across the street. How will the project impact these structures? d. Whether the mass, scale, and compatibility of the proposed project has an impact on the existing historic properties should be analyzed. e. Whether the proposed building would change the setting under CEQA has an impact on the historic properties on Kipling or University. Architectural Review Board The project [shall] be re-submitted to the Architectural Review Board to address the following Council concerns regarding the required findings: a. The design shall be compatible with the immediate environment of the site– the building will be designed with articulation and setbacks that minimize massing. b. In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. c. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. d. The design of roof lines, entries, setbacks, mass and scale with context based criteria. e. Street building facades – building to return with greater reinforcement of the relationship of the street with building mass. The upper floors need to have set backs to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. Specifically, the look and feel from the street should be of a look and feel compatible with adjacent buildings, with the option of a third or fourth floor provided they are visually compatible from the streets, requiring articulation or set-backs. f. To study shadow patterns. g. Study circulation analysis including in the Lane 30. h. Direction that the project shall share design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the streets are maintained. Since the May 4, 2015 meeting, additional studies on the project’s shadow patterns (Attachment C) and traffic circulation (Attachment D) have been prepared as per the Council motion. A supplemental Historic Resources Memorandum (Attachment B) was also prepared to analyze the potential project impacts on existing offsite historic resources and their settings. The revised project and the additional studies were reviewed by the HRB on September 10, 20154 and the ARB on September 17, 20155. 4 The relevant HRB report, with all attachments, are viewable on the City’s website at the link provided below: HRB September 10, 2015 report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48887 5 The relevant ARB report, with all attachments, are viewable on the City’s website at the link provided below: ARB September 17, 2015 report: City of Palo Alto Page 4 Discussion Current proposal The proposed project replaces two existing (primarily) one-story commercial buildings with a new 31,407 square feet (sf) four-story mixed-use building that contains 20,407 sf of commercial floor area and 11,000 sf of residential floor area with two levels of subterranean parking of 40 parking spaces on an 11,000 sf parcel at 425-447 University Avenue (Location Map: Attachment A). In response to the City Council’s comments, the applicant made a variety of changes, which are detailed in Attachment E, while maintaining the same land uses, parking program, and gross floor area previously reviewed by the Council. Some of the more notable revisions include the elimination of the overhang above the third floor and removal of vertical stone walls supporting that cantilevered terrace above. The applicant has also adjusted the setbacks along the University Avenue and Kipling Street frontages on the upper floors. Previously, the project included a modulated setback6 from University Avenue that ranged from 4.5 feet to 18 feet and 28 to 41.5 feet at the third and fourth levels, respectively. The revised project from University Avenue is now a consistent 9 feet at the third level and 30.17 feet to 39.58 feet at the fourth floor. It is noted that some portions of the fourth floor near the adjacent building on University Avenue have moved closer to the street while the larger balance of that level has been pushed back in part to achieve a greater setback as viewed from Kipling Street. From Kipling Street, the structure previously included a modulated setback from zero to 21 feet and zero to 12 feet on the third and fourth floors, respectively. The new setbacks from Kipling Street is a consistent 7.5 feet setback and 12.75 feet on the third and fourth floors, respectively, except for a portion of the building that houses the elevator and stair, which is located at the building edge adjacent to the property line. As viewed from Lane 30, the structure maintains a 4 feet setback from the alley. The setback decreased slightly from 10.92 feet to 10 feet at the upper levels. These and other modifications result in changes to the proposed building envelope and represent the applicant’s efforts to address Council comments. The revised project plans are attached to the distributed packet (Attachment K) and available online7. Additional Studies https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49028 6 The setback dimensions referenced in this section are measured from property lines to the exterior walls of interior space. It does not include setbacks to outdoor spaces. 7 Revised project plans are viewable at the City’s website at the link provided below: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48519 City of Palo Alto Page 5 In response to the City Council’s motion, the following studies have been prepared to supplement the existing project analysis. Historic Resources Memorandum The applicant previously submitted Historic Architectural Evaluation reports8 for the two existing buildings proposed for demolition at 425 University Avenue and 429-447 University Avenue. The reports find that neither of the existing buildings is eligible for inclusion in a historic register at the federal, State, or local levels. Notably, the buildings do not retain historic integrity because they have been physically altered such that they are not able to convey any historical or architectural significance. Therefore, there are no historical resources on the project site that would be affected. The City Council directed additional analysis of potential project impacts on existing offsite historical resources and their settings. The City’s consultant prepared a supplemental Historic Resources Memorandum to analyze potential offsite impacts (Attachment B). The expanded analysis reinforces the earlier conclusion that there are no identified historic districts in the vicinity of the project site on University Avenue or Kipling Street. Moreover, on University Avenue, the analysis finds that the buildings on the north side [which contains the project site] share some features, but they are not exemplary of an architectural style and do not relate to the character of the historic buildings in the area. The overall historic character of these two blocks has been compromised by intrusions including incompatible materials, height, massing, and architectural features. Regarding Kipling Street, the analysis states that while the group of buildings on Kipling Street may impart character to the street, as described in the Downtown Urban Design Plan, they do not appear to constitute a potential historic district that could be affected by changes in the setting. The memorandum also analyzes the potential for offsite impacts to occur to existing individual historic buildings in the vicinity of the project site. The memorandum defines an appropriate study area for analyzing offsite impacts as an area that includes the properties located adjacent to all sides of the project site. There are eight (8) properties located adjacent to the project site within the study area, including three (3) historic buildings: 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue, and 443 Kipling Street. Within the study area, potential impacts to the three existing historical resources were analyzed. The memorandum finds that potential construction-related impacts, such as those that could result from vibrations, would be avoided by the mandatory application of existing codes and building regulations that protect adjacent properties during demolition and construction activities. 8 The Historic Architectural Evaluation reports are in Attachment E of the May 4, 2015 Council report, viewable at the City’s website at the link provided below: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47015 City of Palo Alto Page 6 The memorandum also analyzes potential offsite indirect impacts to the individual historic buildings and their settings located within the study area. Regarding the setting of the adjacent historic buildings at 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue, the memorandum finds that “the 400 block of University Avenue has changed over time, including previous demolitions and alterations to older buildings, such that the demolition of the subject properties and addition of the proposed project would not change the existing character of the block.” Regarding the setting of the historic building at 443 Kipling Street: “The setting of the historic properties has already been compromised in several ways… it will not adversely impact the setting of the existing individual resources on Kipling, including 443 Kipling Street.” (See page 9-10 of Attachment B) The memorandum concludes: “Although a number of individual historical resources are located on the [University] avenue, they do not form a historic district. Similar to Kipling Street, the proposed project will not substantially alter the physical environment of the individual historic resources on University such that their integrity would be compromised to the degree that they would lose their historic significance.” (See page 10 of Attachment B) Therefore, the analysis concludes, there are no offsite historical resources that would be affected by the project. Shadow Study A shadow study was prepared for the proposed project by jt Architecture + Design to evaluate the projected changes in shadow lines relative to existing conditions. Shadow profiles were evaluated in four critical dates of the year: March 21, June 21, September 21, and December 21. As shown in the shadow study (Attachment C), the shadows of the proposed project would be cast mostly on utility areas, such as the trash enclosure and loading areas within Lane 30, parking stalls at the alley, abutting buildings by the alley, streets, rooftops, and the front yards of adjacent buildings across Kipling Street. The City’s threshold of significance is substantial shadows cast onto public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. There is no public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) in the project area; therefore, the project would create no significant impacts related to shadows. The proposed project at winter solstice (worst-case shadow) would however increase the shadows from filtered shadows cast by existing buildings and trees to full shadow along Kipling Street. Most buildings abutting Lane 30 do not have windows to the alley that would be impacted by these shadows. Though, some shadows would be cast on the building facades across Kipling Street. These shadows are not considered as significant impacts. Circulation Study City of Palo Alto Page 7 While a previous Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared and found no impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a supplemental study was commissioned in response to the City’s Council motion, item F. The updated report is provided as Attachment D. There are recommendations included in the report to help facilitate improved traffic flow, but these conclusions do not impact the project and do not alter the CEQA analysis. The project is expected to generate as many as 166 net new daily trips, with 17 inbound and 4 outbound net new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 4 inbound and 17 outbound net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The project site is also located downtown with transit, bicycle and pedestrian access; the actual vehicle trip will likely be lower. As previously stated in the Transportation Impact Analysis Report, the traffic at signalized and signalized intersections would continue to operate adequately with the increased trip volume generated by the proposed project. Lane 30 runs between Waverley Street and Kipling Street and is designed for one-way traffic, with vehicles entering from Waverley Street and driving eastbound to exit onto Kipling Street. Observations of traffic activity in the alley were conducted by the transportation consultant. Both pedestrians and vehicles used the alley to travel from one end to the other, as well as to access businesses located off of the alley for loading zones. The entrance to the alley at Waverley Street has good visibility for vehicles turning from Waverley. Vehicles entering right-angled parking spaces along the alley have ample space to turn, even with the dumpsters lining some portions of the alley. The proposed project would similarly have sufficient space for drivers to enter and exit the underground parking garage. The alley would be used by future building tenants accessing the underground parking garage in the same way that it is currently used. There is no potential impact from the proposed building on the operation of the alley, as it would continue to operate as it does currently. Parked cars along the southbound side of Kipling Street were the main factor limiting the visibility of vehicles exiting the alley. Two large street trees adjacent to the curb cut further obstructed drivers’ views onto Kipling Street. The project includes the removal of the southern tree, to be replaced by a tree approximately 15 feet back from the property line and curb cut, eliminating the visual obstruction for drivers looking to their right as they exit the alley. The corner of the proposed building would improve the sight lines onto Kipling Street, as the building would obstruct less than the existing parking and street trees, and visibility of approaching vehicles would be very similar on both the driver’s left and right. Drivers exiting the alley would likely be driving down the center of the alley, which gives them about 7 feet of clearance on each side. This clear space allows view of pedestrians on the sidewalk from Kipling Street. Vehicles turning out of the alley onto Kipling Street would continue to have marginally adequate sight lines, restricted primarily by vehicles parked very close to the curb cut. The field observations and traffic counts conducted in the Traffic Operation Study indicated that the alley has low volume traffic at low speeds. There is no potential impact from the City of Palo Alto Page 8 proposed underground garage on the operation of the alley as parking would continue to operate as it currently does. Independent from the project, the Study recognized the potential operational challenges in the alley with potential conflicts from pedestrian activities and the observed illegal vehicular operations. The Study made the following recommendations to improve the traffic operations in vicinity of the project site; however, these recommendations are not project-related:  Add arrows on the pavement at the entrance and exist of Lane 30 to clarify the permitted one-way traffic flow, and alter the signage that exists at Kipling Street to be clearly visible to drivers approaching the alley from either direction;  Consider removing one on-street parking space and the nearest street tree on southbound of Kipling Street just north of the alley in order to improve sight lines for existing drivers; and  Consider relocating the loading zone near Waverley Street to the opposite side of the alley to reduce pedestrian conflicts at the alley entrance.9 Historic Resources Board Review The revised project and additional studies were referred to the Historic Resources Board on September 10, 2015 to address the specific issues that were identified by the City Council, as listed above. In summary, the HRB members expressed concerns that the current proposed project would adversely affect the setting and general architectural character of the area, which contains several historical resources. However, the HRB members were not definitive or unanimous regarding whether or not the proposed project would have effects that would reach the CEQA thresholds for a significant impact on a historical resource. The draft verbatim transcript of the HRB meeting can be found in Attachment F. Staff recommends readers review the draft transcript for a complete understanding of the Board’s comments. The HRB considered each of the Council’s items and contributed to the responses listed below: a. The historical resource impact analysis focuses on whether there are criteria for a historic district. There is no need for existence of a district for there to be historic considerations. The HRB should determine whether there are other factors that should be considered. The HRB members agreed with the City’s consultant that, in the absence of an identified historic district, other factors that should be considered include the potential for direct physical impacts on nearby individual historic buildings, and the potential for indirect impacts that could affect the settings of nearby individual historic buildings. One HRB member noted that the area in the vicinity of the project site contained several buildings originally designed by local architect Birge Clark. The HRB member asked if a 9 The Transportation Division will be implementing pavement markings and signage improvements and is evaluating other report recommendations. City of Palo Alto Page 9 concentration of Clark-designed buildings could qualify as a historic district. Staff replied that the area was previously surveyed and evaluated in 1976, and again in 1998-2000, which resulted in identification of several Clark-designed buildings as individual historical resources, but no eligible historic districts. The previous finding of no eligible district was verified by the City’s consultant (see Attachment B). Specifically, it was noted that the number and frequency of altered buildings and newer buildings in the area eliminates the area from consideration as a district. b. What is the applicable “area of potential effect” under CEQA analysis? The HRB members generally agreed with the City’s consultant that a CEQA study area for a new construction project should include the city block-faces that could be visually affected by the new construction. The City’s consultant analyzed the block-faces that contain and that are opposite the project site on University Avenue and Kipling Street. However, several HRB members commented that the study area should have extended further north on University Avenue to Cowper Street, and possibly to other nearby block-faces, in order to consider potential visual and aesthetic impacts on historical resources in these locations. c. There are a number of historic structures nearby (e.g. on Kipling), one next to the proposed project and several across the street. How will the project impact these structures? The HRB members agreed with the City’s consultant that potential physical impacts (such as noise, vibrations, dust, or inadvertent damage) to nearby historical resources would be avoided by implementation of all required mitigation measures and building and safety codes during project construction, which would protect nearby individual historic buildings from physical damage or harm. None of the historical resources in the vicinity of the project site contain physical features or materials that require special protection or consideration during normal construction and/or demolition activities. Furthermore, the City’s consultant analyzed potential impacts of the proposed project on the character and setting of nearby historic buildings, as described further below. d. Whether the mass, scale, and compatibility of the proposed project has an impact on the existing historic properties should be analyzed. The HRB members generally agreed with the City’s consultant that the potential impacts of the proposed project’s massing and scale on the character of existing historical resources should be analyzed. Specifically, HRB members indicated that the compatibility and the potential effects of the proposed project on the settings of nearby historic buildings should be considered, as discussed further below under item “e”. The HRB members considered items “d” and “e” to be closely related. e. Whether the proposed building would change the setting of the historic properties on Kipling Street or University Avenue and have an impact under CEQA. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Setting is defined as the physical environment of a historic property. The HRB members expressed a lack of satisfaction with City’s consultant’s analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the setting of existing historical resources. The consultant noted that the existing setting is architecturally diverse and varied in mass and scale, as a result of previous development patterns that included new construction, alterations to older buildings, and preservation of existing historic buildings. The consultant found that the overall historic setting had been previously altered, and that the threshold for a significant impact on nearby individual historical resources, as a result of the proposed project’s effect on setting, would not be reached or exceeded. The HRB members stated that they believed that an impact to setting could occur. Specifically, HRB members commented that the mass and scale of the new construction appears to overwhelm existing smaller historic structures on University Avenue and Kipling Street, and the proposed new design lacks compatibility with existing historic architecture in the area. Also, one HRB member expressed a concern that the proposed project could further harm the potential significance of Birge Clark-designed buildings as a grouping. However, several HRB members indicated that the HRB may not have the expertise in CEQA review to understand the CEQA threshold that separates significant impacts from less-than-significant impacts. Architectural Review Board Review Prior to the Director’s determination on the project, the Architectural Review Board considered the project at three public hearings and recommended approval with conditions to the previous proposal on February 25, 2015. The ARB reviewed the revised project plans, evaluated the additional studies and revised CEQA documentation, and considered the applicant’s response to Council in the public hearing on September 17, 2015. The draft verbatim transcript of the ARB meeting can be found in Attachment G. Staff recommends readers review the draft transcript for a complete understanding of the Board’s comments. In summary, the ARB agreed that the revised plan has demonstrated an effort to minimize the massing and scale of the project. The ARB continued to support the conclusion that the project design is generally compatible with the broader Downtown context along University Avenue, but less so when evaluated solely from the perspective of Kipling Street. However, the ARB acknowledged that the block between University Avenue and Lytton Street has a mix of building styles and characters. The ARB agreed that the project plan does include various elements that create design linkages to nearby buildings and provides transitions to the existing commercial development. Two of the three ARB members reviewing the project expressed concerns that the revised building design appears to be bland with fairly uniform building facades and suggested further refinement on the façade design was needed. The ARB considered each of the Council’s items and provided responses, as listed below: City of Palo Alto Page 11 a. The design shall be compatible with the immediate environment of the site– the building will be designed with articulation and setbacks that minimize massing. ARB Response: The ARB concluded that the overall massing and setback of the current project is generally compatible with the immediate environment. The current project plan has stepped back from University Avenue compared to the original proposal. The two-to-three story appearance along University Avenue matches with the adjacent buildings. On the Kipling elevation, one ARB member acknowledged that the adjacent building across Kipling Street has a three story appearance and two ARB members noted that the proposed building has appropriate architectural responses, including setbacks and open walkways, to minimize building mass and respect nearby buildings. On the alley elevation, one ARB member suggested that pushing a uniform block toward the alley was not ideal. Other members recognized the development potentials that are permitted for the surrounding area. One ARB member noted the idea of reversing the building mass by putting the four story bulk on University and two story bulk in the back is also ‘not going to fly’. Two ARB members noted that the revised building design has little articulation and ‘appears to be bland’ with less visual interest. One ARB member noted that adjacent buildings have railing, crenellations with more depth to their facades than the proposed project. Two ARB members recommended further refinement on the façades to improve the architectural character of the building. b. In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. ARB Response: The ARB recognized the design character of Kipling Street is different from the University Avenue. The ARB acknowledged that the project is located in an area with multiple Victorian structures in vicinity, but the design character of this block is a mix of building styles that evolve over time. Two ARB members noted that the current project design respects the current zoning regulations and is appropriate to the current development trends and styles. c. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. ARB Response: Two ARB members noted that the design is compatible with approved improvements on and off the site. d. The design of roof lines, entries, setbacks, mass and scale with context based criteria. ARB Response: The ARB considered the removal of the overhang structure above the third level as a design improvement to setback the mass and to reduce scale perception along University Avenue. Although the massing toward Kipling Street remains large in scale, the ARB City of Palo Alto Page 12 felt that the stair and elevator shafts that contribute to the building mass are appropriately located at the project site for the proposed land uses. e. Street building facades – building to return with greater reinforcement of the relationship of the street with building mass. The upper floors need to have setbacks to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. Specifically, the look and feel from the street should be of a look and feel compatible with adjacent buildings, with the option of a third or fourth floor provided they are visually compatible from the streets, requiring articulation or setbacks. ARB Response: The ARB acknowledged the effort made to address the University Avenue frontage as the current design has set back the upper floors and created a two-story appearance. The ARB recognized that the proposed building has a three to four story appearance on Kipling Street and Lane 30 and is taller than the one to two story structures found in the area. One ARB member noted that the proposal of a four story building with 3.0 floor area is compatible in the broader context of Downtown. However, if the review is to give narrow focus on adjacent buildings, the elimination of the fourth floor would make the proposed building fit better with the existing context. The Board acknowledged that the proposed building mass is comprised of additional floor areas that are allowed by the transfer of development rights. One ARB member pointed out that most review findings requiring buildings to respect and mirror neighboring structures are to address compatibility issues with adjacent residential use. These findings are not applicable to this project. The Board generally felt that the proposed building provides adequate transition to a commercial street and service alley. In relation to building articulation, two ARB members found that the reduction of massing has diminished the quality and texture of the building as comparing to the previous design. The ARB noted that the removal of stone overhang elements create more emphasis on the horizontality of the building with less vertical relief to break up the elevation. f. To study shadow patterns. ARB Response: The ARB generally found that the proposed project includes sufficient setback from Lane 30. The project shadows casting on a service alley and buildings with no windows facing the alley will not create significant impact. During the meeting, an ARB member expressed confusion on the project shadows with the base map. The issue was discussed and clarified in the meeting. The shadow study has been updated with darken project shadows for clarification, which is attached as Attachment C. City of Palo Alto Page 13 g. Study circulation analysis including in the Lane 30. ARB Response: The ARB noted that extensive transportation studies have been prepared for this project and supported the implementation of the recommendations made by the updated transportation report. The ARB noted that these recommendations would improve the existing conditions for traffic operations on Lane 30 and Kipling Street. h. Direction that the project shall share design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the streets are maintained. ARB Response: Two ARB members noted that the revised project does generally contain design linkages with the overall pattern of nearby buildings. Though, two ARB members noted that the revised elevations would need further refinement as the current façade design appears to emphasize on horizontal articulation and the visual interest has been lost. Transferred Development Rights (TDR) Some have questioned the applicant’s ability to use seismic TDRs from a demolished building. It has been the City’s practice to grant seismic TDRs when a qualifying building has been either rehabilitated or demolished and rebuilt, thus addressing the seismic hazard. The rationale is that this particular bonus program was designed to incentivize the removal of seismically inferior buildings.10 However, simply owning TDRs does not guarantee the ability to use them. The Code expressly provides that the City does not guarantee that an acceptable TDR receiver site will be available: Availability of Receiver Sites - PAMC Section 18.18.080 (d) The city does not guarantee that at all times in the future there will be sufficient eligible receiver sites to receive such transferable development rights. While the TDR ordinance acknowledges that the project may not be modified for the “sole purpose” of reducing TDR square footage, it also recognizes that use of such bonus area may be subject to other provisions in the Code and other zoning findings: Transfer Procedure - PAMC Section 18.18.080(h)(3) (parenthetical added.) In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section 16.48.120 of this code; however, the project may not be required to be modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy the criteria for approval under Chapter 16.48 (old code reference to architectural review section) or any specific requirement of the municipal code. 10 In response to concerns about this practice, Planning staff is moving forward a code change as part of the Planning Code update process that will only permit use of seismic bonuses for rehabilitation. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Thus TDR transfers are still subject to standard Architectural Review findings and Context-based Design Criteria contained in PAMC section 18.18.110 and section 18.76.020 (d). Correspondence Written public comments that were not previously included in the September 17 ARB staff report (ID #6077) is included in this report as Attachment H. Resource Impact There are no significant fiscal or budget impacts associated with this recommendation. Policy Implications The following are some of the Comprehensive Plan Goals and/or polices related to this project: Program L-19: Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Downtown Urban Design Guide is not mandatory but provides useful ideas and direction for private development and public improvement in the Downtown area. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plaza. Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Policy L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/ Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrian. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. Program T-2: Promote mixed use development to provide housing and commercial services near employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving. Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs. Environmental Review The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, a Draft Initial City of Palo Alto Page 15 Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated. With a required 20-day public review, the comment period for this project was from November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been updated to include the findings of additional analyses, including the historic resources memorandum, shadow study and the traffic operations study (Attachment I)11. The plan revisions did not result in any additional impacts nor require additional mitigation measures. The original mitigation monitoring program remains the same (Attachment J). Attachments:  Attachment A - Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B - Historic Resources Memorandum dated August 14, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment C - Shadow Study Report dated September 23, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment D - Traffic Operations Study dated August 5, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment E - Revised Project Description Letter dated October 15, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment F - Draft Verbatim Transcript for Historic Resources Board September 10, 2015 Meeting (DOCX)  Attachment G - Draft Verbatim Transcript for Architectural Review Board September 17, 2015 Meeting (DOCX)  Attachment H- Pubilc Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment I - Revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated August, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment J - Mitigation Monitoring Program (PDF)  Attachment K - Project Plans (Councilmembers and Libraries Only) (DOCX) 11 The updated initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were attached to the September 10, 2015 HRB meeting and September 17, 2015 ARB meeting, is viewable at the City’s website at the link provided below: September 10, 2015 HRB meeting, Attachment A: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48887 September 17, 2015 ARB meeting, Attachment G: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49028 All Saints Episcopal Church 7-11 Garden Court Hotel Prolific Oven Palo Alto Sport Shop W FLORENC E ST REET KIPLIN G STREET LYTTON AVENUE W AVERLEY STREET TREET ETT AVENUE VENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CO WPER STREET KIPLING STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CO WPER STREET W AVERLEY STREET HAMILTON AVENUE WPER STREET TASSO STREET LANE 20 EAST LANE 30 LANE 20 WEST 301 337 339 323 317 400 420 332 30 353 355 367418431 401 366 436426 #1-7 369 390 375 373- 377 416- 424 314 338 340 560 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405 403 453 461 383 460 502 510 526 520 540 4 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432 428 460-476 450 4 302- 316 379 320 328 332 340 437327 333 407 401 385 411 452 344-348 328 456 321 325 330 460 474 333 335- 337 351 457 451 465 463 489-499 360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451 443 437 411 405 419 405401 441 480-498 34 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 500-528 54 0 530 531-535 579 567 555 408 412 440 435 445 32 8 447 515 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 435433 37 5 530 415 305 -313 405 508 482 330 349 312 443 445 447 335 506 327 469 321319 PF 74 CD-C(GF)(P))PF 4611 RMD(NP) PC-4052PF CD-C(P)PC-429 6 PC-4436 Varsity Theatre This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'150' 425 and 429-447 University AveProject Location Map 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 2014 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2014-11-13 13:52:22429University CF (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment A CD - C (P) August 14, 2015 Historic Resource Analysis 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Palo Alto, California HISTORIC RESOURCES MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY The City Council introduced the five items below for the historic resources analysis as part of the CEQA environmental review of a proposed project at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. Carey & Co. has reviewed the Initial Study for the project and the historic resources evaluation reports for 425 University Avenue and 429-447 University Avenue prepared by Preservation Architecture. We also reviewed the Evaluation Table associated with a historic resources survey undertaken by Dames & Moore, Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory1 and Downtown Urban Design guidelines. We also reviewed a plan set for the project.2 On July 10, 2015, Carey & Co. conducted a walking tour of University Avenue between Cowper Street and Waverley Street, and Kipling Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue. During the walking tour, Carey & Co. observed the project site, its relationship to surrounding properties, noted the types of buildings and their architecture, and verified the integrity of historic resources on University Avenue and Kipling Street. Please note that the walking tour took in an area greater than the proposed Area of Potential Effects (see Item B below). The following memorandum addresses the Historic Resources Board (HRB) action items presented in the final City Council motion. Those five items are listed below. A. The Preservation Architecture report focuses on whether there are criteria for a historic district. There is no need for existence of a district for there to be historic considerations. The HRB should determine whether there are other factors that should be considered. B. What is the applicable “area of potential effect” under CEQA analysis? C. There are a number of historic structures near (e.g. on Kipling), one next to the proposed project and several across the street. How will the project impact these structures? 1 The inventory also identifies properties that are California Registered Historical Landmarks and those listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 2 The plan set is dated August 3, 2015. Attachment B Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P2 D. Whether the mass, scale, and compatibility of the proposed project has an impact on the existing historic properties should be analyzed. E. Whether the proposed building would change the setting under CEQA has an impact on the historic properties on Kipling or University. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Carey and Co. agrees with the Initial Study prepared by the City of Palo Alto (January 2015) which analyzed the proposed project’s potential impacts on 425 and 429-447 University Avenue and concluded that no impacts to historic resources would occur since both properties were not eligible for listing on local, state or national registers.  Carey and Co. recommends that a study area larger than the project site may be analyzed in order to evaluate potential direct and indirect impacts to nearby historic resources that are not part of the project site. A total of eight properties are included in the study area.  Carey & Co. agrees that the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on three historic resources within the study area with the application of standard code regulations. The properties are 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street.  Carey & Co. finds that through an evaluation of six of the seven aspects of integrity, the proposed project’s design, mass, scale, and use of materials could not have an indirect impact on the integrity of historic resources. The seventh aspect, setting, is evaluated separately.  Carey & Co. finds that the proposed project would not change the setting of historic properties on Kipling Street or University Avenue. ITEM A. THE PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE REPORT FOCUSES ON WHETHER THERE ARE CRITERIA FOR A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THERE IS NO NEED FOR EXISTENCE OF A DISTRICT FOR THERE TO BE HISTORIC CONSIDERATIONS. THE HRB SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. University Avenue between Alma Street and Cowper Street is the center and retail core of downtown Palo Alto. Although a number of individual historical resources are located on the avenue, they do not form a historic district.3 Buildings are typically two- to four-story high and have a 25-50 foot wide pattern of storefronts or similar sized structural bays. Most buildings do not have setbacks and rise to a parapet wall without a distinct roof. The architectural style of the buildings and retail fronts are mixed but recessed doors, window displays, and outdoor seating is typical of the Avenue. Presumably to accommodate outdoor seating, some storefronts have been recessed. This more recent feature contrasts with the smaller, 3 Preservation Architecture, 425 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6 and 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P3 recessed entries typically found on historic buildings. The Palo Alto Office Center, the Varsity Theater and the Stanford Theater are among the local landmarks.4 The blocks around the proposed project at 425 and 429-447 University Avenue have similar features as described above. Across University Avenue from the project site, the southern two-thirds of University Avenue between Cowper and Waverly Streets have Spanish Revival style buildings with ground floor retail uses. These buildings, including the Varsity Theater, are listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory.5 The remaining one-third of the south side has two contemporary buildings: the four-story 428-432 University Avenue and the one-story 400 University Avenue, neither of which complements the architectural style and/or material use of the adjacent buildings. Most of the buildings on the northern 400 block of University Avenue (including the project site) are one or two stories high and have stucco cladding. On the north side, only 415-419 University Avenue and 423 University Avenue are listed on the Palo Alto Inventory as “contributing resources.” Although the buildings on the north side share some features, they are not exemplary of an architectural style and do not relate to the character of the historic buildings in the area. We feel that the overall historic character of these two blocks has been compromised by intrusions including incompatible materials, height, massing, and architectural features. Kipling Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue is a more of a transitional area between the commercial downtown and the residential neighborhoods north of it. Directly east of the proposed building at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street is a two-story commercial building with no distinguishing style. Further north, the block has six single family houses, five of which are used for office and retail. These detached one and two-story buildings are set back from the street and have landscaped front yards. Five are listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as “contributing buildings.”6 The western side of the street is a mix of architectural styles and uses: a one-story contemporary commercial building (440 and 444 Kipling), a two-story vernacular building (430 Kipling, listed in the Inventory and converted to offices) and a parking lot at the western corner. Kipling Street was defined as one of the “secondary districts” in the Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design document for having its own distinct characteristics: the development of the block was suggested to be promoted by retaining the single family houses and the architectural character they provide.7 The redevelopment of the parking lot at the corner of Kipling and Lytton was also encouraged in the 1993 document, but has not happened at this time. 4 This paragraph was summarized from City of Palo Alto, “Historic Inventory Category Information,” last updated June 16, 2007, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=539&TargetID=127 (accessed on July 13, 2015). 5 Buildings on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are 436- 452 University Avenue (Category 2), Varsity Theater at 456 University Avenue (Category 1), 460,-476 University Avenue (Category 2), and 480-498 University Avenue (Category 2). 6 405 Kipling Street, 411 Kipling Street, 421-423 Kipling Street, 430 Kipling Street, 431-433 Kipling Street, and 443 Kipling Street (City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, 2012). 437 Kipling is listed on the Dames and Moore Survey as “NRHP eligible under criteria A and C” (City of Palo Alto, email correspondence, July 16, 2015). 7 City of Palo Alto, Downtown Urban Design, October 1993, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514 (accessed on July 14, 2015). Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P4 Lane 30E, the service alley that runs Kipling to Waverly Street, is used for parking and serves the buildings that front onto it. The Urban Design Guide defines these alleys as “shortcut alleys which should be encouraged to use by pedestrians on a regular basis while maintaining their service functions.”8 We see this block of Kipling Street as a transitional area with mixed uses, building types, and different architectural styles. It does not have the density or total commercial character of University Avenue, but neither does it present itself as an intact residential street. ITEM B. WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE “AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT” UNDER CEQA ANALYSIS? Item B calls for defining an “area of potential effect.” An Area of Potential Effects (APE) is a term used in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to define a geographic area within which a proposed project may cause changes to the character of historic properties9. For purposes of this memorandum, we will use the term “study area” instead of APE to avoid confusion between the two historic resource review processes. The CEQA analysis prepared for the Initial Study considered the study area to be the site of the proposed project. Preservation Architecture evaluated the potential historic significance of the two properties that form the site of the proposed project and concluded that the properties did not possess historic significance. The Initial Study used those conclusions to determine that the project had a less than significant impact on the environment. The City Council has asked what an appropriate study area would be for CEQA purposes. The study area is influenced by the scale and nature of a proposed project and its surroundings. In our opinion, an area larger than the project site may be analyzed in order to analyze potential direct and indirect impacts to nearby historic resources that are not part of the project site. Although a study area can be just the site of a project, say a farm property in a rural area, the proposed project is in a dense urban area with immediately adjacent buildings that could be affected by the proposed project. In this case, there are several historical resources adjacent to the proposed project, but no historic districts. We recommend that the study area may consist of the proposed project site and immediately adjacent properties which are 423 University Avenue, 428-432 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue, 451 University Avenue, 443 Kipling Street and 440-444 Kipling Street (See Figure 1). Only one of these properties is immediately adjacent to the proposed project, 423 University Avenue, and could be directly affected by the proposed project. The others are across University Avenue, Kipling Street and Lane 30E. These latter properties are included due the potential of indirect impacts. Since a study area is defined early in the CEQA review process, potential impacts are only speculative as no impact analysis has been undertaken at that point. Therefore properties are included that may or may not be affected by the proposed project. 8 City of Palo Alto, Downtown Urban Design, October 1993, page 16, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514 (accessed on July 14, 2015). 9 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects they carry out, approve or fund on historic properties. Since there is no federal involvement in the proposed project, a Section 106 review is not required. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P5 Figure 1. The recommended study area; the project site is outlined in yellow. ITEM C. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES NEAR (E.G. ON KIPLING), ONE NEXT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND SEVERAL ACROSS THE STREET. HOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPACT THESE STRUCTURES? Item C refers to historic resources on Kipling Street and University Avenue. Using the study area recommended in Item B, the previously identified historic resources within the boundaries of the study area include the following:  423 University Avenue: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3 (contributing building); State Historic Preservation Office, Category 5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation),  436-452 University Avenue: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 2 (major building); State Historic Preservation Office, Category 3S (appears eligible for the National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation),  443 Kipling Street: Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3 (contributing building); State Historic Preservation Office, Category 5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation).10 10 City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, revised July 24, 2012, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504 (accessed on July 13, 2015); Office of Historic Preservation, Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, August 15, 2011; California State of Historic Preservation, “California Historical Resource Status Codes,” updated December 8, 2003, http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/chrstatus%20codes.pdf (accessed on July 15, 2015). Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P6 None of these properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. The evaluation of historical resources prepared for the Initial Study by Preservation Architecture found “no identified historical or cultural district, and no apparent collection of resources, thematically or architecturally, that may constitute an identifiable, future historic district or area.” 11 The proposed project is not located in a designated historic district recognized by local, state or national historic registers. Based on our survey of the study area and beyond, Carey & Co. agrees with the Preservation Architecture’s conclusion above. This statement is also supported by the City Council Staff Report (dated April 6, 2015) and the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (which only includes National Register-listed Professorville Historic District and Ramona Street Architectural District).12 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project The Initial Study found a Less than Significant Impact to local cultural resources that are recognized by City Council resolution. However, Item C asks for an analysis of the proposed project and its potential impact on historic resources.13 The Initial Study by the City of Palo Alto (January 2015) analyzed the proposed project’s potential impacts on 425 and 429-447 University Avenue and concluded that no impacts to historic resources would occur since both properties were not eligible for listing on local, state or national registers.14 Carey & Co. agrees with this conclusion. We considered a total of eight properties located within the study area. Three are historical resources and were analyzed for potential impacts: 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street. 423 University Avenue (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3) is adjacent to the project site and 436-452 University Avenue (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 2) is located across University Avenue. 443 Kipling Street (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3) is located across Kipling diagonally from the proposed project site. The City Council Staff Report, dated April 6, 2015, states that: “The proposed work, which is limited to the project site, would not have any physical or material effect on nearby individual historic structures, including the adjacent Category 3 structure. Standard conditions for construction activities would be applied to help ensure the project would not adversely affect the historical and architectural integrity of existing individual historic structures in the vicinity of the project site.” 11 Preservation Architecture, 425 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6 and 429-447 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Historic Architectural Evaluation, September 22, 2014, 5-6. 12 City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, revised July 24, 2012, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504 (accessed on July 13, 2015). 13 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) states: “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” A project that demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register is one that may have a significant effect of the environment. 14 City of Palo Alto, 429University Avenue Project, Initial Study, draft released November 2014, updated January 2015, 17. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P7 Carey & Co. agrees that the proposed project would not have any impacts on 423 University Avenue with the application of standard code regulations. We also believe that the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street since the construction site is separated by the streets and all construction activity would take place on the north and west side of the streets. Indirect impacts could affect these three properties. Although the method of construction is not identified in the project plans, we assume that vibration will not be an environmental impact such that it could affect the stability of either property. ITEM D. WHETHER THE MASS, SCALE, AND COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE EXISTING HISTORIC PROPERTIES SHOULD BE ANALYZED. The proposed project’s design, mass, scale, and use of materials could have an indirect impact on the integrity of historic resources. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic significance through the retention of physical characteristics that justify its inclusion in local, state or national registers. There are seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Location Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street would remain where they are. The proposed project would not have an impact on the location of these properties. Design Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. The design of each property would remain and not be affected by the proposed project. Setting See Item E. Materials Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P8 materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. The materials associated with each property would not change or be affected by the proposed project. Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. The workmanship evidenced in the buildings at 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street would remain embodied in the architectural elements and features of these buildings. The proposed project would not have an impact on the workmanship of the buildings. Feeling Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. The proposed project would not affect the physical features that convey the historic character of 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue. The same can be said of 443 Kipling Street. In both cases, the properties would continue to express their “aesthetic and historic sense.” Association Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. The historic significance of 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue is related to the commercial development of downtown Palo Alto, especially along University Avenue. The proposed project will not affect this relationship. 443 Kipling Street maintains a different relationship – that to the development of a residential neighborhood backing up to the commercial properties on University. Although the setting of Kipling Street (see Item E) has changed over time with fewer residential buildings on the street, 443 Kipling Street would continue to retain its residential character and relationship to the earlier residential development that took place on Kipling Street. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P9 ITEM E. WHETHER THE PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD CHANGE THE SETTING UNDER CEQA HAS AN IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES ON KIPLING OR UNIVERSITY. Item E asks whether the proposed building would change the setting of historic properties on Kipling Street and University Avenue under CEQA. Setting is one of the seven aspects of integrity (see above). In the evaluating the historic significance of a property, the property must retain enough integrity in order for it to convey its historic significance. Setting is defined as the physical environment of a historic property: “Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. (…) The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including such elements as:  Topographic features;  Vegetation;  Simple manmade features; and  Relationships between buildings and other features or open space.”15 Several historic resources are located in and around the study area. These resources are listed in the City’s Inventory and some of them appear eligible for the National Register. However, there are not any previously designated or identified historic districts or there is no apparent collection of resources that may constitute an identifiable historic district. The 400 block of University Avenue has changed over time, including previous demolitions and alterations to older buildings, such that the demolition of the subject properties and addition of the proposed project would not change the existing character of the block. Kipling Street serves as a transition between commercial University Avenue and northern residential neighborhoods of Palo Alto. The proposed project would not impact historic resources on Kipling Street directly since they are not immediately adjacent to the project site. However, potential indirect impacts to the setting of the historic properties on Kipling Street may be considered. The overall setting of Kipling Street is defined by the properties on both sides of the street from the rear of the commercial buildings on University Avenue to Lytton Avenue. The setting of the historic properties has already been compromised in several ways. First, assuming that the street was once lined with residential structures on both the east and west sides of the street, only one altered residential structure remains on the west side.16 Second, the existing parking lot is a major intrusion on the setting of the block having removed buildings and eliminated relationships that buildings on one side of the street 15 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm (accessed on July 15, 2015). 16 Carey & Co. was not tasked with conducting research on the history of Kipling Street. Carey & Co., Inc. 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project August 14, 2015 Historic Resources Memorandum P10 had to others on the opposite side. Therefore, the larger setting of the Kipling Street properties has been previously compromised. Third, while the group of buildings on Kipling Street may impart character to the street, as described in the Downtown Urban Design Plan, they do not appear to constitute a potential historic district whose resource setting may be affected. The proposed project will replace a commercial building and although larger in scale and height, it will not adversely impact the setting of the existing individual resources on Kipling, including 443 Kipling Street. Additionally, the proposed project will maintain the relationship between the commercial uses on University Avenue and the transitional state of Kipling Street. As previously discussed in Item A University Avenue between Alma Street and Cowper Street is the center and retail core of downtown Palo Alto. Although a number of individual historical resources are located on the avenue, they do not form a historic district. Similar to Kipling Street, the proposed project will not substantially alter the physical environment of the individual historic resources on University such that their integrity would be compromised to the degree that they would lose their historic significance. jt ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN  1366 MISSION ST, STUDIO 2  SF 94103  PHONE/FAX: 415.934.1955/1958  E-MAIL: JTROTTER@JTAD.NET C:\Users\James\Dropbox\429 University\429 University (Shadow Study)\Rev092215\1506-02m(ShadowStudy-429Univ).docx 1 Last printed 9/24/2015 12:58:00 PM S H A D O W S T U D Y : 4 2 9 U n i v e r s i t y A v e , P a l o A l t o , C A Updated September 23, 2015 (see the additional italicized comments after the summary) Ms. Hillary Gitelman Director of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 The purpose of this shadow study is to take the data of the proposed building and the surrounding existing physical conditions and provide comparison of the projected changes in shadow lines throughout the course of the year with the existing shadow lines produced by the current conditions. As has been well documented, the proposed mixed-use building at 429 University was originally approved (revision 5) but is now being reevaluated with this latest set of revisions (recorded as revision 6) being used for this shadow study. We have decided not to show the previous versions of the proposed building because the shadow lines produced were found to be virtually the same. The SketchUp model being used includes the proposed building in the immediate neighborhood, fronting University at the corner of Universityand Kipling. The alleywayat the rear of the propertyconnects the streetsWaverleyand Kipling while also providing an open space buffer between the commercial properties facing University and the properties facing Waverley and Kipling. The proposed building is also setback 4 feet from the property line at the alley. While the existing buildings at 429 University have trees lining both University and Kipling, the proposed building will be replacing the existing trees on Kipling Street with new trees as shown in the model. The following summary of findings refers to the attached data taken from using the models for the proposed building and the current conditions. The data shows the shadow profiles for all four critical dates of the year, Mar 21st, June 21s, Sept. 21st & Dec 21st. Both the spring (Mar. 21 st) and fall (Sept. 21 st) equinoxes are included separatelyeven though they essentiallyshow the same results. We have also created a separate set of shadow profiles that show the shadows exclusively for the project site and the current conditions with existing trees. In this way, both the overall shadow lines and the shadows produced by the site exclusively can be properly evaluated. Please note the shadows for this study are the dark monotone gray overlay in the images and the background imageof theneighborhood hasshadows which arefaded and not partof thestudy. Wehave not added anymore dates than the four listed because the winter solstice on Dec. 21 st is understood to produce the longest shadows ofthe yearwhilethelongestdayofthe yearonthesummersolstice,June21 st,has someoftheshortestshadows. The shadow profiles are shown in the attached document. Here are our conclusions based on our findings: 1. The shadows at spring/fall and summer are smaller relative to the winter solstice and cause nosignificant impact. 2. As with any shadow study, the winter solstice cast the longest shadows. However, theseshadows are long even for the existing building. The incremental shadows at winter solstice are not significant when comparing the existing building to the proposed building. Also note that with the existing trees on Kipling, the combined shadow with the existing building covers a similar range to the proposed building over Kipling in the afternoon hours. 3. The shadows are cast mostly on the alley, parking stalls at the alley, buildings abutting the alley,streets and rooftops. All these areas are mostly utility areas as opposed to gardens or residential rooms. Furthermore, the buildings at the alley have their main ingress/egress at Waverley and Kipling streets and most do not have windows to the alley. Attachment C jt ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN  1366 MISSION ST, STUDIO 2  SF 94103  PHONE/FAX: 415.934.1955/1958  E-MAIL: JTROTTER@JTAD.NET C:\Users\James\Dropbox\429 University\429 University (Shadow Study)\Rev092215\1506-02m(ShadowStudy-429Univ).docx 2 Last printed 9/24/2015 12:58:00 PM S H A D O W S T U D Y : 4 2 9 U n i v e r s i t y A v e , P a l o A l t o , C A 4. In none of the scenarios do the shadows have significant impact on the residential-type buildings on both the east and west sides of Kipling Street. The greatest impact is on the winter solstice which is also the shortest day of the year. Also, note that on the winter solstice and on the equinox dates, there is an equal or greater impact on the residential-type buildings by the neighboring properties opposite Kipling and facing University as well as the existing trees lining Kipling that remain. 5. The worst case shadow day, the day on which the net new shadow is longest is estimated to be between on Dec. 21st & Dec. 28th and therefore, the winter solstice can be noted as the worst case shadow day. The net shadow is bigger for the proposed building than it is for the existing building but all the extended shadows are cast over the neighboring commercial properties to the rear of 429 University and across Kipling to the front yards of the residential-type buildings. The existing building’s shadows along with the existing trees lining the existing building cast a shadow over the same walkable areas adjacent to the property. Therefore, the impact of the net shadow is minimal because the extended shadows do not adversely affect the walkable adjacent areas any more than the existing building on the worst case shadow day. 6. Although this is mentioned earlier, it is worth noting separately that the existing building is surrounded by large trees that themselves cast shadows on the alley, parking stalls at the alley, buildings abutting the alley, streets, and rooftops. With the new trees proposed, these shadows will not be as significant nor have an adverse net effect on the neighboring properties. In summary, the architectural drawings & analysis using the SketchUp models of the proposed and existing buildings indicate that the proposed building's shadows do not have a significant shadow impact to the immediate vicinity of the subject site relative to the shadow impact of the current conditions. REVISION COMMENTS (09-23-15): The shadow study was updated with the actual shadows at ground level darkened to monochrome black. The earlier picture appeared a little confusing because the shadows from the base map used in the pictures blended with the study shadows when the pictures were printed in black and white. (If printed in color, the shadows in the base map image would not be blended with the study shadows.) The faded shadows in the base map could not be removed without compromising the base map image so the study shadows were darkened and sharpened to avoid confusion with the base map image that is still needed to identify the existing street conditions. There are no other changes. This shadow study remains the same and its conclusions have not changed. If you have any further questions regarding this shadow study analysis, please contact my office at 415-934-1955 and we will gladly clarify and answer additional questions. Sincerely, Jim Trotter, AIA, NCARB jt Architecture+Design Principal/Owner CA Lic. #C26179 9 AM 12 N 3 PM March 21 Spring Equinox EXISTING BUILDINGS 9 AM 12 N 3 PM March 21 Spring Equinox PROPOSED BUILDING 9 AM 12 N 3 PM March 21 Spring Equinox EXISTING BUILDINGS (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM March 21 Spring Equinox PROPOSED BUILDING (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM June 21 Summer Solstice EXISTING BUILDINGS 9 AM 12 N 3 PM June 21 Summer Solstice PROPOSED BUILDING 9 AM 12 N 3 PM June 21 Summer Solstice EXISTING BUILDINGS (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM June 21 Summer Solstice PROPOSED BUILDING (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Sept 21 Fall Equinox EXISTING BUILDINGS 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Sept 21 Fall Equinox PROPOSED BUILDING 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Sept 21 Fall Equinox EXISTING BUILDINGS (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Sept 21 Fall Equinox PROPOSED BUILDING (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Dec 21 Winter Solstice EXISTING BUILDINGS 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Dec 21 Winter Solstice PROPOSED BUILDING 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Dec 21 Winter Solstice EXISTING BUILDINGS (Site Only) 9 AM 12 N 3 PM Dec 21 Winter Solstice PROPOSED BUILDING (Site Only) Memorandum Date: August 05, 2015 To: Ms. Elizabeth Wong, Kipling Post LP, and Mr. Rafael Rius, City of Palo Alto From: Gary Black Subject: Traffic Operations Study for 429 University Mixed-Use Development in Palo Alto, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a review of traffic operations into and out of the alley adjacent to your proposed mixed-use project at 429 University Avenue in Palo Alto. At the request of the City of Palo Alto, we have conducted additional analysis of the circulation in the alley and the interface of the alley with Waverley Street and with Kipling Street. This analysis includes a discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed project on operations in the alley. Alley Configuration The alley adjacent to the project site runs between Waverley Street and Kipling Street. The alley is designated for one-way traffic, with vehicles entering from Waverley Street and driving eastbound to exit onto Kipling Street. There is a loading zone along a portion of the northern side of the alley near Waverley Street and 18 total parking spaces along the southern side, of which the two spaces for 425 University Avenue are gated. There are also two parking spaces on the northern side of the alley that had been blocked by the yoga studio, Yoga Works, and were not available for parking. Just recently the parking spaces have been reopened. The available parking is used primarily by employees at the businesses with doors onto the alley. In addition to the marked loading zone, the northern side of the alley has a few dumpsters for the adjacent businesses. The dumpsters still leave at least 15 feet for a traveled way. The alley has a marked no parking zone near Kipling Street. The total clear space in the alley varies in width from 20 feet building to building near Waverley, to approximately 40 feet along 415-423 University Avenue. The alley is 20 feet wide from the property line of the proposed project to the existing building on the northern side of the alley. Figure 1 shows the location of all major features and the surrounding streets. Project Description The proposed project consists of a 4-story mixed use building, which will replace the existing buildings. Two levels of underground parking, accessed via the alley, would provide 40 parking spaces, replacing the eight open parking spaces behind the existing 429-447 University Avenue building and two gated parking spaces at 425 University Avenue. A site plan dated August 27, 2015 is shown in Figure 2. As discussed in more detail in our previously completed traffic impact analysis, the project is expected to generate as many as 166 net new daily trips, with 17 inbound and 4 outbound net new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 4 inbound and 17 outbound net new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Due to the downtown location and robust transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access, the actual vehicle trips will likely be lower. As previously stated in the Hexagon Transportation Impact Analysis Report, the traffic at signalized and unsignalized intersections would continue to operate adequately with the proposed project. Attachment D Traffic Operations Study for 429 University in Palo Alto, CA August 05, 2015 Page | 2 Traffic Counts and Observations Observations of alley activity were conducted on Thursday, June 11, 2015, and traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, June 18, 2015. The counts showed that the alley carried 68 cars and light trucks, 7 heavy trucks, 16 bicycles, and 108 total pedestrian trips between the hours of 6 AM and 8 PM (daylight hours). Field observations looked at the makeup and operations of traffic in the alley during a typical day. Observations showed that between the hours of 9 AM and 4 PM, pedestrians accounted for 56% of trips into and out of the alley, passenger vehicles accounted for 31%, and delivery vehicles accounted for 10%, including both delivery vans and large trucks. 20% of pedestrians and 11% of passenger vehicles used the alley as a shortcut, i.e., traveled from one end to the other. The single largest portion of pedestrian trips were people walking to or from Yoga Works, accounting for 28% of pedestrians walking in and out of the alley. Although Yoga Works has an entrance on Kipling Avenue, many customers currently use the alley entrance where two parking spaces have been blocked and made unavailable for parking. The single largest portion of vehicle trips were people parking behind the building that contains 429-447 University Avenue, accounting for 30% of vehicles driving in and out, most of which performed at least one illegal operation as described below. As expected, the alley experienced a significant amount of loading activity. The florist on Waverley Street did most of their loading and deliveries during the morning hours, utilizing the nearby loading zone. This involved workers repeatedly moving back and forth across the alley entrance, between delivery vehicles in the loading zone and the florist shop. During the rest of the observation period, several delivery trucks and vans entered the alley and double parked to make their deliveries. A significant proportion of these vehicles stopped in the No Parking zone near Kipling Street, or blocked other traffic by stopping next to 425 University Avenue. Vehicles parked in the No Parking zone generally cut the available width of the alley in half, from 20 feet to 10 feet. There were also numerous pedestrians entering and exiting the alley, with at least 20% walking through the length of the alley rather than entering or leaving alley buildings. As noted above, 28% of the total pedestrian activity observed was related to the yoga studio. As shown in Figure 1, the alley contains 18 usable parking spaces, plus two spaces adjacent to the yoga studio. Most of the vehicles using these spaces entered from Waverley Street and left via Kipling Street. However, all but two of the vehicles parking behind the 429-447 University Avenue building entered the alley from Kipling Street, against a One Way sign. Most of the vehicles entering the wrong direction approached the alley from southbound Kipling Street (coming from Lytton Avenue). Coming from that direction, the signage indicating that the alley is one way is not prominent. Among the vehicles that stopped or parked in the No Parking zone near Kipling, one was a delivery van that was simply parked there for over an hour, and another was a passenger vehicle that was later re-parked behind 429 University Avenue. Discussion Kipling Street Operations Kipling Street is approximately 30 feet wide, curb to curb, with two-way traffic and on-street parking along both sides of the street. Although left turns off of eastbound University Avenue are not allowed, right turns off of westbound University Avenue are allowed. Northbound vehicles on Kipling Street that had turned off of University Avenue were observed to weave around and between southbound vehicles and parked cars, indicating that the street is only marginally wide enough to theoretically support two-way traffic. In practice, vehicles travelling in opposite directions appeared to experience significant difficulty negotiating the narrow street and avoiding parked cars. The Traffic Operations Study for 429 University in Palo Alto, CA August 05, 2015 Page | 3 recommendation below to remove one or two parking spaces would help with maneuverability on Kipling Street. Parked cars along the southbound side of Kipling Street were also the main factor limiting the visibility of vehicles exiting the alley. Two large street trees adjacent to the curb cut added to the visual obstructions drivers experienced. The proposed project includes removal of the southern tree, to be replaced by a narrower tree approximately 15 feet back from the property line and curb cut, eliminating the visual obstruction for drivers looking to their right as they exit the alley. However, the northern tree in front of the neighboring property is expected to remain. From a traffic safety standpoint, it would be desirable to remove the northern tree and eliminate one parking space along the southbound side of Kipling Avenue. This recommendation is independent of the proposed project at 429 University Avenue. There are currently 9 parking spaces on the southbound side of Kipling Street, between the public parking lot and University Avenue. Hexagon understands that parking is valuable in downtown Palo Alto and that the loss of parking must be weighed against the traffic safety concerns. Sight Lines and Turning Radii Unlike the exit onto Kipling Street, the alley entrance at Waverley Street has good visibility for vehicles turning off of Waverley, and the street is wide enough to allow drivers to turn more easily. Waverley Street is approximately 47 feet curb to curb, with parallel street parking on the southbound side and angled street parking on the northbound side near the alley. Sight lines for both northbound and southbound vehicles on Waverly Street turning off of Waverley Street into the alley are excellent. As discussed above, vehicles turning out of the alley onto Kipling Street have marginally adequate sight lines, restricted primarily by vehicles parked very close to the curb cut and by the presence of very wide street trees near both sides of the curb cut. The corner of the proposed building would improve the sight lines onto Kipling Street as it obstructs less than the existing street parking and street trees, and visibility of approaching vehicles would be very similar on both the driver’s left and right. Drivers exiting the alley would be likely to be driving down the center of the alley, which gives them about 7 feet of clearance on each side. This clear space allows a view of pedestrians on the sidewalk. Despite the sight distance challenges, under existing conditions drivers appeared to have no difficulty safely turning out of the alley onto Kipling Street. Vehicles entering right-angled parking spaces along the alley have ample space to turn, even with the dumpsters lining some portions of the alley. The proposed project would similarly have ample space for drivers to enter and exit the underground parking garage. The project already proposes to add mirrors at this exit to increase visibility. The proposed project would minimize the vehicle conflicts caused by backing of parked vehicles into alley by allowing vehicles to pull forward on to the alley from the proposed parking garage. Hazards and Conflicts Potential operational hazards in the alley include both conflicts with pedestrians and the number of illegal operations observed. A significant number of pedestrians walked into, out of, or through the alley during the observation period, including a large proportion walking to or from the yoga studio. The florist on Waverley Street did a large amount of loading and delivery during the morning hours, with workers repeatedly moving back and forth across the alley entrance. The City should consider relocating the loading zone adjacent to the florist building, in order to reduce the number of pedestrian conflicts during their morning delivery period. This recommendation is independent of the proposed project at 429 University Avenue. This would not significantly affect the visibility of vehicles turning into the alley from Waverley Street. Traffic Operations Study for 429 University in Palo Alto, CA August 05, 2015 Page | 4 During the observation period, several delivery vehicles and at least one passenger vehicle were observed to park in the marked “No Parking” zone on the north side of the alley near Kipling Street, or to double park in the middle of the block where they obstructed at least one parking space at a time and prevented traffic from moving through the alley. In addition, all but two of the vehicles parking behind 429 University Avenue entered the alley from Kipling Street (possibly because the One Way signage is not sufficiently prominent for drivers on southbound Kipling as they approach the alley), and one of the remaining two was initially illegally parked in the marked “No Parking” zone nearby and later moved into an available space. Recommendations and Conclusions Hexagon’s field observations and the traffic counts conducted for this study indicate that the alley has a low volume of traffic travelling at low speeds and that drivers appear to have no difficulty safely turning out of the alley onto Kipling Street. Hexagon has the following recommendations regarding the alley as it is currently used. These recommendations are independent of the proposed building at 429 University Avenue.  Hexagon recommends adding arrows on the pavement at the entrance and exit of the alley to clarify the permitted one-way traffic flow, and altering the signage that exists at Kipling Avenue to be clearly visible to drivers approaching the alley from either direction.  The City should consider removing the one on-street parking space and nearest street tree on southbound Kipling Street just north of the alley in order to improve sight lines for exiting drivers.  The City should consider relocating the loading zone near Waverley Street to the opposite side of the alley, in order to reduce pedestrian conflicts at the alley entrance. The alley would be used by future building tenants accessing the underground parking garage in the same way that it is currently used. There is no potential impact from the proposed building on the operation of the alley as it will continue to operate as it currently does. The project applicant should make it clear to future building tenants that the alley may not be entered from Kipling Street. The project applicant should also make an effort to ensure that tenants and visitors do not park in the marked “No Parking” zone in the alley. 429 University Avenue, Palo Alto Figure 1 Alley Configuration LEGEND Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e Ln 3 0 E Ki p l i n g S t r e e t W a v e r l y S t r e e t = Project Site = Loading Zone = No Parking = Parking Space - Not Currently Available for Parking = Parking Space - Available = Occupied by Dumpsters Yog a S t u d i o Flor i s t 429- 4 4 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e 423 Univ . 425 Univ . 415 Univ . Page 1 P. O. BOX 204 PALO ALTO, CA 94302 October 15, 2015 To: James Keene, City of Palo Alto Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney Hillary Gitelman, Jonathan Lait, Dept. of Planning and Community Environment Members of the Historical Resources Board Members of the Architectural Resources Board City Council Members Fellow Palo Altans Re: Project Description Letter - 429 University (Revision 6) 429 University is a beautiful mixed-used building that responds to the needs of the modern retailer, office user and downtown resident. This building will be in some aspects similar to the Apple building at 340 University Ave., a development in which we participated. Like the Apple building, we anticipate that 429 University Ave. will bring substantial sales tax revenues to the City of Palo Alto and will contribute to the landscape of Palo Alto’s primary downtown. As you know, I have done other beautiful buildings in Palo Alto that I am extremely proud of, and whose quality is unsurpassed. 429 University will be no different. It is in a contemporary style, permitted under Standards and Guidelines, Department of the Interior (see architect Martin Bernstein’s letter of April 13, 2015, attached), that fits into the eclectic setting of downtown Palo Alto. It has crystallized opaque white glass panels juxtaposed with customized cast colored cement panels at the first and second floor façade. The retail entrance doors are in chrome. The building states quality, simplicity and elegance; it will showcase almost any type of merchandise. In this submittal, Revision 6, we address the MASSING and other concerns voiced by Council at its hearing on May 4, 2015. The University Ave. façade presents a two-story building to pedestrians walking at its side since its third floor has been set back considerably from the Avenue and from Kipling Street. The fourth floor is practically invisible from the Avenue. Pedestrians walking south on Kipling Street will first see a serene planter, possibly containing a water sculpture art surrounded by vegetation. A transparent glass lobby, a possible site for thoughtful and beautiful art, will be the backdrop totally visible to pedestrians. The walk at Kipling Street is pedestrian friendly and also provides a comfortable transition to University Avenue. We are pleased to present a design that carefully organizes and thoughtfully controls the building’s functions while enhancing its aesthetic goals. It was 1962 when I arrived alone in the United States in search of the American dream. It took six years before I was able save enough for my plane fare to go back to Argentina to see my family again. As I approach my 68th birthday this month, I want to offer my community and my family a legacy of quality in Attachment E Page 2 the buildings I have done. I submit to you that 429 University will be part of this legacy, an enhancement to the quality of Downtown Palo Alto, which will contribute to the community and to the City. I ask fellow Palo Altans for your support. I have worked diligently to comply with all City requirements and at every step of the process I have kept the City’s interests in mind. Below are details on the project. 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. It comprises two existing parcels, 425 University and 429 University. 425 University Ave. is a 4,425 SF, one-story retail/office building with mezzanine, while 429 University Ave. is a 7,208 SF, one-story retail/office building. Both are served by a 20-foot wide alley, Lane 30, at the rear of the site. The property is surrounded by commercial buildings on all street frontages as well as across the alley, Lane 30. Across University Avenue are the Varsity Theater, a historic resource, and the modern Lululemon Athletica/Accel Partners retail/office, 4-story building. 2. PROPOSED PROJECT We propose to demolish and recycle, in accordance with Palo Alto’s waste and recycling requirements, both of the existing buildings and combine the two parcels to form one 11,000 SF parcel. In its place, we plan to erect a new four-story retail, office and residential mixed-use building. The retail/office component, which was 11,633 SF, will be replaced by 20,407 SF (1.86 FAR) with the use of TDR acquired from separate properties. The 11,000 SF residential component comprises 1:1 FAR as allowed in the zoning code. The proposed project provides multiple entries at the University Ave. and Kipling Street frontages with articulations and pedestrian overlay, as required, and will be set back 4 ft. from the property boundary at the alley, increasing the alley’s width by 20%. On the fourth side, the project will abut a neighboring building. A previous building design (marked Revision 5) was unanimously approved for entitlements by the City’s ARB and the Planning Staff but was remanded for redesign by City Council on appeal. This redesigned project (marked Revision 6) addresses the issues raised in the City Council motion. 3. REDESIGN FOR REVISION 6 The ground floor for the proposed project is dedicated entirely to retail except for those components that are required infrastructure for the project, such as lobby space, access for stairs and elevator, ramp to underground parking, trash and recycling enclosures, bicycle parking and utilities. Access to the retail space is provided by four entrances on University Ave. and one along Kipling Street. For Revision 6, the fourth retail entrance was added on University Ave. nearest the corner of Kipling Street to enhance retail along University Ave. and to continue the rhythm of retail entries that exists along this portion of University Ave. Also, the retail entrance farther down on Kipling Street was changed from a double door to a single door so as not to overwhelm the secondary side with pedestrian traffic. The façade will be frameless glass that is intended to maximize visibility for the retail experience and enhance street-side interest for pedestrians along both streets. The entry lobby for the upper floor professional office and residential space remains at the northern end of the property on Kipling Street to provide maximum retail exposure along the street frontages. The Page 3 lobby is a clean and modern look, reflecting the style of the rest of the building and markedly different from the blank building corner with street level parking that exists there today. Although the concrete stairwell sits nearly flush with the property boundary on Kipling Street, it is already nearly 20 ft. from the property boundary at the alley, and the height is only 42 ft. where 50 ft. is permitted. The elevator structure has a large setback of nearly 12 ft. from the Kipling Street and Lane 30 property lines. The rear of the building, set back 4 ft. from the property boundary, will provide access to the ramp for the underground parking garage, emergency exit for the secondary stairwell, and access to utilities and the trash and recycling facilities. Bicycle parking lockers will also be located here. There will be freestanding landscaping planters located along this side, along with a planter that will surround the corner of the lobby at Kipling Street. The voluntary 4 ft. setback represents a 20% addition to the width of the alley, which is a significant consideration that helps in the transition from the Kipling Street streetscape, provides for easier and safer vehicular movement, and, together with the corner planter and glass enclosed lobby space, makes for a friendly visual experience for the pedestrian. The second story office space will follow the footprint of the ground floor. Along University Avenue and Kipling Street, for Revision 6, the glass windows will be surrounded by a limestone-like cast masonry framework, which has been converted and lowered to a 2-story high framework to de-emphasize the height and massing of the building. Above this masonry framework sits the frosted glass railing for the residences on the third floor. As well, several vertical elements that surrounded windows on the second and third floors were removed to lower the apparent height of the building. The walls of the third floor residences have been set back 9 ft. from University Avenue and 7 ft. 6 in. from Kipling Street such that they will not be visible from the adjacent sidewalks, giving the impression of a 2-story building and creating relief, depth and visual interest. The fourth floor contains residential and commercial space and an open terrace. From University Avenue, the walls are set back 30 ft. at the closest approach, and 39 ft. 7 in. for most of the fourth floor, and 12 ft. 9 in. from Kipling Street for most of that frontage. It is worth mentioning that, in order to keep as much ground floor retail space as possible, it continues to be necessary to locate the infrastructure elements to the rear of the project. In addition, much of the seismic strength necessary for the building will derive from structural and shear elements provided by the two modules containing the stairs and elevator; support columns that stack through the garage, retail, office and residential floors; as well as a pair of reinforced concrete shear walls at the rear and near the front of the building, and the reinforced concrete wall abutting the neighboring property. These shear elements are already at minimum dimensions to meet code requirements (see attached letter from Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.). Also, in order to provide the significant setbacks on the third and fourth floors and still have a seismically viable building, it was necessary to cantilever parts of the third floor, compromising its interior architectural design. The street-side wall of the Kipling St. stair module and/or the landscape planter at the corner of Kipling St. and Lane 30 will provide a prominent, possible location to display the public art that is required by recent ordinance. 4. PARKING AND BICYCLE SPACES After the use of 4,207 parked TDR and 5,000 TDR that is exempt from parking which had been purchased prior to the existing TDR revised ordinance, and after application of the Existing Assessment District Credit which the owners have been paying into for many years, the proposed project will still require 34 on-site parking spaces. The building will provide two levels of below-grade parking with a total of 40 spaces, 6 429 UNIVERSITY REVISION 6 DESIGN CHANGES AND REVISION 5 HIGHLIGHTS 9.17.15 1 A 3.1 (1)1 REVISED FAÇADE AT STREET LEVEL: ADDED FOURTH RETAIL ENTRANCE ON UNIVERSITY AVE. NEAR KIPLING ST. TO ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN AND RETAIL EXPERIENCES AND ECHO THE RHYTHM OF RETAIL ARTICULATION ALONG THAT BLOCK. A B C D F 2 A 3.1 (1)2, 3 REMOVED STONE WALL NEAR JUNCTION OF 425 AND 429 UNIVERSITY AVE. ON SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS AT UNIVERSITY AVE. TO DE-EMPHASIZE MASS, VERTICALITY, HEIGHT OF BUILDING. A B C D E F 3 A 3.1 (1)2 REPLACED VERTICAL STONE ELEMENT NEAR JUNCTION OF 425 AND 429 UNIVERSITY AVE. ON SECOND FLOOR AT UNIVERSITY AVE. WITH WINDOW TO DE-EMPHASIZE MASS, VERTICALITY, AND HEIGHT OF BUILDING. A B C D F 4 A 3.1 (1)3 ELIMINATED ROOF ABOVE THIRD FLOOR BALCONY ALONG UNIVERSITY AVE. TO REDUCE MASSING AND IMPROVE COMPATIBIILTY WITH NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES. A B C D E F 5 A 3.1 (1)2 CHANGED MATERIALS OF 2ND FLOOR FAÇADE TO A LIGHTER STONE/CAST CONCRETE TO REDUCE THE APPEARANCE OF MASSING ON UNIVERSITY AVE. A B C F 6 A 3.1 (1)2, 3 LOWERED STONE FAÇADE FROM THIRD FLOOR TO SECOND FLOOR AT UNIVERSITY AVE. TO REDUCE MASSING AND IMPROVE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES. A B C D E F 7 A 3.1 (1)3 AT THIRD FLOOR, REMOVED TWO VERTICAL MASONRY ELEMENTS ON UNIVERSITY AVE. TO REDUCE MASSING AND VISUALLY LOWER BUILDING HEIGHT. A B C D E F 8 A 3.1 (2)3 ELIMINATED ROOF ABOVE THIRD FLOOR BALCONY ALONG KIPLING ST. TO REDUCE MASSING AND IMPROVE COMPATIBIILTY WITH NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES. A B C D E F 9 A 3.1 (2)2 CHANGED MATERIALS OF 2ND FLOOR FAÇADE TO A LIGHTER STONE/CAST CONCRETE TO REDUCE THE APPEARANCE OF MASSING ON KIPLING ST. A B C F 10 A 3.1 (2)2, 3 LOWERED STONE FAÇADE FROM THIRD FLOOR TO SECOND FLOOR AT KIPLING ST. TO REDUCE MASSING AND IMPROVE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES. A B C D E F SEE LEGENDREFERENCE NO. DRAWING NO. FLOOR NO.DESCRIPTION Page 1 TABLE 1 429 UNIVERSITY REVISION 6 DESIGN CHANGES AND REVISION 5 HIGHLIGHTS 9.17.15 11 A 3.1 (2)3 AT THIRD FLOOR, REMOVED TWO VERTICAL MASONRY ELEMENTS ON KIPLING ST. TO REDUCE MASSING AND VISUALLY LOWER BUILDING HEIGHT. A B C D E F 12 A 3.1 (2)1 REPLACED DOUBLE RETAIL DOOR ON KIPLING ST. WITH SINGLE DOOR TO DE-EMPHASIZE THE KIPLING ST. RETAIL ENTRANCE AND REDUCE ACTIVITY ON THE SECONDARY STREET AND MINIMIZE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC TO KIPLING NEIGHBORS. A B C D F 13 A 3.1 (2)4 REPLACED ROW OF GLAZING AT FOURTH FLOOR WITH MORE HUMAN SCALE DOUBLE WINDOWS.C F 14 A 3.1 (2)1, 2, 3, 4 MADE STAIRWELL/ELEVATOR MASONRY FORM DARKER FOR ACCENT AND TO SERVE AS POSSIBLE DRAMATIC BACKDROP FOR REQUIRED PUBLIC ART C 15 A 3.2 (1)4 AT ALLEY ELEVATION, HALVED THE HEIGHT OF MASONRY BAND AND REPLACED WITH GLAZING TO VISUALLY LIGHTEN THE TOP FLOOR. A B C D E F 16 A 3.2 (1)2 REPLACED ROW OF GLAZING AT SECOND FLOOR WITH MORE HUMAN SCALE DOUBLE WINDOWS.C F 17 REV. 5 A 2.3 1 > BUILDING IS SET BACK 4 FT. FROM PROPERTY LINE AT ALLEY > LOBBY IS SET BACK 6 FT. - 10 IN. FROM ALLEY, 3 FT. FROM KIPLING STREET > REAR IS SET BACK 21 FT. - 11 IN. TO UTILITY WALL 18 REV. 5 A 2.4 2 > ELEVATOR WALL IS SET BACK 11 FT. - 9 IN. FROM KIPLING STREET AND FROM ALLEY > BUILDING IS SET BACK 4 FT. FROM ALLEY; WALLS AND WINDOWS ARE SET BACK 10 FT. 19 REV. 5 A 2.5 3 > ELEVATOR WALL IS SET BACK 11 FT. - 9 IN. FROM KIPLING STREET AND FROM ALLEY > BUILDING IS SET BACK 4 FT. FROM ALLEY; WALLS AND WINDOWS ARE SET BACK 10 FT. SEE LEGENDREFERENCE NO. DRAWING NO. FLOOR NO.DESCRIPTION Page 2 TABLE 1 429 UNIVERSITY REVISION 6 DESIGN CHANGES AND REVISION 5 HIGHLIGHTS 9.17.15 20 A 2.5 3 > WALLS AND WINDOWS/DOORS ARE SET BACK 9 FT. FROM UNIVERSITY AVENUE > WALLS AND WINDOWS/DOORS ARE SET BACK 7 FT. - 6 IN. FROM KIPLING STREET EXCEPT FOR 10 FT WIDTH OF THE STAIRWELL. A B C D E F 21 REV. 5 A 2.6 4 > ELEVATOR WALL IS SET BACK 11 FT. - 9 IN. FROM KIPLING STREET AND FROM ALLEY > BUILDING IS SET BACK 4 FT. FROM ALLEY; WALLS AND WINDOWS ARE SET BACK 10 FT. 22 A 2.6 4 > WALLS AND WINDOWS/DOORS ARE SET BACK 30 FT. - 2 IN. TO 39 FT. - 7 IN. FROM UNIVERSITY AVENUE > WALLS AND WINDOWS/DOORS ARE SET BACK 12 FT. - 9 IN. FROM KIPLING STREET EXCEPT FOR 10 FT. WIDTH OF THE STAIRWELL. A B C D E F LEGEND: CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS MAY 4, 2015 A B C D E F Street building facades – building to return with greater reinforcement of the relationship of the street with building mass. The upper floors need to have set backs to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. Specifically, the look and feel from the street should be of a look and feel compatible with adjacent buildings, with the option of a third or fourth floor provided they are visually compatible from the streets, requiring articulation or set-backs. Direction that the project shall share design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the streets are maintained. The design shall be compatible with the immediate environment of the site – the building will be designed with articulation and setbacks that minimize massing. In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. The design of roof lines, entries, setbacks, mass and scale with context based criteria. REFERENCE NO. DRAWING NO. FLOOR NO.DESCRIPTION SEE LEGEND Page 3 TABLE 1 UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION A3.1 (1) With Table 1 Reference Numbers REVISION 5 REVISION 6 2 7 7 6 3 1 5 4 KIPLING STREET ELEVATION A3.1 (2) With Table 1 Reference Numbers REVISION 5 REVISION 6 10 11 11 8 13 14 9 12 NORTH ELEVATION A3.2 (1) With Table 1 Reference Numbers REVISION 5 REVISION 6 15 16 UN I V E R S I T Y A V E . ( B E L O W ) KIPLING ST. (BELOW) 21’-11” 6’-10” FIRST FLOOR PLAN – A2.3 3’-0” 4’-0” UN I V E R S I T Y A V E . ( B E L O W ) KIPLING ST. (BELOW) 6’-0” 11’-9” SECOND FLOOR PLAN – A2.4 11’-9” 10’-0” 4’-0” UN I V E R S I T Y A V E . ( B E L O W ) KIPLING ST. (BELOW) 10’-0” 11’-9” THIRD FLOOR PLAN – A2.5 11’-9” 7’-6” 9’-0” 4’-0” 6’-0” UN I V E R S I T Y A V E . ( B E L O W ) KIPLING ST. (BELOW) 12’-9” 39’-7” 10’-0” FOURTH FLOOR PLAN – A2.6 11’-9” 11’-9” 30’-2” 6’-0” 4’-0” CANOPY BELOW E U G E N ES A N F R A N C I S C OP A L O A L T O P A S A D E N A 260 Sheridan Avenue, Suite 150 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 617-5930 Fax (650) 617-5932 “T i m e l y S o l u t i o n s B a s e d O n T i m e l e s s P r i n c i p l e s” HOHBACH-LEWIN,INC.STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS PRINCIPALS: DOUGLAS HOHBACH DAN LEWIN JOAQUIM ROBERTS ANTHONY LEE VIKKI BOURCIER ASSOCIATE PRINCIPALS: KEVIN MORTON SAM SHIOTANI SENIOR ASSOCIATES: VICKY RUNDORFF GREG RODRIGUES BILL DALEY STUART LOWE BRYAN CORTNIK EDDIE HUI ASSOCIATES: JEREMIAH LEGRUE MICHAEL RESCH CHRIS MORTON MIKE DAVIES BHAVIN DESAI CE DEPT MANAGER: BILL HENN AutoCAD MANAGER: GIL RABANG Revit MANAGER: MARISA NOLASCO S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. S.E. P.E. August 6, 2015 Ms. Elizabeth Wong Palo Alto, CA Project: 429 University Avenue Schematic Structural Design Palo Alto, CA Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. Project No. 9283B Subject: Proposal to provide structural engineering services Dear Elizabeth, The purpose of this letter is to remind you that the current design for 429 University has pushed the seismic design to the edge of code compliance. The walls in the transverse direction parallel to University Avenue and on the Kipling street side of the building are all at basically minimum lengths to meet code requirements. Also, it is important that these walls be continuous from the first level up to their highest levels for efficacy in seismic force resisting capability. Sincerely, Doug Hohbach, S.E.Principal City of Palo Alto Page 1 Thursday, September 10, 2015, Meeting 8:30 A.M., Council Chambers 1. 425-429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Request To Consider an Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 square-foot, Four Story, Mixed Use Building with Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 square-foot Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District located at 425-429 University Avenue; and the Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Vice Chair Makinen: Do we have a presentation from Staff or the applicant? Board Member Bernstein: Excuse me, Vice Chair Makinen. I have to disclose an issue first. Vice Chair Makinen: Okay. Board Member Bernstein: In April of this year, I provided the applicant, Ms. Wong, responding to her request for information about the Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines, so I provided information for her on that. I talked with the City Attorney. To avoid a continual appearance of a conflict of interest, I'll be recusing myself and not participating in this agenda item. I'll be back after the item is complete. Vice Chair Makinen: Okay. Thank you, Martin. Proceeding. Matthew Weintraub: Thank you, Chair Makinen. The item before you is a request for the HRB to review the historic resource evaluation for the subject buildings on the project site as well as to review and comment on the proposed CEQA analysis, and lastly to comment on the Architectural Review Finding 4 which is required to be made for this application. Staff is available to answer any questions. I believe the applicant is here to present information as well. Vice Chair Makinen: Okay. The applicant will be making a presentation at this time. Board Member Bunnenberg: Just one question to get on the record. Does the City of Palo Alto have a height limit for buildings? Christy Fong: This project is zoned CD-C ... Board Member Bunnenberg: Speak right into your mike; don't look at us. Vice Chair Makinen: Yes, speak up please. Real loud. Ms. Fong: This project is zoned as Downtown Commercial CD-C (GF)(P), and the height limit is 50 feet maximum. Vice Chair Makinen: Fifty feet. If you'd please state your name clearly so we can have it for the record. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES Attachment F City of Palo Alto Page 2 Jaime Wong: Good morning. Is this live? Good morning, Board Members. My name is Jaime Wong. My family owns the properties at 425 and 429 University. Starting in March of 2013, in consultation with the City's Planning Staff, we commissioned a historical analysis and report from Preservation Architecture to learn what historical resources we had to deal with. The report was submitted to Planning Staff and the environmental contractors, Dudek and Associate, who agreed that there were no concerns regarding the properties in question or nearby historic resources. Planner Matthew Weintraub and Assistant Planning Director Jonathan Lait agreed. The proposed project went through several hearings at the ARB level, and they recommended approval on February 19th, 2015. The Director of Planning issued an approval letter February 25th, 2015, which was then appealed. At the City Council hearing on the appeal on May 4th, 2015, Council agreed to continue the appeal by directing us to complete a historic resource analysis, a shadow study, and a traffic circulation analysis of Lane 30 to supplement the extensive traffic reports. It also directed redesign of the project to address specific issues of concern to the Council. On the historic resources issues, the City's Planning Staff contracted the respected architectural preservation firm of Carey & Co. to respond to Council's specific issues. The consultants reported back to Staff on August 14th, 2015. We are here to answer any questions you may have as you review our proposed development project. We respectfully request that the HRB affirm the findings of the Staff report from Palo Alto City Planner Matthew Weintraub to the HRB dated September 10th, 2015 with the supporting attachments. In his report, Mr. Weintraub concludes that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines, the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15064.5. I will now review the Council's issues and the Staff report findings. Issue A. The Preservation Architecture report focuses on whether there are criteria for historic district. There is no need for existence of a district for there to be historic considerations. The HRB should determine whether there are other factors that should be considered. The Staff report agrees that specific other factors have been considered by the City's consultant, Carey & Co., in its report and concurs with the Carey & Co. findings that there are no negative impacts based on historic considerations and other factors. The Carey & Co. report says, "the larger setting of the Kipling Street properties has been previously compromised. While the group of buildings on Kipling Street may impart character to the street, as described in the Downtown Urban Design Plan, they do not appear to constitute a potential historic district whose resource setting may be affected." And then it adds, "[a]lthough a number of individual historical resources are located on the avenue, they do not form a historic district. Similar to Kipling Street, the proposed project will not substantially alter the physical environment of the individual historic resources on University such that their integrity would be compromised to the degree that they would lose their historic significance." This is a quote from the Carey & Co. report, page 10. Issue B. What is the applicable area of potential effect under CEQA analysis? In its study, Carey & Co. defined an equivalent study area as shown in Figure 1 and on this slide, consisting of the proposed project site and immediately adjacent properties. Three of the properties are identified as historic resources, 423 University, 436-452 University and 443 Kipling. The others are not, 428-432 University, 451 University and 440-444 Kipling. Issue C. There are a number of historic structures near, that is, on Kipling, one next to the proposed project and several across the street. How will the project impact these structures? Within the study area recommended in Issue B, just discussed, Carey & Co. agrees that the proposed project would not have any impacts on historic resources within the boundaries of the study area. Specifically, it would have no direct or indirect impacts on the three historic resources just mentioned. Issue D. Whether the mass, scale and compatibility of the proposed project has an impact on the existing historic properties should be analyzed. Quoting from the City's Draft Initial Study, updated August 2015, page 8, "[t]he use of lighter stone and cast concrete in the building façade and substantial setbacks on the third and fourth floors would help to reduce the apparent massing of the building and improve compatibility with neighboring structures." Carey & Co. evaluated how the historic resources within the study area may be affected by the proposed project under recognized seven aspects of integrity. On six of the seven aspects, location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, it found the following, "[t]he proposed project’s design, mass, scale, and use of materials could have an indirect impact on the integrity of historic resources." This is from Carey & Co. report, page 2. The seventh aspect, setting, is considered in Issue E following. Issue E. Whether the proposed building would change the setting of the historic properties on Kipling Street or University Avenue and have an impact under CEQA. The setting of the historic resources has already been compromised. Carey & Co. found that "the proposed project will not City of Palo Alto Page 3 adversely impact the setting of the existing individual resources on Kipling, including 443 Kipling Street. Similar to Kipling Street, the proposed project will not substantially alter the physical environment of the individual historic resources on University such that their integrity would be compromised to the degree that they would lose their historic significance." This is from Carey & Co. report, page 10. Moreover, the Staff report from the City of Palo Alto states that under CEQA "no new, avoidable significant effects have been identified as a result of the text and project changes." From the City of Palo Alto Draft Initial Study, updated August 2015, page 2. In conclusion, we, the applicants, would greatly appreciate the HRB reporting to Council your concurrence that the independent preservation architecture consultants chosen by the City, Carey & Co., the environmental CEQA consultants, Dudek and Associates, and Staff all agree that from a historic resources standpoint there is no direct or indirect effect that would harm any historic resource or cause them to compromise their integrity to the degree that they would lose their historic significance. Thank you. Vice Chair Makinen: Do we have any comments from the public on this particular project? I guess that we can close the meeting then for Board deliberations. Board Member Bower: We need to ask questions of Staff (crosstalk). Vice Chair Makinen: Okay, yeah. Excuse me. We'll have questions from Staff. Questions to Staff I guess. Board Member Bower: Yeah. I've a couple of questions for Staff. In reviewing these materials, I noted that the Architectural Review Board uses the land use requirements in their evaluations. Specifically in Policy No. 5, it says that these projects should maintain scale and character of their surroundings. I'm wondering how—first of all, if I'm understanding this correctly. Does Staff report feel that this project does that? Mr. Weintraub: Thank you, Board Member Bower. The analysis that's provided to the HRB is not necessarily a full Architectural Review analysis. In other words, all the findings related to the Architectural Review have not been necessarily completed or presented to the HRB. I don't necessarily have the answer to your question. Your comment is certainly a comment that could be relayed to the Architectural Review Board. Specifically in reference to the ARB findings, Staff believes that ARB Finding Number 4 is the most relevant to the subject matter that the HRB reviews. Architectural Review Finding 4 relates to whether or not there is an existing area of unified historical or architectural character. If there is such an area, whether or not the project is compatible. Staff recommends that the HRB may provide comments to the ARB in relation to that specific finding. Board Member Bower: Let me follow that with another question. In Policy Number 6, it says where possible avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and nonresidential areas, and between residential areas of different density. This corner property is effectively a transition between the Downtown commercial uses on University Avenue and what used to be residential uses on Kipling. Now Kipling is primarily used as commercial space in their original buildings, mostly original. I couldn't tell whether one of them was actually replaced or not. I'm still wondering how this building doesn't violate or doesn't qualify as a meeting of that requirement. Maybe that's not a question; that's a statement. Let me go one step further. Why does the Planning Department allow climate screening to exceed the 50- foot height limit? Why wouldn't that be under the height limit? Why shouldn't it be under the height limit? Is there an exemption? Ms. Fong: Do you mind to clarify your questions a little bit? You're talking about the equipment screening? Board Member Bower: Right, on top of the building. Board Member Bunnenberg: Talk into your mike. Ms. Fong: Yep. So ... City of Palo Alto Page 4 Board Member Bower: Let me just, for clarity, on page A02.1, these are elevations from University Avenue showing a 36-foot 6-inch height limit at the lower part on Elevation Number 1. Elevation Number 2 is a 50-foot height limit. It's very clear that the building exceeds the 50-foot height limit, and I'm assuming that's equipment screening. Ms. Fong: To your questions, for equipment including elevator shaft can exceed the height limit by no more than 15 feet. That is allowable height exception under the Code for this particular zoning. Board Member Bower: We don't really have a 50-foot height limit; we have a 65-foot height limit. Is that what you're saying? Ms. Fong: For utility and mechanical equipment, yes. Board Member Bower: Last question. In the residential side of the Planning Department, we have, what, a 30-foot height limit on houses? I think. It's my understanding, at least in the last ten years when I was building houses, that you couldn't even approach that height. It simply wasn't allowed. You could try, but your project would always be cut down. I don't think any house is built to 30 feet at all, unless it's a historic house or it’s a remodel. Why does the City allow commercial buildings to not only meet the maximum height limit, but actually exceed it by 15 feet for things that could be incorporated in the design, when on the residential side it doesn't begin to allow that? Jodie Gerhardt: Good morning. This is Jodie Gerhardt, Interim Current Planning Manager. I think we're coming to you this morning to discuss this project. We have not approved this project as of yet, and so we are asking for your comments on this project. We will also be going in front of the ARB to have this further discussion about design, scale, massing, stepping down to the neighborhood, things of that nature. We're very much in the middle of this discussion. For the HRB, we would ask that you focus on the motion that the Council has set forward. I think to the point that you're getting to is Letter D which is whether the mass, scale, compatibility of the project has an impact on the existing historic properties. We would appreciate your comments related to that. It is very possible that the project may change based upon your comments. Board Member Bower: One more question. If it changes, does it come back to us or is this our only opportunity to do commenting about a project that may morph into something else and not be what we've reviewed today? Ms. Gerhardt: The current process right now is that we're asking the HRB to review the Council's motion. We will be going forward to the ARB to have them do the same thing, and then we will be going to Council. Council will make the final decision or, like they did previously, they will send it back through the system. Board Member Bower: Great. Thank you. Vice Chair Makinen: Beth, do you have questions of Staff? Board Member Bunnenberg: I'm wondering why the Carey report did not look carefully at the architect involved in a number of these historic properties. Birge Clark was the architect for quite a number of these buildings, among them the Varsity Theater, the 452. 436 was Birge Clark; that's the one next to the new Apple building. The former Apple building at 452 to 436 is also a Category 2 Birge Clark, and then that very charming little building, 423 University, is a Category 3 Birge Clark. Do we have any answer to why this sort of heart of the City was not considered in the Carey report? Mr. Weintraub: Thank you, Board Member Bunnenberg. The historic analysis provided by the consultant actually does look at the properties both within the project site and adjacent, nearby. It does identify that one of the buildings on the project site is actually a Birge Clark work; however, it does not retain City of Palo Alto Page 5 integrity according to the consultant's analysis. It does no longer retain integrity to convey that significance. In other words, it's been altered significantly. Board Member Bunnenberg: I know that on the site there was a Birge Clark, but I was talking about the surrounding properties. Mr. Weintraub: Thank you. Yes, there are known to be a number of Birge Clark works as well as other types of historic resources in the vicinity of the project site. Those have been included in the analysis of whether or not this project could have potential impacts to those off-site historical resources. Board Member Bunnenberg: Are those all based on its being a district? That's not a particular requirement as far as I know in our historic ... Mr. Weintraub: There currently is not an identified district in this area, either on the project site or nearby, in the vicinity. The environmental review analysis did look at whether or not there's a district that could be impacted and determined that there is not an identified district that could be impacted. It also does look at whether or not individual off-site historical resources, such as the Birge Clark works, could be potentially impacted. The consultant's analysis recommends that the setting on University Avenue has been altered over time such that, while we may have individual historic resources, there's not a potential district and that the individual historic resources that are in existence, their setting would not be compromised to a degree that would affect the integrity of those particular resources. Board Member Bunnenberg: That would be one of our possible responses that it might or might not. Mr. Weintraub: Yes. Yes, Staff is asking for the HRB's review and comment on those specific findings. Thank you. Vice Chair Makinen: Okay. Do we have any additional questions of Staff? Board Member Wimmer: I want ... Board Member DiCicco: I have ... Board Member Wimmer: Go ahead, Pat. Vice Chair Makinen: Go ahead, Pat. Board Member DiCicco: I just have a—is kind of piggy-backing on David's question about the height. You have spoken that it can be up to 15 feet above the 50 for what? Air conditioning or things like that? How far above is that equipment right now? I mean is it up to 65 feet or—I didn't see where it exactly says what is the actual, absolute height of the building including any equipment. Ms. Fong: Right now, the height for the elevator shaft is less than 15 feet. When you look at the sheets, 0.2.1, it will give you an estimate of how high above the 50-feet limit. Vice Chair Makinen: Perhaps the applicant would know the answer to that question. Mr. Wong: I don't have an exact dimension, but the screen height would depend ultimately on how much you want the screen. I mean from the street you can't see anything because it's set so far away from the edge of the building. If you want to have a total screening from a building next door, that is 50 feet. Then you'd have it the same height as the equipment. I don't know what that number would be, but 10 feet or whatever. If you don't want total screening, you can lower that. It's just a screen. Elizabeth Wong: I'd like to know when I can make a comment. Vice Chair Makinen: Please state your name when you're at the podium. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. Wong: Yes. My name is Elizabeth Wong. I am Jaime's wife, and we are the owners of 425-429 University. I wanted to bring an issue concerning a comment that Board Member Bower made and Board Member Bunnenberg. Early on I had approached Mr. Bernstein concerning an issue which ... Board Member Bunnenberg: (inaudible) mike. Ms. Wong: I'm sorry? Vice Chair Makinen: Could you speak up a little bit please? Ms. Wong: Yes. I have a letter from Martin Bernstein because early on I had a question about the design and the style of the building. He wrote a letter for me that I would like to share with you. Could I do that? Board Member Bunnenberg: But ... 0.21, there's clearly a 50-foot height limit shown, and portions of the building and it must be the elevator shaft are clearly above that 50-foot height limit. Ms. Wong: Concerning the 50-foot limit, no portion of the building is above 50 feet high except for the HVAC which is screened. That is above the 50-foot height. That is permissible under the Code. We are not asking for any exceptions to the Building Codes. Can I comment on this letter? Basically, I was concerned also about the flow of the building on University Avenue and anywhere as a matter of fact. Mr. Bernstein says that the Standards and Guidelines of the National Park Service, Department of Interior, allow for new buildings with contemporary architectural styles to be located near neighboring properties that are listed on a local historic register. We did a lot of research before we embark and 2 1/2 years of very, very large cost in order to come up with this building. Board Member Wimmer: Hi. Can we go back to the specific buildings that are noted in the report that are of historic substance in this adjoining district? I think it's in the report, the Carey report. It seems like that was just really briefly gone over. I know that there's a slide that you had that had sort of the plan review. Can we just briefly go back to this and identify those buildings that had historic merit and talk about those specific buildings? I don't know if on some of your graphics, do some of those neighboring historic buildings show up on these graphics? One of our tasks is to compare how the new building might impact some of these historic buildings. It would be nice to have—let's just go back to that point of your presentation and talk about specifically those historic buildings and the nature of those buildings so we can take a look at that. I know you have them in plan view. Maybe we can identify each one of those. If we have any visual images of those, do you think. Mr. Wong: I may have, but it was not a part of the presentation, so I'd have to look for that. Ms. Wong: On the rendering of University Avenue, to the left is 423 University. Board Member Wimmer: Is that this one? Ms. Wong: It is, yes. Basically the front of the building is historical, but the rest of the building has no historical character. Nevertheless, that building is historical. Whatever renovations are done to that building has to follow all the historical mandates. The building to the right of 429 University is not a historical building. It's the 451 University is the former Apple building. Board Member Wimmer: Across from (crosstalk). Ms. Wong: Yes. That one will become a restaurant with a rooftop. The height on that building will be 36 feet 6 inches high. Unfortunately, I don't have pictures of the other building, but the Carey report does say that there is a separation between our building and the historical buildings on Kipling and by the alley and the street, and also notes that there is no negative impact from our building into the historic building there. Let's see what other buildings are there. 436 and 452 University, they are the City of Palo Alto Page 7 charming—well, actually that, yeah, that is shown in Rendering 2, in Rendering 2. Across University Avenue to the left of the rendering, you see 436 and 452 University. Those buildings are historical and very, very charming. Let's see what other buildings we have. I don't have a picture of 443 Kipling. It looks like a home; it was a former residence. Jaime says it is a residence. We believe that 429 University complements the area and connects and talks to the area. It fits well in the context in the area. Board Member Wimmer: The most adjacent—I mean, I guess it's this little building which is right on University. Ms. Wong: Yes. Board Member Wimmer: That's the most critical connection between the new building and this historic building. Ms. Wong: Yes. Board Member Wimmer: That's the most sensitive; we should look at that. I mean, I think that's what we're trying to focus on, is how this new structure impacts these surrounding and specifically the ones that are named in the report. This is the one that is the most impacted, because it's adjacent to it. Ms. Wong: It is so, but I want to point out that there's another building on University Avenue that has the retail store Flor, F-L-O-R. I think it's at 351 University. Right next to it, actually that building and the modern building next to it are one. In developing it, because—I think it was 351—it was historical, that building had a 25-foot setback, but the building right next to it is modern. Inside of the two structure it is their common areas. I mean it is one building. It is ... Mr. Wong: Here you have this building and (inaudible). Ms. Wong: Yeah. What Jaime points out also is that right next to 436-452 University, you have 428 and 432 University which is over 50-foot modern building. They are ... Mr. Wong: As shown on Rendering No. 2. Ms. Wong: As shown in Rendering No. 2. Board Member Wimmer: Which is this one? Mr. Wong: Yeah. The 432-452 University is a Inventory Category 2 building. That's the Sushirrito and the little, one-story ... Board Member Wimmer: The one across ... Mr. Wong: Right, across the street. Board Member Wimmer: ... on University. Mr. Wong: Right next to it is the over-50-foot tall ... Board Member Wimmer: This one? Mr. Wong: ... Lululemon/Accel Partners building which was completed this century, I'd say. Board Member Wimmer: Okay. Board Member Bunnenberg: May I answer Margaret's question? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Vice Chair Makinen: Sure, Beth, go ahead. Board Member Bunnenberg: Let's see. Margaret, the Varsity Theater is in there, and it is a Category 2 building. On that same side of the street, 452, 436 are Category 2 Birge Clark buildings. Those are the charming little groupings of—it used to be an ice cream store and things of that kind. Then you get the new Apple building which is right there at the intersection of Kipling. Then next to the small building you were talking about at 423, that one is a Category 3 and Birge Clark designed that terra cotta front of that little building. Then across the street, across Kipling, the old Apple building is a Category 2 and it is a Birge Clark building. Also 460, 476, which would be next to the Apple building headed toward Middlefield, is another Birge Clark, and it's a Category 3. There is a real grouping ... Ms. Wong: I want to make a correction. I believe that the Carey report does not identify 451, the old Apple building, as a historical building; although, it has a lot of charm. Board Member Bunnenberg: Pardon? Ms. Wong: 451 ... Board Member Bower: 451 (inaudible). Ms. Wong: ... University. Do you have a list? Anyway. Ms. Gerhardt: Board Members, if I may. I just want to clarify whether we've closed the public hearing or not. If so, then we need some additional deliberation from the HRB. The applicant has a chance to speak if you have direct questions for her. Board Member Bunnenberg: That 451 was the one I was talking about. Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Bunnenberg, I appreciate the conversation, and this is exactly what we need. The Carey & Co. report has a study area in it. That is the best study area that we believe—and that's what we studied. If for some reason that study area needs to include additional buildings, then we certainly would like to hear that. Vice Chair Makinen: Do we have further questions of the applicant? If not, we'll close the public meeting and go on to deliberations with the HRB. Okay. Public meeting is closed, and we're deliberating. Board Member Bower: I started the other (inaudible). Vice Chair Makinen: Okay. Margaret. Board Member Wimmer: Well, I mean I just think that our task is just to sort of be sympathetic towards the surrounding historic buildings, and we've named those more clearly which has helped me a lot. I mean I think that the mass and scale could be a little bit more sensitive. I think this is the most extreme case, because this building is right adjacent to the proposed project. I think this seems—I mean just in mass and scale, maybe it could be a little bit more sympathetic to the building. However, I do understand that the applicants always try to maximize the height that they can, so I understand that as well. I guess my only thing is—I guess I just wish that there was some historic reference that could be applied to this building. Maybe it's in the material. I know there's a real modern theme that's going on right now, and everyone wants a lot of glass and clean lines. I think also—I just was thinking how with this existing mass and structure this could be more sympathetic. Maybe it is in the materials, or maybe there's something going on at the street level that has a little bit more texture that responds to pedestrians. I remember at one time in Palo Alto we were trying to infuse an art element; maybe there could be an art element that's attached to the building or a medallion or something. I mean I'm just throwing things out, but it just seems like there could be a layer of historic art or something that could be City of Palo Alto Page 9 incorporated into this project that could be sensitive to the location but also mark this time and place which is all very modern. My comment. Vice Chair Makinen: Do we have additional deliberation comments from the Board? Beth. Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, I definitely would recommend expanding the study area. I feel that it is not considering all of the cumulative impacts of this kind of building, this massing. As we allow buildings to exceed the 50-foot height limit and they become extremely massive, we are setting the pattern and the cumulative effects will be felt all down the street, that it's okay, you can take out these buildings and build something that is massive, that exceeds the height limit and it'll go through all right. I think that it is in its present form very large. Now then, just to check. There was reference to stone on the front of the building. I did not ask about that outer cladding, but Margaret has brought up that. What is the cladding on the front of the building? Vice Chair Makinen: Here's a sample board here. Ms. Fong: There is the material board in the front here. That has reference to that stone material. Board Member Bunnenberg: Is it this stone mill class, White Portland? Then there's a very shiny one. What is at the ground-floor level, which one of these is at the ground-floor level? Ms. Fong: I would direct this question to the applicant so they can further explain their design for the façade treatment. Board Member Bunnenberg: Sorry, I didn't ask earlier. Ms. Wong: Okay. This material board has been changed, but the neo paris which is the white crystallized material, is mostly the first floor. This has been approved by the ARB. I wanted to add that this building, that we own the Apple building at 340 University Avenue. We are very much sensitive to the requests that retailers have for buildings. This building is made in the modern style. We did ask many people including Mr. Bernstein if we can put a modern building there, and we were assured that we could. Furthermore, the building meets every Code. It does not exceed the building height; it abides by every building height. As a result of the City Council hearing on May 4th, 2015, we revised the building so that the third floor is 9 feet away from University Avenue. It is 7 feet 9 inches from Kipling Street. The fourth floor is 39 feet from University Avenue and over 12 feet from Kipling Street. There is no other commercial building that has been approved and built that—that's this. This is the first building that sets the setbacks at the upper floors. I want also to remind you that there are many examples Downtown where historical buildings coexist next to each other with modern buildings. Mr. Weintraub: Pardon for the interruption. We would ask the applicant to just respond to the direct questions of the Board. Thank you. Board Member Bunnenberg: Yeah. Where is this matte finished stone, this (crosstalk)? Ms. Wong: Yeah. The matte finish is on the second floor. This building is a play on different shades of white. It has chrome doors. It just to me screams elegance. Board Member Bunnenberg: Let's see. Other sorts of things. There is a kind of rhythm on the street of columns and then a bit inset, small businesses and then another column. You have picked up that rhythm, but whether there is a way to then emphasize the horizontal lines and make them different or have some pattern to them, something that would tie in more with the historic character. I have still major concerns about the massing and the scale. Vice Chair Makinen: You're through with your questions to the applicant here? Okay. Back to deliberations of the HRB. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member DiCicco: May I ask one more question? Vice Chair Makinen: Oh, one more question. Hold it. Board Member DiCicco: If I can understand this, maybe I can't, so I'd like if you could embellish. On the fourth floor, this is where the height limit we were talking about. It's for whatever mechanical, the elevator, if it shows that there's 2,000 square feet of residential and 2,000 square feet of commercial, can I presume that only the 500 and something square feet, where it says that it's the stairs and the shaft, is that the only area that exceeds 50 feet? I mean ... Ms. Wong: Yeah. Board Member DiCicco: ... is the rest ... Ms. Wong: As I mentioned before, I think I have the ... Board Member DiCicco: Because that's a small area compared to ... Ms. Wong: Yeah. The only area that exceeds is for the HVAC and utilities. Board Member DiCicco: The what? Ms. Wong: The air conditioning, heating, equipment that is up in the roof. That is above the 50 feet. There's nothing else above 50 feet. Board Member Wimmer: Actually on your drawings, there is—I mean there is a section of the mechanical screening ... Ms. Wong: Elevator shaft. You're right, because that is also allowed by Code. Board Member Wimmer: There is, yeah, this section here that is above, which is part of the building. Ms. Wong: Right. You're absolutely right. The stairs is not above 50 feet, but the elevator shaft is above 50 feet, and that is allowed by Code. Board Member Bower: Could I make a comment and ask Board Members to look at page A3.1 and A3.2, because this is relevant to the particular discussion. If you look at A3.1, the Elevation Number 1 at the bottom of the page is the University Avenue front elevation. There is a 50-foot height limit, and all of the screening that is above 50 feet, it's in the darker area. I don't know if you can get that up there. That's more than half the building it looks like; I'm not scaling it. Now, when you look at the Elevation Number 2 above, which is from Kipling Street, that is a screened portion still above 50 feet but much smaller. Then if you look at the following page, which is essentially the same so we don't need to look at that. The reason I bring this up is that's a substantial amount above the 50-foot elevation. That's what the question was I think. Board Member DiCicco: Yes, thank you. Ms. Wong: May I make a comment? If we refer to page A2.7, that is the roof plan. The area that is above the 50 feet is just the little area where you see the circles. The equipment is shown. It's just that in the rendering of the front of the building, you have to show the entire thing. Board Member Bower: No, no. I understand. That's where elevation drawings of this particular building help us see what the building looks like. That's all. I know exactly what's going on. I'm not arguing one side or the other; I'm just trying to point out to the Board Members just exactly what the scope of that screening which exceeds the 50-foot limit is. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Wimmer: You probably from University wouldn't see the screening just in the perspective, even if you were across the street. I think it's further away from University, and it is allowed by the City. Board Member Bower: I perfectly understand all of the parameters of this discussion. It's just that— well, I'll make that comment later. Vice Chair Makinen: We're returning to closing the public comment portion of the meeting, which we had reopened. We're back to Board deliberations. Board Member DiCicco: I agree with (inaudible) that I'd like to see a little more detail. When we're sitting here and we say 423, 452, 4-, that all of these are Category 2 and 3 buildings. It would be good to actually see these buildings and are they still enough original, not altered, that they truly are Category 2 and 3 buildings. It seems like there's a lot more than have been previously identified. There was so much material. In one part of the Carey report, it said this one's no longer—it's been too altered, this one's been too altered. It didn't sound like there are as many near this project, but I think that needs more close review from us. Also the building that was Swain's Music, the old Apple building, has that building remained in—it was not altered that greatly before Apple went in there. I can't remember. When it was Swain's and it was more ... Board Member Bunnenberg: It is—in fact I would like to compliment you on the Apple building that used to be Swain's Music Store with the colored tile. You added a portion at the very back. It left the building, as far as I can tell, very intact. That building is in, to my mind, very good shape. I remember when it was reviewed. To get that same kind of sensitivity to the street, would in my mind be a great asset. Ms. Wong: Can I make a correction? Vice Chair Makinen: Yeah. I had one additional comment to add to this discussion about study area or area of potential effect as it's known in Federal Historic Preservation Areas. My opinion is it's pretty unduly limited in this analysis right here. I think it could be legitimately characterized as being a much larger area than it currently is described here. I would say that any historic buildings within eye sight of this should be included in the area of potential effect or the study area. We've let some of these buildings—with the definition that the consultant has provided is not necessarily what I would agree with. I think it should be looked at again. I would say that it probably should be expanded to include some of the historic structures that have been mentioned by the other members of this Board. Generally, things that are within eye sight of this project should be considered to be within an area of potential effect for further review by the Historic Board. Board Member DiCicco: I don't know if anybody else has this feeling, but the building, I think, from the color board of the materials that have been selected, I think it even stands out—it is stunning, but it's such bright, light colors that aren't seen on much of Downtown Palo Alto, other commercial buildings, original buildings, and even some of the newer ones. The building would even stand out more. Ms. Wong: Just like the Apple building ... Vice Chair Makinen: We are back into deliberations ... Ms. Wong: Sorry. Sorry. Vice Chair Makinen: ... right now. We're not into comments in the public meeting, so you'll have to ... Ms. Wong: Sorry. Vice Chair Makinen: Does the Board want to ... Board Member Bower: I'd like to make some (inaudible). City of Palo Alto Page 12 Vice Chair Makinen: We're still commenting, so hold off on your comments. Board Member Wimmer: Sorry, I might be taking a step backwards here. I just wanted to review the process and where we're at. It looks like the reason why this project has been brought to us, because it was appealed. It looks like it had been through an ARB meeting and approval, and then it says that an appeal was received. Can we get a little bit more information on that? Sorry, I should have asked that already. Ms. Fong: This is a major ARB project. The subject property is not a category building, so that's why it never get deferred to the HRB for comments and review. The reason why it is present to you today is as per Council directions responding to an appeal for this tentative approval. That's why you are here today to discuss specifically what Council asked for, which is listed in the report. There is a list of items that Council weighs as concerns and would like the HRB to discuss and provide recommendations to Staff to proceed. Then we will share your findings with Council for their final decision. Board Member Wimmer: What's been presented today was the same project that was appealed or has the project evolved since the appeal came in? Ms. Fong: Just to provide a little bit more history. The project was tentatively approved before, and the appeal was filed concerning four specific issues, including massing and scale, compatibility with the historic context nearby, traffic as well as the loss of retail space. Council conduct a public hearing on May 4th, 2015 and, as a motion of that hearing, it directed the applicants to redesign the project and also referred the revised project to the HRB and ARB for comments before it presents to Council. You are here today to look at the revised project, because the applicants provide a design response to the appeal as well as to Council's comments. Vice Chair Makinen: I would like to read off the questions that have been asked of the HRB, so that we can make sure that we're clear here. [phone ringing] Nobody home right now. Board Member Bower: Just lift it up and hang it up. Vice Chair Makinen: Lift it up. Board Member Bower: Continue Chair Makinen. Vice Chair Makinen: What is being asked of us: the Preservation Architect report, Attachment B, focuses on whether there are criteria for a historic district. There is no need for existence of a district for there to be historic considerations. The HRB should determine whether there are other factors that should be considered. "B," what is the applicable area of potential effect under CEQA analysis, also known as study area. "C," there are a number of historic structures nearby, e.g., on Kipling, one next to the proposed project and several across the street. How will the project impact these structures? "D," whether the mass, scale and compatibility of the proposed project has an impact on the existing historic properties should be analyzed. "E," whether the proposed building would change the setting of historic properties on Kipling Street or University Avenue and have an impact on CEQA. That's what's being asked of us. Those things. There is questions about the definition of the study area a/k/a area of potential effect. There is questions about adjacent and historic properties. Just so everybody's on the same page here. Jonathan Lait: Acting Chair, if I may? I'd like to first introduce myself. I'm Jonathan Lait; I'm the Assistant Director for the Planning Department. I appreciate the conversation that you're having. I want to make sure that we're crystal clear in what we're giving back to the Council, so that ... Male: (inaudible) Mr. Lait: You absolutely did. When we talk about expanding the study area, it would be helpful if some guidance was given. I heard a comment about every potentially historic structure in visual range. I City of Palo Alto Page 13 didn't know if there was some other perspectives about what that boundary ought to include. If there can be some—otherwise, we're going to go back and we'll study some areas. If we came back, you'd say, "Well, you didn't see the right areas. We want it to go to this street." If we can understand what that expansion of the range needs to be, that would be helpful in our further analysis. Maybe that's a conversation that the Board can have. As you read off each of those areas, I just want to make sure that we're in agreement that for some of these areas, like the first one, does the Board agree that there's no basis for a district at this location? If there is agreement about that, the second part of that question is are there other features or criteria that ought to be considered? I heard mentioned the architect. The architect of some of the buildings in the area might be a consideration for us to look at, the Birge Clark architecture. If there's agreement on that, that's the kind of feedback that we would like. It might be worthwhile just to kind of go point by point with that discussion. Vice Chair Makinen: I don't think we should be putting words into the mouth of the Council. This is exactly what they asked us for, right here. There's no further need for elaboration. Mr. Lait: We want to respond to the question though. We want to give them a response to the question. Vice Chair Makinen: That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to form a consensus here. Mr. Lait: Fantastic. Board Member Bower: I wasn't going to make any comments about districts, because I thought the other Board Members had. I would, in light of your suggestion, I would think that the study area should be from 432 University which is the new, completely inappropriately scaled building next to the Birge Clark buildings, then run the entire length of that side of the street, all the way down to Cowper. I think Beth just articulated that Birge Clark was involved. Certainly it's in the Birge Clark style. The other side of the street from Cowper working back on University, I don't think has much significance in terms of our history as a City until you get to the Swain Music building, which was the old Apple building. Then going down Kipling, I would go all the way down to Lytton. Not all those buildings are original buildings, but many of them are. One of them I was dragged to as a child by my mother so that she could purchase buttons and notions at Irma Schwabel's place. Those people who have been here a while, we have to be here for quite a while, but she was a fixture of Downtown Palo Alto. That building still exists pretty much untouched on the outside. Coming back the other way, there's obviously nothing in the parking lot that would make any sense to consider. The parking lot's new. There is the building that the former Zibibbo restaurant is in. I don't know if that was considered historic. It was certainly wrapped with a lot of new construction when they created that restaurant. Coming back down on University, the subject property would obviously be in this district. Then you come down to whatever, I don't know what this building is. We reviewed this building here, I think. Didn't we? I think these two buildings, one of them—well, anyway. That would sort of be the space that I would consider, because this property really overlooks all of that space. When I was walking around the street yesterday and looking at these properties, I was dumbfounded. I never did like 432 University; I didn't understand why a 50-foot building would be built immediately adjacent to these historic buildings. You can see from this rendering just how awful that is and how overwhelming it is to the Birge Clark buildings. That's exactly what, I think, the Council is asking us to consider. I think it's a long overdue consideration. Does that give you enough scope for at least my sense of the district? I can talk to you afterwards just ... Mr. Lait: Yeah. No, I think I have a sense for it. It might be helpful just to refine it. I guess I'd ask the other Board Members if there's general agreement to that boundary that you've contemplated. Board Member Bower: Well, we could get to that in a motion. Mr. Lait: Okay. Board Member Bower: Which is where I think we're going. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Bunnenberg: In terms of general agreement though, there is one more Birge Clark which is next to the old Apple building which is 460-476. We can't see that on our diagram, so I'd certainly include that. Vice Chair Makinen: Is there general consensus amongst the Board that the consultant's definition of the study area of potential effect is not accurate? Board Member Bower: It's not inclusive enough, is the way I would describe it. Vice Chair Makinen: Not inclusive enough. Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, I agree that even on that diagram, I mean, there's that intersection of Kipling and University, but it really cuts out the area that's diagonal, which is University Theater, excuse me, the Varsity Theater. Board Member Bower: Then all the way down to the President Hotel. Board Member Wimmer: Yeah. For me that area for some reason is being excluded, and I think it should be considered. Board Member Bower: Can I continue? Vice Chair Makinen: Sure. Board Member Bower: All right. As I have said earlier, my most serious concern about this project is that its mass and scale is not compatible and sympathetic to the surrounding buildings. I started by reading Land Use Number 5—I don't know what you call that, suggestion, definition—should maintain scale and character. Even when I looked at the old Apple building yesterday and imagined this building, there's a 50 percent height increase over that, at least on these plans where we have a 36.6-foot elevation. I don't know whether that's the current elevation or whether that's the proposed new elevation when the restaurant goes in. We're going 19 feet over that roughly to the top of the screening. Did you want to comment? Mr. Lait: Yeah, please, if I may. Part of the reason we're looking at the study area is to understand under CEQA if there's an impact of the proposed building to the adjacent, potentially historically significant properties. I want to come back to the study area in a moment. Your more recent comments about how the proposed project, the mass and the scale of it, you find it detrimental to—I don't want to put words in your mouth and so tell me if I'm wrong—detrimental to the adjacent ... Board Member Bower: Overwhelming. Overwhelming ... Mr. Lait: Overwhelming to the adjacent structures. Board Member Bower: ... is the word that I was thinking of. Vice Chair Makinen: The words are dominant. Mr. Lait: Okay. Vice Chair Makinen: The other words are feeling and association, that they're (inaudible) to the historic properties. Board Member Bower: Exactly. Vice Chair Makinen: That's the aspects of historic integrity that are impaired. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Bower: In this rendering you can see that on the opposite side of the street, this 50-foot building minimizes the historic structures. Vice Chair Makinen: Sure. Board Member Bower: It shrinks them in value, in size. I would say—there's another comment I wanted to make—that it encourages the overwhelming increase in the size of buildings. We have seen this all along University Avenue. Mr. Lait: Okay. If I can interject right there. I want to make a distinction between a broader policy conversation about development, the scale of development to adjacent structures, which is a community conversation that we're having now, and this particular project as proposed to historic resources. I heard the comment that there is a feeling and association that due to the size and the scale of the proposed structure that it minimizes that impact. Is that an impact to a historic resource under CEQA? Our finding with our consultant is that the proposed project does not result in a significant impact under CEQA which is a distinction that I think needs to be made to a broader compatibility conversation which the ARB and the City Council will be having. We're looking to this Board as our historic professionals to comment on the historic impact. If it's helpful, we can have our consultant speak more to the conclusions from the CEQA perspective, if that informs the Board. I clearly hear a concern about the compatibility of the proposed project to the adjacent structures. As a corollary to that conversation, as we talk about the study area—we tried to define the study area as those buildings that would most likely be potentially impacted by the proposed building. If we expand the study area and we're going to Lytton, for example, now, what we're trying to figure out is how does the proposed building impact the buildings down by Lytton on Kipling from a CEQA historic impact perspective. What our conclusion has been—I apologize for being long-winded about this—our base conclusion is we're not able to find a historic impact under CEQA. We're asking you did we look at everything right. Maybe if we looked at something else, maybe we would conclude that there's a historic impact. That's what we need your expertise on and your guidance on. Did we cover everything to definitely rule out that there is not a CEQA impact? There's a whole other conversation about compatibility that I understand, but I think that's for the ARB and the City Council. Board Member Bower: If we're not here to address compatibility of a new building to an historic structure which is what this Board does the last nine years I've been on it—I'm the second youngest person on this Board—I'm, I guess, confused. I understand CEQA. I've been to a couple of seminars; in fact, I think I've been to three now. It's a very complicated law. I am reluctant to visit that on any property owner, because I think it's expensive and I don't think it benefits us. If that's the only tool we have in the City of Palo Alto—it's not the only question the Council's asking us, it's just one of the questions—then I guess I would answer that by saying that the area considered was too small and that the impact of this new building on the historic structures wasn't adequately analyzed. Let me point out exactly what I mean by that. On page P7 of the Preservation Architecture report, they list four, six characteristics that the California Register for Historic Resources uses to analyze a building or a property or a historic structure, could be a park too. Under Number 3, the structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare. They say this is a kind of building that is common, and so it should be exempt. This kind of building in Palo Alto is becoming almost extinct. It is rare in my opinion, and I think you could consider that even though it's completely modified from its original shape. The single-story, single full-depth retail, really commercial space doesn't exist very many places in the City of Palo Alto in the Downtown area. I have a problem with that. That wouldn't by itself make this an historic structure. Number 4, the structure or site is connected with a business use which was once common but is now rare. Again, I think you could argue that these small businesses—Shady Lane has been in this building forever, I mean since the early '70s. That's a substantial number of years in anybody's record. I have problems with this analysis. Everybody can write their opinion, and that's what this is. Under these two categories, I think you could come to a different conclusion. Mr. Lait: Thank you for that, because that's exactly the kind of feedback, that precise feedback, that we're looking for. If it's okay with the Acting Chair, I'd like to give Staff an opportunity to respond to that so that there can be an understanding of why we reached the conclusions that we reached. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Vice Chair Makinen: Proceed. Mr. Lait: I'd like Matt to respond to that. Thank you. Mr. Weintraub: Thank you, Board Members. Just in terms of the criteria that you are looking at, those are actually the local ordinance criteria. Those are not actually required to be considered under CEQA. CEQA does not require resources to be evaluated at the local criteria if they're not already designated such. That information is provided, I believe, for your benefit, for information, but those criteria don't actually define historical resources under CEQA. Also, just to clarify that there are two regulatory frameworks that apply here, that the Board is being asked to look at the compatibility of the project in relation to historic resources. Those two frameworks are CEQA and the Architectural Review findings, specifically Architectural Review Finding 4. The question was put forth, what is the Board being asked to do in terms of evaluating the compatibility. It is in relation to the thresholds and the review requirements of those two frameworks, what's being asked of the Board. In relation to the CEQA study area, I'd like to provide some clarification on that. I would refer you to the Carey & Co. report that was produced. The study area that was—I should say a preliminary study area that was looked at includes all of the areas that the Board has mentioned. It looked at a two-block stretch of University from corner to corner. It looked at a full one-block stretch of Lytton from University to the next street over; I apologize for not having that in my mind. The bottom line is the Carey & Co. report actually does include an analysis of that larger area and, from that analysis, concludes that a more detailed study area is the appropriate study area that's been put forth, which is the adjacent properties. I just want to put out there that the analysis does include those areas, and it steps through it in a certain way that screens out certain resources from having no potential impact from the property. I would point out that the purpose of CEQA analysis is not necessarily to identify and evaluate every historical resource within X distance of a project. It's to gather enough information to come to a conclusion for environmental review purposes, and that's what we feel the Carey & Co. report has done successfully. Thank you. Vice Chair Makinen: I think, Beth, you had a—you're up. Board Member Bunnenberg: Are we allowed to respectfully disagree? Mr. Weintraub: We are definitely asking for your comments. Board Member Bunnenberg: I was looking and thinking since we've been talking about Kipling. We really have in some ways not discussed Kipling that much. Looking at the rear of the building, there are balconies and pieces very, very near the alley or whatever name you choose to give it. All those places would be definitely very visible from Lytton, because they're low buildings on that. There's not much stepping back from the alleyway to begin to make that part of the building attempt to disappear like the front part of the building. It's pretty well built out to that back alley. Is that correct? Ms. Fong: To response to your comments, when you look at the renderings, which is the ones you have in hand, for Lane 30 and the intersections ... Board Member Bunnenberg: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Ms. Fong: The intersections between Lane 30 and Kipling Street, the building strategically put a lower massing and transitions into the nearby lower density buildings. The intent is to respect the nearby smaller structures. Also there are some differentiations in color to differentiate or lighten up that corner. As you are approaching to Lane 30, there is a landscape planters and the lobby area with great transparency that trying to address interactions between the block. The building itself is set back from Lane 30 by approximately 4 feet which is not required, but the applicant's intent to do so to respect the smaller buildings nearby. This is the design approach that the applicant choose to do, and I'm pretty sure he or she is here to add to it. What I described above is the rationale that was provide to Staff when this proposal was moving forward. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Vice Chair Makinen: Are we ready to summarize our findings on this in the form of a motion? Ms. Wong: Is there a moment that I can make some comments after hearing all that? Vice Chair Makinen: Would the Board care to reopen the public hearing? Okay. Ms. Wong: Okay. I feel that this project is being evaluated as all the other projects that come before you that are historical in nature. This project is only here because there was an appeal. Many of the things that you are raising about changing the guidelines for development, I do appreciate and I think that, as Mr. Weintraub said and Mr. Lait said, is being taken in the Comprehensive Plan and many discussions in the City. I think that for a person who has put three years of my life into this project and hundreds of thousands of dollars into this project, I have to conform with the existing Codes. The existing Codes allow me to build a modern building, 50-foot height, and trying to make as much as I can to respect the flow of the street to make it pedestrian friendly, to have a transition from Kipling to University. My second comment is that University Avenue is very, very different from one building over, one alley over. This building fits into University Avenue. It would not fit into Ramona Street which is a historic district. We have a building, a historic building, at 532-536 Ramona which is a very charming historic building, and we would never do this to the Ramona address. We understand what the laws are, and we conform per every law that was imposed on us and that was reviewed by the City. The City gave its formal approval to this project after one pre-ARB hearing, three ARB hearings where there was extensive changes to the project. At every stage we responded and gave to the City what they have asked us to do. Even at this moment, we responded to Council's request to set back the third and the fourth floor. We had Preservation Architecture look at this. We had Dudek, which is a City consultant, look at this. We had the City's historic planner look at this. We had the City's Director look at this. Yet, after all this, only after all this, the project was approved. It was appealed. As a result of the appeal, they made us do shadow studies, circulation analysis studies, in context historical analysis, all of which we have done. I think it's punitive. I think Mr. Bower in other HRB meetings, I have heard him say that he was concerned about the cost that each one of these projects and each one of these requests burdens on the project. I mean, this is insane. This project should have never come here. If it comes here, it should not be analyzed as a historical project. We did every analysis. We did not choose the historian except for Preservation Architecture. That was the norm that we do. The first one, it was our consultant. After that, the City chose the consultant. We have nothing to do with it. The consultants came back and said this building has insignificant impact. As I mentioned to you before, there are many examples in the City where there are modern structures next to historical structures. If you would like to reset the development environment, I have no problems with that at all. But this project started in 2013 and it has to go under the laws, the Codes, that were present from then until now. I think it's totally unfair for the project to be submitted to the strict historical guidelines that you are putting forth at this time. Furthermore, I don't think that Council is asking you to go beyond what they have requested, the Kipling Street buildings as far as studies are concerned and to make it beyond what it is. I should have my lawyer here. It borders on the illegal. Thank you. Vice Chair Makinen: Thank you. I think our charter here is to respond to the five questions that the Council has asked of us. We're pretty much adhering to that guideline. There are questions that Council asked us about what is the area of applicable potential effect, so we're legitimately responding to those questions that have been asked of us. We're not trying to make up stuff that adds to this. We're just responding to what we've been told to give to the Council. We're close in deliberations right here. I'd like to have a motion somewhere from one of the Board Members that responds to the five questions that Council has asked of us, which are on the front page of the Staff report. We can take them one-by- one or we can do them all as a total. Board Member DiCicco: I think that we've concurred that it doesn't have to be a district, but there are a significant number of historic properties within what's Number 2, the area of potential effect. I believe we have concurred that that area should be at least more closely defined or specifically mentioned that they still are on the Register for the City. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Board Member Bower: May I speak? I think it might be helpful to take these one at a time. Let's do a resolution for "A," "B," "C." If we find that a couple of them can be combined, that's fine. For the first question, should the HRB determine whether there are other factors that should be considered, I think we've heard today from all of us that we think there are other factors that should be considered. Those factors are the effect of this project on other historic properties even those not on a Register. When I say "effect," I'm not talking about architecture because there's no issue for me and I probably think any of the Board Members about what the architecture of the proposed building is, that it has to be if it were a project. If this were a historic building we were considering an addition or modification to, it would have to be differentiated. I think this is certainly differentiated, so there's no issue for me and I didn't hear any issue from any other Board Members about the style of architecture. That's not an issue here. I think what I have heard is that the massing and the volume of the building will have a distinct impact on the historic structures, if for no other reason when you're in this new building, you will be looking down on all the others. It's overwhelming. I felt overwhelmed by the building at 432 University. Male: (inaudible) Board Member Bower: I think that's a significant issue. I don't know how you put that into a motion, but I guess that we do feel that there are—the motion is that the Board feels there are other factors as I maybe articulated one. Mr. Lait: I think that's right. As far as your motion, I like your idea of taking each point, "A" through "E," and talking about that. We can get your comments on that. It'd be helpful at the end if we can just get a general nod of the Board Members that captures your sentiments and then we can transmit that to the Council. Board Member Bower: Maybe a discussion of the five points? Mr. Lait: Yeah. Unless there's any further to add on—I thought I heard mentioned something about the architect for those buildings as maybe being another criterion. That's one that I heard. Board Member Bower: Right. The buildings we're concerned about are primarily Birge Clark designed buildings. Birge Clark is a significant presence, had a significant role in Palo Alto's building history and development. On the second one, I'm not sure what the applicable area of potential effect is. I think we talked about how we would like to see the number of buildings evaluated be expanded, the area. I made a suggestion. Maybe Board Members have other thoughts, but it's basically Cowper to—on the southeast side of University, it would be the present building all the way down to 532, which is clearly not historic. On the other side of the building, I think, Beth, you had ... Board Member Bunnenberg: Yeah. If it was from 476 ... Board Member Bower: 476, no, that's the southeast side. That's the Varsity. It's the other side, the odd-numbered buildings. Odd addresses. Board Member Bunnenberg: Oh, you're still talking about that side. Yeah, from the President Hotel to ... Board Member Bower: 432 which is the new building. Now, on the other side of the street is the old Apple building/Swain's Music building. Is that the northeastern extent? Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, no. On that side there is 476 which is also a Birge Clark. Board Member Bower: Okay. We go 476—well, no, that's still on the even side. We need to be on the odd side. Talking about ... Vice Chair Makinen: (inaudible) Board Member Bower: What's Swain's address? 451. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Bunnenberg: It's 451. Board Member Bower: You could leave 451 on University down to 423. I can't remember what the next building, the building next to 423 is. Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, let's just put it in. Board Member Bower: All right. Then down Kipling to this building second from the corner of Lytton. I don't think the corner building on Lytton would be considered an original. It's effectively the, again, northwestern side of Kipling Avenue, 443, 51 and down. If you look at Zibibbo, I don't know whether that would qualify. Just look in the planning records. I doubt that it does. That's where the potential effect would be. I think that actually answers "C" as well. Potential effect and then number of historic structures. "D," mass, scale and compatibility the proposed project has on the existing historic properties, I think we've beaten that one to death. Does ... Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. Just to be clear on that comment on "D." Where some of our other points that the Council's asked us to consider are a CEQA-related threshold, "D" is not. It's a comment about whether the mass and scale is compatible with the existing historic properties that are analyzed or in this area. Your comments about compatibility and dominating, I think, are focused mostly on this particular item, "D." Board Member Bower: Does anybody else want to chime in? Board Member Wimmer: I guess in terms of massing and scale, I mean I definitely think that this building is more sensitive than the bad example across the street. Also, I think there's just this ongoing conflict about what the zoning laws allow in these situations. I mean, any building owner wants to max it out just for economic reasons. They want to go as high and as big as they can. We struggle with that, because we want these buildings to be more pedestrian friendly and less looming over the single-story historic buildings, but that's not what's written in the Code. It's a conflict; it's an internal conflict within all the entities under the umbrella of the City of Palo Alto. We want to fight for these historic buildings and have everything be sensitive to it, but that's not necessarily what's described and what the realm of possibility is in these projects. Just speaking to that, I think that's our duty, is to try to be extreme in wanting everything to be sensitive to these buildings, knowing that that's not in reality always going to happen. At least we can make the scale tilt a little bit that way. That's what I think we have to do. Board Member Bower: Sure. I actually agree with you. I think that we have a difficult task here, because we're trying to evaluate this development project as it affects the historic properties that surround it. We have a planning ordinance that is applied, I think is the right word, in what I would consider a rather peculiar way. I again said earlier, I've been in the residential building business my entire career. We can't begin to build to the height limit in a residential area, but in the commercial areas you can build over it. I just don't understand that. I don't understand why it doesn't—maybe it says you can put HVAC equipment, elevator shafts through that limit. Obviously you're doing it because it's legal, but why can't we build houses up to the height limit? It doesn't say anyplace in the planning or zoning ordinance that you can't do it. It's just impossible to get a permit to do it. The message I'd like to send to the Council is let's start applying the zoning ordinances in an absolutely even-handed way. I looked at the elevations of this building. The first floor is 15-foot ceilings. You don't need 15-foot ceilings in a building. You could take this building down below the 50-foot height limit with modest changes to the interiors of these structures. We do houses with basements, and we put everything in 9- foot spaces, all the plumbing, all the electrical. You could do it in a commercial building. I don't want to get distracted here, but this is why we're talking about mass and applicability to the historic structures. It's because there's a feeling in the community, I think, based on the last City Council election, that we need to start paying attention to the ordinances that are in place and maybe change them. This building isn't going to be changed substantially, I think. It would be unfair to the owners if it was. You don't start a process and then have to redo it in the middle. The time to do this and the reason the Council has come to us is to get information that will help them, I hope, change these ordinances and start City of Palo Alto Page 20 downsizing the buildings which the community seems to want. Now, that's way too much and I apologize for going on. Vice Chair Makinen: Sure. Just to add to that. The cumulative effects that Beth brought up are a consideration too that should be included in this, the Planning Department. I think that's totally overlooked. Board Member Bower: Did we get close to giving the Council something to think about? Mr. Lait: Thank you. I appreciate the Board's attention to this. I don't know that we had any concluding comments on Item E or maybe they're already incorporated in the remarks that you've already made. I just want to make sure that we're not missing that. If you wanted to speak to that issue. Board Member Bower: Pat, did you want to say something? Board Member DiCicco: I think you were discussing "A," "B" and "C." Board Member Bower: Well, "D." I was actually on "D." Board Member DiCicco: "D" as well. Board Member Bower: Which is mass, scale and compatibility. Board Member DiCicco: I even think the use of the materials should be looked at with compatibility with the other surrounding buildings on University. I think the answer to Number E is yes, it does change the setting for the many historic properties surrounding this project. It does have an impact. Board Member Bower: When you get to "D," "E," Number E, whether the proposed building would change the setting of the historic properties on Kipling or University and—this is the important part—have an impact under CEQA. I think actually that's a coupler. Board Member DiCicco: It does.. Board Member Bower: I don't know that that actually would be the case. CEQA has its own requirements; it's very tough, very specific. I don't know whether this Board can make that connection. I think we all feel it would change the setting, but when you add that "under CEQA" part ... Mr. Lait: That changing of the setting, I think, is captured under Letter D of the Council's direction to the HRB. I think what I'm hearing—correct me if I'm wrong—is that of the Board Members present there's a unanimous perspective—correct me if I'm wrong—that the proposed building is overwhelming, it dominates the adjacent structures. I heard a comment about the materials not being compatible with the adjacent structures. From that perspective, there's an impact. It may not be a CEQA-level impact, but there is an impact and there is a concern about the proposed building to the setting and the adjacent buildings. Is that a fair representation of the Board? Vice Chair Makinen: Yeah. Feeling, association, setting, dominance, those are the key words. Mr. Lait: Okay. The reason I didn't use those key words is because those relate to, I think, an analysis under CEQA. Vice Chair Makinen: Well, they relate to the seven aspects of historic integrity. Secretary of Interior ... Mr. Lait: Which is a (crosstalk) criteria under CEQA. Yes, we can forward that perspective as well. I was making a distinction between the technical CEQA and the other aspects of it, but we can incorporate that comment as well. Did that capture your perspective as well? City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Wimmer: In terms of the dominance of the building and the materials? Mr. Lait: Yeah, to the adjacent buildings. Board Member Wimmer: I think I've sort of expressed my opinion, but I think also that's something that the ARB tends to look at more critically than our Board does. I would just defer to their expertise. I know that the applicant has worked hard on the exterior and thinks that this is a good solution for the building. I mean I always like to have it a little bit less streamlined and modern, but that just seems to be the theme of the day. I do think, I mean, I hope that the ARB studies that a little bit closer. Vice Chair Makinen: I think as you brought out, David, some of these buildings that are affected are examples of buildings once common but now rare. Board Member Bunnenberg: Also in terms of thinking about the Secretary of Interior Standards as well, it certainly affects the setting in a major kind of way for a much larger area, because it is so tall, so much bigger that the setting is affected. I think that anything that could mitigate or make it look smaller, such as emphasizing the horizontal banding, as you said more like the streamlined moderne, could help a bit, but it's still very massive and will greatly change this whole end of University Avenue. Vice Chair Makinen: Do you need that put in the form of a motion? Mr. Lait: I guess if we can just get—it would be nice to be able to report to the Council that the comments that you have just articulated in going through "A" through "E" is reflective of the Board's comments. If you can just vote to that and ... Vice Chair Makinen: I'll pose that question to the Board right now. Mr. Lait: Fantastic. Vice Chair Makinen: Does everybody support those comments? Board Member Bunnenberg: (crosstalk) all say aye. Board Member Wimmer: Do we need to like formalize a sentence or a paragraph or is ... Mr. Lait: If I can assist. Let's do that, and let me see if I can help you with that. The motion would be— and if you agree ... Board Member Wimmer: Should we just say I move to expand the study area of the potential effect to include towards the end of University ... Board Member DiCicco: We've gone over that. Board Member Wimmer: I know, but we're trying to formulate it all in one. To include to Cowper Street and then also have the ARB take a closer look at the materials in terms of the context. I don't know. Mr. Lait: Thank you for that. Before we get too far from the conversation that we just had, because we're not looking for a specific—what we want to do is report back to the Council. They gave you some five points to consider. You've just had a conversation about those five points specifically. Perhaps a motion could be a motion to forward those comments on to the City Council as articulated just a few moments before when we were detailing "A" through "E." If you are okay with that, you can say so moved and have a vote on that and move it forward. The ARB will certainly cover the issues that they need to cover. Vice Chair Makinen: Sounds good to me. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Bower: I would like to make a motion that we ask Staff to summarize the conversation we have just had in regards to those five items and forward that to the Council. I will rely on Staff's record keeping, because it's been good in the past, to do that. That's my motion, that we ask Staff to summarize our comments and send them to the Council as representative of the Board. That could be a yea or nay. Board Member Bunnenberg: One question. Could those be reviewed perhaps by our Chair, our Co-Chair of this Board? Board Member DiCicco: Why don't we have Matthew ... Mr. Lait: What we do with the PTC is, when we have a discussion like this, we involve the Chair and the Vice Chair in a chance to review the Staff's summation of that. Perhaps Acting Chair would review those. If you want to also appoint somebody else to review, we can share that to make sure that we've captured the Board's comments. Vice Chair Makinen: Is that okay with the Board? Board Member Bower: Sure. Vice Chair Makinen: Okay. Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. Who would be the other person that we'd be sharing the comments with? Is it Board Member Bower or who? We'll send it to you, and who's the other ... Board Member Bower: (inaudible) I will volunteer to (inaudible). Vice Chair Makinen: We'll have David and myself. Mr. Lait: Okay, fair enough. And if ... Board Member Bunnenberg: Will we vote on that (inaudible). Board Member Bower: We need a second. Board Member DiCicco: No, we're all set. Vice Chair Makinen: Yeah. Do we have a second? Board Member Bunnenberg: Second. Board Member Wimmer: I'll second. Vice Chair Makinen: All in favor of the stated motion? Board Member Bower: Aye. Board Member Bunnenberg: Aye. Vice Chair Makinen: Aye. Board Member Wimmer: Aye. Board Member DiCicco: Aye. Vice Chair Makinen: Motion stands approved. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Bower: I think unanimously. Vice Chair Makinen: Unanimously with all present. Board Member Bower: Chair Makinen, could I make a comment? Vice Chair Makinen: Sure. Board Member Bower: I'd like to thank Staff. This is obviously a difficult project. Also, thank the owners for all the time and obvious money they've spent on this. Hopefully we can make a somewhat clearer path in future projects based on this conversation. Board Member Bunnenberg: Thank you for the Apple building. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Thursday, September 17, 2015, Meeting 8:30 AM, Council Chambers 5. 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Request for ARB consideration of an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 square-foot, four-story, mixed use building with parking facilities on two subterranean levels on an 11,000 square-foot site located at 425-429 University Avenue. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) District. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Chair Gooyer: Can we have the Staff report? Board Member Furth: Excuse me. Before ... Chair Gooyer: Yeah. Board Member Furth: Before we can proceed with the Staff report, I will not be participating in this matter. I do not have a conflict of interest under the FPPC rules, but the applicant has accused me of bias. The applicant is, of course, entitled to have the application heard by an unbiased body that will make a decision based on the evidence before it. The accusation is based upon a letter I wrote asking the City Council to hear the appeal of this item previously. I don't share the applicant's view that I'm biased, but I also do not believe it's in the interest of the City to have this already complicated review process complicated by those allegations. I will step down in this case. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Okay. Board Member Furth: I should say that notoriously we are not good judges of our own bias. Chair Gooyer: Okay, thank you. Why don't we go ahead with the Staff report. Christy Fong: Thank you for the introduction. This project as described in the project description was formally reviewed by the ARB at three public hearings. In the last hearing on February 19, 2015, the ARB recommend approval to the project on a 4-0 vote with one member absent. The Director tentatively approved the project to reflect the ARB recommendation. Within the prescribed period an appeal was received. In response to that, the City Council held a public hearing on May 4, 2015. The City Council vote 5-4 to continue the appeal requesting the applicant to redesign the project and remand the revised project to the HRB and ARB. In the hearing, Council articulated they have challenges to make the ARB findings to approve the project. In particular, the Council was concerned with the project's compatibility to nearby building and its relationship to the historic character in the area. The Historic Resources Board reviewed the revised project on September 10, 2015. Their comments will be forward to Council for consideration. In general, the HRB have not unanimously support that there will be CEQA environment- related impact as the result of this project. The Board did express concerns on the project's compatibility with the surrounding context. In this meeting, Staff requests the ARB to review the project revisions and additional study and respond to the Council motion and to make recommendation point-by-point as reference in page 3 of the Staff report as to whether the revisions address the issues outlined on that list. The applicant has prepared a presentation to detail the project revisions. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES Attachment G City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Okay. Then why don't we start with the applicant. You have ten minutes. Elizabeth Wong: Good morning, ARB members. This is the fourth time, fifth time that I'm here in front of you, the pre-ARB, three ARB meetings and this one after the City Council hearing of the appeal. I need my—this is 429 University Avenue. My name is Elizabeth Wong, and my family owns this property. Can you hear me? In addition to following all the City planning ordinances, we were guided by the Downtown Urban Design Guide book. One of the things that it says is to—what we have tried to do in our architectural goals is to create a building that is placed in time and contributes to exciting, vibrant University Avenue. "Develop and enhance the qualities of University Avenue which make it an exciting outdoor and pedestrian environment including vibrant and eclectic architecture." Downtown Urban Design, page 27. Our second goal was to increase the height at the corner to support Downtown goals of defining street corners. "Street corners are best defined by higher volumes. At mid-block locations, lower building volumes whose upper floors are stepped back from the street are often more appropriate." This is the Downtown Urban Design, page 22. Number 3, design for architectural interest using windows, articulations and setback. From the Downtown Urban Guideline, "create ground-floor architectural interest with windows and displays." In addition we tried to create architectural compatibility that encourages shopping and creates a linkage to Kipling and to Lytton commercial areas. "The Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and the City Council should use this resource reference in reviewing proposed projects." This comes directly from the Downtown Urban Design, page 4. Our building is 429 University, and the red buildings on this slide show the buildings that are existing or approved that are over 50 feet high. All of these buildings or most, if not all, of these buildings abut to University Avenue. There are no setbacks from the street. The next thing I wanted to talk about is the changes that we have made to the plans that were approved by Planning and recommended for approval to Planning by the ARB. I could go over in detail about all of these, but I think it would take me very long. What I would like to do is to go over and to put the—next slide, this one—and point out to you where those changes occur. Number 1 is at the lower right and is the door that we added to create the rhythm on University Avenue. Number 2, we eliminated that wall, that concrete wall, in front of the building between 425 and 429 University to lighten the mass of the building. Number 3, in this place we put a window to make it more friendly and compatible to the street. Number 4, we eliminated the roof of the third-floor balcony. Number 5, we lowered what appears in the upper diagram as Number 6. We lower it on top of the second floor; it used to be on top of the third floor. Number 7, we eliminated those two columns on the third floor, again, to make the building lighter and less massive. Going to the next slide. Each one of these changes in your tables shows which concern from Council it addresses. It has the reference number and the reference number coincides with Council's concern. We are at Number 9, I believe, 8. On the Kipling side, we did something similar in response to Council's concerns. We eliminated the roof of the third floor balconies. Number 9, we lower the structure that is highlighted in the upper picture, Number 10. We lower to the second floor. In addition to that, we changed the material for the buildings, so that it would be lighter and that it would seem less massive to the passerby. Let's see. We have a Number 11. I think that Number 11 is the stairwell, the concrete stairwell. What we did there, we made it darker so that that would be possible backdrop for art. Number 12, we replaced a double door to a single door on the Kipling side to make the street less popular. One of the concerns was that we were making Kipling too populace. Number 13, we changed the windows—there used to be a row of glass—into more people-sized windows and less prominent windows. I think that those are—okay, now we're going to go to the floor plans and see how these setbacks work. On the alley, we maintain our 4-foot setback from the alley. The entire building is set back 4 feet from the alley. There's no other building existing at the alley that has a setback from the alley. This is the first one. We also have a 6-foot 10-inch distance from the corner to the wall on the lobby. The setback from the alley to the lobby is 6-foot 10-inches. We are set back 3 feet from Kipling Street. The lobby entrance, the lobby wall is set back 3 feet from Kipling Street. In addition, there is—okay, going over to the next slide. The second floor, that's 4 feet setback of the entire building in all floors is maintained. The building is set back 10 feet from the alley. The walls of the buildings is set back 10 feet from the alley, and there is a 6-foot balcony. The setbacks from the corner of Kipling and the alley are a generous 11 feet 9 inches to the elevator. In front of the elevator, you have a total transparent wall of glass. Those are the setbacks on the second floor. (inaudible) the third floor. The third floor has the same setbacks at the rear. On the Kipling side, the setback is 7 feet 6 inches, and it is 9 feet from University Avenue. I do not know of City of Palo Alto Page 3 any other building that has these generous setbacks on University Avenue. Let's go to the fourth floor. The fourth floor setbacks are even humongous. Okay, it's 12 feet 9 inches from Kipling, from 30 feet 2 inches to 39-7 inches from University Avenue. Can you go to the next slide please? We're presenting, we're offering you a beautifully designed building. It was approved before. It was recommended for approval by you before, and now it's even better. This is the view from University Avenue. The next slide shows the view from Kipling Street. Extremely pedestrian friendly, you come south, walking south on Kipling Street. The first thing you will see is this huge planter with a green wall. The planter could be the site of a modern sculpture for art. The lobby could be the site of a modern art that would have a wide-angle view. Chair Gooyer: You're just about out of time. Ms. Wong: Okay. I won't go over all the renderings that I have, but I do want to go over—right at the end, I want to show you some of the buildings that are prevalent in Downtown Palo Alto. Not this one, but can you go after that, after 429 University. Yeah. We have this building at 317-323 University, modern building, historical front. Even 323 University is modern at the rear. Next slide. This is 278 University, has setbacks on its third and fourth floor. It's hardly visible from the street. Next setback. Our new building is well suited for that corner. It balances the street; it's long overdue. Next one. This is another view from the street that our building will complement the street. Next, Jaime. This is the Presidential Hotel. What is the definition of massive? Our building fulfills every single Code. Chair Gooyer: Okay, we're going to have to wrap it up. Ms. Wong: Okay. This is another building with strong corner anchors. Next one, last one. This is the building under construction. Thank you very much. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Okay. We have a couple of speaker cards, so why don't we start with Michael Harbour. Michael Harbour: Thank you, Board Members. As you know, I filed an appeal in May which the City Council heard. I gave you on a handout just the issues that I laid out which were the main concerns of the appeal, which was the incompatible size, mass and scale in relationship to the adjacent buildings both on University Avenue and Kipling Street. We talked about shadows and the traffic and safety, parking insufficiency of the proposed design, disruption of existing businesses including Stapleton Florist and YogaWorks and the overall loss of retail space. Today, I'm going to just tailor my comments to what I think the City Council has asked you to deal with, specifically the size, scale and massing of the building in relationship to the adjacent buildings. The applicant has showed you a number of buildings not even close to where the building is located on the corner of Kipling and University. Kipling is the most narrow street in Downtown Palo Alto. When she shows the Presidential building on Cowper and all these buildings on Waverley, etc., you can't compare a street that's 40 feet wide compared to one that's only 29 feet wide. Again, the effect of this scale and massing is quite huge. Those are the five storefronts that are slated to be demolished in part of this building. She listed some of the design guidelines for Downtown. She cherry-picked the statements that fit her explanation here to you. What hasn't been addressed here is that the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires harmonious transitions in scale and character that are considerate of each other. The design should follow the Context Based Design Criteria, responsible to the context and compatible with adjacent development including street types. Specifically, Kipling Street is the major issue that we are appealing. We need to provide appropriate transitions to the surroundings, and this building does not do that. It's a four-story building at 50-foot high plus the additional height required for the HVAC and the elevator shaft, so going up an additional 10 to 15 feet. The new construction must share general characteristics and design linkages to maintain the visual unity of the street. This was the old building that they proposed she showed you. The design was not compatible. There was no shared characteristics or design linkages with neighboring buildings. The visual unity of the street was not maintained and the large scale and mass detracts from pedestrian- oriented design. The new building here is still not compatible. It just moves the third and fourth floors to the rear of the building and shifts all the massing towards the rear. It is the same amount of square footage. If the first and second floors remain the same and the overall square footage remains the City of Palo Alto Page 4 same, all she has done is just push the third and fourth floors to the back which masses everything along Alleyway 30 and towards Kipling Street. This new, lighter color is just cosmetic changes. To quote Sarah Palin, it's just lipstick on a pig. Scale and massing overwhelms the view from Kipling Street and the alleyway. You can see that rearview rendering, it is just one big, flat, huge building along the alleyway. Along Kipling Street, there are some setbacks, but you can see everything going towards the back. If you're walking down Kipling Street from Johnson Park and Lytton Avenue, down Kipling Street that's the view you'll see. It is overwhelming for that little, narrow street. It is the same colossal building and footprint on the narrowest street in Downtown Palo Alto. The design that they showed you from University Avenue, it is deceptive because it minimizes the actual building size and mass effect. What's up here is this huge, ugly flat wall that you're going to see from University Avenue. They've conveniently put a very large tree hiding it there, but this is no different than what it was before. It's just huge. We have a one-story building right there, a 1 1/2 story building, and four stories plus the additional HVAC materials. You have up to 3 1/2 floors of flat wall where the edge of the building meets ... Chair Gooyer: You've got 20 seconds left. Mr. Harbour: Okay. The size is not compatible with the neighboring buildings. Again, from Kipling Street you have a one-story building right here and then this four-plus-story building next door to it. This is what it looks like to scale from the back of the alleyway. A one-story position right there against this four-stories. I want to just reemphasize here that the applicant has made some cosmetic changes, but has not listened to what the City Council and the appellants have asked for, which is to address the size, scale and mass and specifically from Kipling Street. The HRB has asked them to address the historic resources that are along Kipling Street, and they've shown you all the buildings that aren't there. Thank you so much. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Now I have Jim Trotter, and then Doria Summa. Is Jim here? Jim Trotter: Hi. Excuse me. I'm working for Jaime and Elizabeth Wong. I'm the architect coming after Ken Hayes. I'm really basically coming on board helping with some of the follow-up work regarding revisions and the studies of the project. The presentation's already been made about all the changes in Revision 6. I think what's important to note on this is that I really think that the design itself from the beginning has been a wonderful design. I think Ken Hayes did an elegant and a beautiful project, one of the better mixed-use projects I've seen in this area, in Palo Alto. Considering the context and the complexity of the uses, I think this project has been very well integrated and well thought out, maximizing really what can be done with a site like this in terms of retail, commercial and residential as well. I mean, this really is contributing to the area and the community in ways that really are hard to measure beyond the actual details you already have shown. In response to the criticism already made, the massing has been considered more than a few times now. In Revision 6, the scaling is done appropriately for the storefronts, neighboring properties. Some of the renderings, even though they're beautiful renderings, some of the weaknesses of our renderings sometimes can be when they're two dimensional, it doesn't really show the real scale for the pedestrian walking along the street. I think it should be understood that from the street you actually have these trees already screening some of the things pointed out as being high masses above the second floor. You already have from a pedestrian angle on University and Kipling a scale that is more appropriate than is being presented right now in criticism of the project. I'm basically just adding comments I think have been made before, but really the changes made in Revision 6 do adequate justice to really make it appropriate for the massing and keeping the function and integrity of the project intact. Much of the mass that's left, especially in the rear part of the project, is necessary and needed for the project to work. Code wise, in terms of function, without that really the integrity of the project would be lost. My opinion, really I think the project should be approved as is at Revision 6. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Doria, and then Jeff Levinsky. Doria Summa: Good morning again. I'll be very brief. I'd like to say that I don't think enough improvements have been made yet to this project to move it forward. The massing has been kind of— not been reduced but rather shifted and shifted towards the back where it has the most impact on the City of Palo Alto Page 5 historic resources on Kipling. I don't believe that this revision truly reflects the changes that the City Council had asked the applicant to make. I'm not sure—I may have missed it, but I don't think the shadow study that was asked for was included. I think that's pretty darn important when it comes to such a narrow street and shadows casting. Thank you very much. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Jeff. Jeff Levinsky: Thank you. Good morning again. I enjoy very much walking in Palo Alto and particularly Downtown and on Kipling and so forth. I think I'd like to mention that Kipling, of course, is a treasure to our City, and we hope that it'll be preserved for many decades and maybe centuries. I wonder about the impact of this building on Kipling from a pedestrian point of view. I've studied the drawings and I don't think any of the drawings actually reflect what a pedestrian walking up and down Kipling would see. I would ask you to look carefully at the drawings to see if any of them have the correct perspectives of that sort. Many of them seem to have a perspective from a second-floor level which minimizes the massing of the building. Some of them seem to have perspectives from positions that don't seem like people could really stand at that spot normally. You were shown earlier some photographs of other buildings, and those seem to be taken from very much the ground level, so you're looking up and they look quite large. That's not been done for the renderings given to you for the proposed building. I think that's an important difference. It might help to suggest that there be story poles, so that people walking on Kipling can actually see how tall this will be. As has been previously indicated, it looks like the mass and scale from Kipling is unaltered by these plans even though the Council directed that that be addressed. I think there's a serious problem there. I would also ask you to address your attention to the traffic study. Michael Harbour's notes that were handed out to you do address that. I believe that's also a concern from the Council. Thanks very much. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I have one more, Ken Fong. Ken Fong: I've been in Palo Alto for well over ten year. I enjoy the City. I walk around University Avenue, sometimes Kipling, from time to time. I have a lot of friends around here. I actually look at that building at High Street and Hamilton. That's a huge building too. It's (inaudible). My wife tell me it's about five story. Is it four story? It's huge. This one, I'm not quite sure is bigger than that one. Secondly, I noticed that—is the mike on? Is the mike on? (inaudible) he said this building ugly. I'm not quite sure why he has to mention about this kind of perception. He didn't like it, and he called it ugly. He would have designed building and then offer to ARB for the rebuild. I'm not quite sure that he would pass it either. There's a lot of (inaudible) kind of determination of what beauty and ugliness is. That's something, I feel kind of unsettled, how things are being determined. I thought the ARB had approved this building before, right? I guess you get to argue it for another few years about what is right, what is wrong, before you approve it. I'm not quite sure how you got to make decision with the City. As I told you, I love the City. I've been here for more than ten years. I'd like to have a little bit more sensible kind of a decision-making process in the City. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Is there anyone else out in the audience who wants to address the Board? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the meeting and bring it back to the Board. Probably what we should—I guess the main preface is to address the six or so items that we have in our report that were mandated by the City Council. Vice Chair Lew: There are eight. Chair Gooyer: Okay. Sorry, eight, yeah. Why don't we do that or at least sort of surmise what our view is of those items. Kyu, you want to start? Board Member Kim: Sure. Thank you, Mrs. Wong, for coming back to the Board with your revision. Chair Gooyer: I tell you what. Let me do one thing. It might be worthwhile—would it be worthwhile reading what the—or does everyone have, I guess, copies of—oh, there you go. Okay, never mind. All right. Why don't we do that? I'm sorry, go ahead. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Kim: That's fine. I don't know. Should we each just go through each item or should we ... Chair Gooyer: Might as well or at least ... Board Member Kim: ... start on the first and then maybe go around or ... Chair Gooyer: Whatever's comfortable for you. Just as (inaudible) touch base (inaudible). Board Member Kim: Sure. The design shall be compatible with the immediate environment on the site. I mean this is tough, because from University I'd say it's compatible. It's been compatible. Of course, the issue that's been brought to us by the members of the public that spoke this morning have to do with the Kipling side. I think it boils to is it compatible with what's there currently versus is it compatible with what's potentially allowed along Kipling. That's where I struggle to lay down a solid opinion. I think with what's allowed by the zoning restrictions, and even looking at the building with that Kipling elevation, I'd say you could technically argue that it does address the other buildings that are on Kipling. It's not like it's completely turning its back against it. I mean, it could be far worse than what we have here. At the same time, I do understand the concerns of the people that feel that it doesn't respond enough. I'm really torn there. I think we've already made a decision on the building. I stand by that decision. Maybe we can go around and kind of add to that discussion about this one. Chair Gooyer: Okay. How about any of the other—I mean we don't have to do each individual one. We can sort of a general ... Board Member Kim: All right. There are some comments out there about, well, the massing has been changed but the square footage of the building is the same. I think that's still an attempt to change the massing. I mean, the square footage isn't something that we can necessarily control, especially with our purview. That's a planning and zoning thing. I think they're making the efforts to mass the building such that ... Chair Gooyer: Hold on a second, Kyu. Jodie Gerhardt: Board Members, could you please be clear what portion of the motion you're speaking to? Thank you. Which portion of the Council's motion you're speaking to. Is it "A," "B" or "C" on the screen that we have here? Board Member Kim: Yeah. It was "A." I mean, it does touch upon some of the other ones, but I was still sticking with "A." Chair Gooyer: All right. Then why don't we go down to this (inaudible). Board Member Kim: Speaking to "B," unified design character. I'd say it ties in with the neighboring buildings along University. Is it the immediate neighbor? Maybe not. When we talk about a neighborhood, when we talk about a Downtown district, it's not only referring to one or two buildings to the left and to the right. It's referring to the buildings across the street. It's referring to buildings possibly a block away. Is it unified with the character of those buildings? I would say that it is. Now again, that's where we go to the Kipling side, and it's a different story. It's so different. I think even with the existing conditions, even with the existing buildings, the character of Kipling Street is very different than the character of University. Speaking to Letter C, compatible with the approved improvements both on and off the site. That's a (inaudible) one to speak towards. I'll just move on. "D," design of rooflines, entries, setbacks, mass and scale with context-based criteria. Again context, I would argue that it's not the building to the left and to the right, but it's really the context of that neighborhood. Street building facades, this one is "E." Buildings return with greater enforcement of relationship to the street with building mass. If anything, on the University side it actually makes a larger effort to make the scale feel less. I think the building reads much more like a two-story design all the City of Palo Alto Page 7 way across the University elevation. The shadow patterns. There was a shadow study that was provided to us in the packet. It seems to me that the—it was a little bit difficult to understand actually why—there was one that was site only and then one that didn't have that text. Actually for the summer solstice, I don't know if that's accurate, because I still see the tower portion, at least what I think is the existing tower portion of the building that's casting a shadow still with the new building. I don't know if maybe the other Board Members have caught onto that. That would be for summer solstice, June 21st. Vice Chair Lew: Do you have a page? I did look at those; I didn't catch that. Board Member Kim: There's no page number, but it's the June 21st. Kind of in the middle of the packet. Vice Chair Lew: Yeah. Board Member Kim: Thank you for this ... Vice Chair Lew: It's confusing because it could be a tree. There's an existing ... Board Member Kim: If you look towards the top of the building, so above the building, you see the mass of two kind of buildings. I don't think that's the shadow of the tree. Vice Chair Lew: The middle diagram? Board Member Kim: For all three of them actually. Vice Chair Lew: (crosstalk) or all three? Board Member Kim: Yeah, just above the building. In Alley 30, you see shadows of ... Vice Chair Lew: Right. There are two bumps. I see what you're saying. Board Member Kim: Right. To me, that appears to be the shadow remaining from the existing building. Chair Gooyer: Yeah, it is. Board Member Kim: Something's not right there. Vice Chair Lew: I see what you're saying. Board Member Kim: Moving on to "G," the circulation analysis including Lane 30. Chair Gooyer: Right here. You can see it on here. See, it matches those two. Board Member Kim: Right, exactly. Chair Gooyer: It doesn't match that. Board Member Kim: Right. Chair Gooyer: It's not accurate. Board Member Kim: As far as the circulation analysis including Lane 30, I think there's been extensive traffic analysis of this site including that main. Then "G," direction that the project shall design linkages with overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the streets are maintained. Again, University, I think it does that. It's always done that to me. Kipling side, it's another story. I'm curious to hear from my other Board Members as to what comments they can provide on that. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Alex. Vice Chair Lew: Okay. For "A," I think I agree with the Staff report that some of the articulation has been lost. With removal of the—which was the gray stone tile, which I had always thought was a little too dark. It actually added a layer of complexity to the façade. Now without it, I think the building is looking really too bland and doesn't have enough articulation. I walked up and down the street again yesterday. The existing buildings, I mean most of them have railings, crenellations. They have more depth to their facades than this proposed project. I think something's been lost, and I think that that could be brought back to this project. That's on the University side. On the Kipling side, I have always maintained that like adding retail windows to Kipling is a huge benefit. I think the down side is really that the bulk of the building has been pushed towards the alley. It is sort of like a fairly uniform block of gray stucco, as I see it. There's not a lot of refinement or definition or just even like filigree to it. I do think that the great effort has been made to minimize the massing in terms of like having outdoor walkways, right, instead of having like enclosed walkways. Again, I think that more could be done to give it more character. Okay, Item B. On University Avenue, I think I touched on that before in my previous comment about University Avenue, just that there's more detail on the buildings on University Avenue. With regard to the Kipling side, I'm thinking that there has to be some sort of break. I actually went to try to understand the history of the site. I actually downloaded all of the Sanborn (inaudible) maps from the site—I have them here; you can't really see much from them—just to understand how the City developed. It was really like University Avenue at the turn of the century was a Victorian—this part was large Victorian houses. There was some big huge Queen Anne/Victorian on this site. If you go forward into like the '20s, like there's one from 1924 where you can see that the concrete retail buildings on University Avenue extended down to Waverley. Then you go to like 1949, they extend all the way down, farther towards Middlefield. That's just sort of the way the City's developed. There's always been a break between University Avenue and the Kipling Street houses. If you even go to—if you look at the map, like all of Lytton was turn of the century houses. Most of those have been removed. On University Avenue, we just have one; there's one left right down near—I think it's the 500 block. We have one Victorian left. To me there is going to be some sort of distinction there. Really the issue is—with regard to style, then the issue is is the massing too much, is the way I look at it. To me, it's really a difficult thing to try to give like a Victorian character to a mixed-use building that has to meet Fire Codes and whatnot. Really it's technically possible, but it's really difficult to reproduce or even mimic like a Victorian style on a new building. It's sort of a dangerous game. We've already cut down all the old growth redwood trees that built the Victorian houses. We don't really want to cut down more of those. To me, there has to be some level of break. I think the problem I'm having though is that—it's just the new building, it's just not quite good enough to me. It doesn't meet the standards set by other buildings Downtown. Okay. That was "B." I think "C" is very similar. I don't really quite understand the onsite and offsite relationship on "C." I don't know if Staff—do you have a sense for that? You're saying like existing—I mean sometimes onsite is existing like existing street trees or existing site amenities, but I think everything is being removed. If I can move on. On "D," I think that the removal of the third floor, the roofing—basically the roof covering over the third-floor decks, I think that is actually a substantial change to the University Avenue street frontage. I did look at all of those views like onsite. I think that that's actually a significant improvement. Again, I think the—recurring comments—that the back hasn't changed. I think that in the documents the applicant is saying that that's really the back, like the placement of the stair and the elevator core and the driveway are really fixed. Those are critical places to locate those. I would actually agree with that statement. I think the basic locations of those are sound. The Kipling side, though, is still looking like very different than the—it's still looking fairly blocky to me. On street building facades, I am okay with the setbacks on the upper floors. I think the argument is is the four floors on the alley, right, too much for the one-story commercial building on the other side of the alley. Right? That step down. It's kind of interesting that the—lots of compatibility findings for when like commercial goes next to residential, right, to sort of mirror and step down the massing. Really we actually don't really have them; we don't have specific examples in the context-based findings for commercial to commercial. I think that's sort of an interesting place for discussion. Again, to me it goes back to the transfer of development rights. This is a 3.0 floor area project which is larger than what we would normally allow which is like 2.0 floor area. Under previous zoning we do have buildings all over Downtown, right, with the 3.0 floor area. They're there and I don't—to me it's part of the context, but the Council has given us direction to give it a very narrow focus on adjacent buildings. City of Palo Alto Page 9 With that focus, I would say it's not working—they're not working together in that. I would agree with the applicant in a broader context of Downtown Palo Alto, it is compatible. The shadow studies, I think, were very interesting. I mean, it really shows, I guess to me though, that the alley gives the buffer that's needed. Again, the new building is casting shadows on the one-story building on Kipling, but that building doesn't really have windows facing the alley, so it doesn't seem to be an impact. I did read the circulation analysis, and I did see that. I wasn't really quite sure—you're saying we can't tie it to this particular application. I was wondering does that mean—that doesn't mean we can't do it. I was wondering, a question for Staff is like the ARB doesn't really have jurisdiction over circulation, but the Council could, right? Okay. I guess I would support those changes recommended by the traffic report. This is kind of a different—because this is an appeal, we don't necessarily get to see this again. My recommendation would be for this to come back with some really refinements to the skin of the building and possibly smaller. If we're having a fight over this, why don't we split the difference? If the difference is between 2.0 and 3.0 floor area, then why don't we split the difference? There are some really awkward things in the massing at the moment, like there are bathrooms up on the fourth floor that are facing University Avenue. That's like the best solar location, and we're putting sort of like the least desirable use, in my mind, right up on the top corner. There are bedrooms, there are two of the bedrooms on the –one on the third floor and one on the fourth floor that just have a door out to a deck. I don't think that's going to meet the Building Code minimum requirements for like light and ventilation. I think that there's still some things that need to be worked on in the plan. I think it's headed in the right direction, but it's not ready to be approved today. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Yeah, I have to agree. I mean I did the same thing. I walked the site again yesterday just to double check. Considering how this project came to us originally and how it's been trimmed back and stepped back, I think at this point—I mean it's got a four-story brick straight elevation directly across from it on University that starts at the back of the sidewalk and goes straight up. The design the way it is now actually—I have to agree with you. I think it's become a lot blander than it was originally. I guess that's the problem I have, is that when the sole purpose is to cut back the bulk, then you end up getting strange things like the bathrooms and the bedrooms with no articulation on it. I think the front on University Avenue is—the two-story matches what it's next to. I think it's gotten a lot more bland and a lot less interesting than it was before. I don't know if just bringing the bulk has really helped the project as a whole. The biggest thing seems to be how it relates to Kipling. If you look at what's already there, the old Apple store basically is a three-story building across the street that goes straight up. By the time you get that metal—I know technically it's a two story, but I'm saying size-wise by the time you get that metal box that's sitting on the back, it's the height of a three-story building. I don't care whether you call it a two—in fact you could probably theoretically call it a one-story building with a storage space. Still, the bulk is there. As to directly in back of it, we're talking about the shade study. We're having to—a fairly new building is going to be there for a while, and we need it to relate to two very non-distinguished looking one-story retail buildings that over the years have been a printing outfit and I guess it's an exercise gym at this point. I mean, if any shade is going to be on anything, on the roof of that would be as viable a thing to have it as anything else. Let's face it, Lane 30 is a service lane. There may be an occasional person that walks there, but they're going to be doing it to cut across and go from Point A to Point B, not a leisurely stroll down Lane 30. The Victorians in the back are gorgeous; I hope they never change, but we're talking three buildings back by the time you get to the first Victorian. I've always seen in many situations like this in other cities also where if you have a, let's face it, a commercial street like University, and they occur in all municipalities, what you want sometimes is a buffer from the residential area in back of it. I think a two-story in the front—I mean if you're going to— finish my sentence. It's basically that I think that's a good thing. It almost seems like what we're looking at or what we're being asked to do is to reverse it so you put the four-story bulk on the University side to match the building directly across the street and drop it down to a two-story in the back. That's not going to fly either. I think the solution that has come up was based on what is allowed these days. A lot of that is based on what the zoning is and, as you said, the whole transfer of development rights issue. As long as these things are on the books, we can't really prevent people from bringing us applications that look like this. It's our responsibility to judge what's best to make that building conform to the area around it. I think in this particular case, I have to agree that I think it does meet the requirement for the setbacks and all that actually almost to a fault. I think it works with the character of the buildings around it. I mean the reality of it is University Avenue is changing. Let's face it, a lot of the one and two-story City of Palo Alto Page 10 buildings that are there now are not going to be there. The land is just too valuable that the owners of those buildings are going to want to make those taller. That's something you just can't prevent. Let's see. Approved improvements both on and offsite, I guess the answer is yes. Design rooflines, entry, setbacks with context-based criteria. Based on the areas around it, I think it's doing the thing properly. Street building facades. Actually, as I said, this reduction of massing has diminished the quality or the texture of the building that was presented to us under, I guess, Option 5 than it is now. I think this building is blander than it was the last go around. The shadow pattern, like I said, it works for the setback. Obviously it does have a problem along the back in the alley, but again based on the fact that that shade then covers a service alley and two buildings that are basically used for retail and don't have any windows really facing that area, I think it's fine for the way it is. Let's see. Direction that the project shall share design linkage. Yeah, I mean I agree it's a little tough to say you want the back of that building to have a Victorian linkage to it. Realistically, the closest Victorian building is one property back across the street or the third property behind this one. The only ones you can really relate to directly are the old rectangular box that's the old Apple store and, directly in back of it, the two one-story nondescript residences—I should say retail spaces. I think it does relate to the buildings around it. Anything else anybody else wants to add? Vice Chair Lew: I have a question for you guys. What do you think about the glass railings? They seem to—like in the new design, they seem to be more prominent now than they were before. It seems a little out of character for the context. Chair Gooyer: I agree. Like I said, I agree with you. If this goes further or however this leads, I think it ought to come back to us. Like I said, I'm not real thrilled about the elevations, the way they are right now based on what was needed to get the massing. Yes, I agree with you, the glass there I don't think works. I should say I think there are better solutions for that. Board Member Kim: Yeah, I agree. I think what's lost—I appreciate you bringing that back up. One of my earlier comments from earlier reviews was that this building is replacing several smaller-looking facades. It'd be nice to kind of continue to keep that. I think removing the darker stone on the University elevation does remove that and make it a little bit more uniform. In doing that, it actually raises awareness of the horizontality of the building. I think the glass railings ... Chair Gooyer: I agree. Board Member Kim: ... add to that. Previously when we had the darker stone façade, at least it had some vertical elements that were emphasized to bring some relief to that as well as some contrast and breaking up the elevation as well. Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? Does that give you what you're looking for? Ms. Gerhardt: I think if we could make sure that all of the Board Members, that there's a group conclusion on these different motions. Chair Gooyer: I didn't know it—does it need a motion or something? I think we're all in agreement that it does seem to fit in with the context, but it's lost something in the shrinking of the massing. Would you guys agree with that? Vice Chair Lew: I think I'm in a slightly different position than the two of you. I think the way I'm thinking about is that if the fourth floor were eliminated, it would fit in better. I think that's where I am. Chair Gooyer: I don't have a problem with that. The thing that always bothers me with that is then—in one respect we allow these transfer of development rights and then we say, "Yeah, but that's all fine and dandy. We let you do all these complicated mathematical formulas, but you can only put three stories on it." If that's the case, then the City or the Council needs to say we can only have three-story buildings in this area or whatever. I mean if there's going to be something like that, that's always the problem with that. I understand a lot of this stuff is taken on one at a time but, like I said, then you look at the City of Palo Alto Page 11 building across the street and it's that brick four-story building that the façade goes straight from the back of the sidewalk all the way up. There's no setback, no nothing. Now, rightfully so, that may be one of those "oh, my God, we never want to see that done again," but still I think a lot of effort has been put by this particular applicant to step everything back. Yeah, I agree with you that would probably be the best solution, but again if that was done, realistically if you're walking in the alley, you never see the fourth floor or almost see nothing of it. As far as the shadow line, it really isn't affected by it considering the size of the step back. Other than looking at it from the—what is it—the President Hotel or somewhere at some unrealistic bird's eye view, it's hard to tell there's even a fourth floor up there. I mean, unless you go looking for it. I mean, the average person walking down University or Kipling isn't going to. Vice Chair Lew: That's interesting. I did not look at the, say like from Lytton, I didn't go that far out to see what this potentially could look like. Chair Gooyer: Okay. Vice Chair Lew: Yeah, I can see this screen ... Chair Gooyer: How would you like to—how do you want to—do you want to put an adjunct to that or what I stated? You can add to that, like I said. I have conflicted ways about that as far as the—if we're not going to allow the fourth floor, then we shouldn't allow all the rigmarole of the transfer of development to get it done in the first place. Just say it's FAR of whatever, and you're limited to three floors or four floors. Then you get people to come back and say, "Hey, wait a minute ... Vice Chair Lew: I know. This is the way the rules are written. It's like it has to be compatible ... Chair Gooyer: Right. Vice Chair Lew: ... to get the transfer of development rights. That's why we're here. Chair Gooyer: I understand. It's sort of a black and white situation and a very gray answer. Vice Chair Lew. I know. I know. It's very difficult. Some people say, "Well, why can't you just put the transfer of development rights on a project on Alma where it doesn't impact anybody?" We've had big projects on Alma, and they're still controversial. There's no way around that here in Palo Alto. Chair Gooyer: Anything else you want to add? Board Member Kim: No. Chair Gooyer: Okay. I think that'll do it from us then. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Vice Chair Lew: Staff, can you tell us does this go back to the Council? Is there a date? Is it scheduled? Ms. Fong: We are trying to coordinate a date to get back to Council the end of October or early November. We will forward your comment and the HRB comments to Council for their final decision. Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I think that's it. JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 OF COUNSEL MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 KENT MITCHELL (650) 324-9300 FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com RETIRED JOHN D. JORGENSON MARGARET A. SLOAN November 4, 2015 MARVIN S. SIEGEL (1936 -2012) WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L. FLEGEL DAN K. SIEGEL DIANE S. GREENBERG JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY DAVID L. ACH LEIGH F. PRINCE GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KRISTINA A. FENTON SARAH E. KERN JENNIFER A. BEYERS By Mail & Email Molly S. Stump, Esq. City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Appeal of Planning Approval —429 University Avenue Dear Ms. Stump: This letter is written on behalf of our client, Kipling Post LP, to address the following legal questions presented by Councilmember Burt's May 4, 2015, motion to refer certain issues back to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for further consideration. With respect to the ARB, what is the legal effect of the recorded transfer of development rights to add FAR to the development rights for this property, and may limitations be imposed by the City on such additional FAR using the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines or concerns about "compatibility" of the proposed improvements with the immediate environment of the site? With respect to the HRB, what is the proper scope of HRB review of this project which is not in an historic preservation district, not in an area with potential to become an historic preservation district, and which will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historic resource of the City within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? ARB QUESTIONS: In adopting Municipal Code (MC) Section 18.18.080 entitled "Transfer of Development Rights" ( the "TDR Ordinance"),the City's expressed purpose was to create significant incentives to property owners "to implement the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging seismic rehabilitation of buildings...and encouraging historic rehabilitation of buildings ... by establishing standards and procedures for the transfer of specified development rights from such sites to other eligible sites." Pertinent to the HRB issues discussed below, the code specifically prohibits transfer of such specified development rights to "an historic site, or a site containing a historic structure". 1 Attachment H In this case, valuable development rights were purchased by the Applicant in reliance upon the TDR Ordinance. Transfer of those development rights increased the FAR for the subject property by 9,207 square feet. The transfer of such rights to this site were duly approved by the City and are recorded in the Official Records of the Santa Clara County Recorder. The Applicant merely seeks to benefit from such rights, for which the City has already reaped its reward of seismic or historic rehabilitation of buildings elsewhere in the City. This transfer of FAR entitles the Applicant to improve the property with a four story mixed use building meeting all specific requirements of the Municipal Code, specifically, FAR, Height, Stories, Parking, Setbacks. Specifically this means a larger building, one which inevitably has more size and mass on this site than would be possible without such added FAR. The Appellant now asks the Council to materially reduce such size and mass, i.e. reduce square footage, notwithstanding the Applicant's voluntary offer of third and fourth floor setbacks in mitigation of size and mass concerns. However, questions have now been raised regarding the effect of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, massing and compatibility on the provisions of subsection 18.18.080(h)(3) of the TDR Ordinance which reads as follows: "In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section 16.48.120 of this code; however, the project may not be required to be modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy the criteria for approval under Chapter 16.48 [which Chapter has been repealed by Section 21, Ordinance 4826] or any specific requirement of the municipal code." remphasis added] The question presented is quite simple. What "specific requirement" of the municipal code does the project not satisfy? The use of the word "specific" is important. It is not "every" requirement of the code that must be satisfied...only "specific" requirements. The provisions of the Downtown Urban Design Guide are not "specific requirements of the municipal code". In fact, they are not even "requirements". The Statement of Intent in the Downtown Urban Design Plan makes this abundantly clear: "However, it is important to emphasize that this plan is intended to guide downtown development and amenities, and is not intended to be binding or regulatory in nature." [underlining contained in Plan itself...not added here] Program L-19 of the Comprehensive Plan is to the same effect: "The Downtown Urban Design Guide is not mandatory..." The staff report confirms that the project meets all requirements of the municipal code. (See staff report to Council for meeting of May 4, 2015, enumerating compliance with specific municipal code requirements in table on page 2 and footnotes on page 3, and the Staff Report statement at page 2: "Staff's review of the project finds it in compliance with applicable municipal regulations, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines.") Under these circumstances, any reduction in square footage of the proposed improvements would violate MC Section 18.18.080(h)(3). Given that the size of the building is settled as a matter of law and cannot be reduced by the City, then it is apparent that the voluntary setbacks proposed for the third and fourth floors to mitigate the appearance of size and massing are the most that can be requested of the Applicant and still maintain the credibility and obligations of the City in regards to its TDR Ordinance program. At page 59 of the transcript of Council Minutes of May 4th, Councilmember Burt, who indicated concern about satisfying Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, inquired to what extent the ARB could have "an Applicant reduce their use of TDRs to meet mass and scale criteria", i.e. inquiring as to "the discretion that the ARB and other review parties should have around these TDRs. It goes to the crux of this 2 question." It was pointed out by Mr. Lait that those Guidelines do not require "findings". Cara Silver added: "The guidance documents tend to be more policy-oriented. They perhaps contain more subjective, interpretive-type language..." (at p. 58, May 4th Council Minutes"). Clearly, these guidelines are at most "general" in nature, and certainly not "specific requirements" of the municipal code that must be "satisfied" by this project to justify a decision to require square footage reduction to minimize general massing concerns. We submit that the ARB and the City must identify "specific" requirements of the municipal code that cannot be satisfied before a reduction in square footage, i.e. mass, can be required. That has not been done and cannot be done here, because all specific requirements of the municipal code have been satisfied. With respect to thencompatibility" of the proposed improvements with the immediate environment of the site, and the concerns for transition to adjacent areas, what is the "site" and what are the adjacent areas of legitimate concern here. The outer edges of the commercial and residential areas where transition is expected are well defined. The Central Business District is defined as the area south of Lytton and north of Hamilton Avenues. Transition areas do not include the University Avenue corridor. "These parallel streets, lying north and south of the University Avenue Retail Core, each have a distinctive character. Together with University Avenue, they comprise the Central Business District. From Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, the downtown transitions into residential areas." [p. 16, Downtown Urban Design Guidelines entitled "The Commercial and Residential Edges"] Thus the north side of Lytton and the south side of Hamilton are where the transitions "begin". Transitions are not required to begin in the Retail Core and any requirement that buildings on University Avenue be designed to begin such transition are unwarranted. Clearly, the "immediate environment of this site" with which this project should be compatible is defined by the buildings fronting on University Avenue, and that compatibility certainly exists.. "The (ARB) Boardmembers and Director concluded that the design is appropriately scaled for a mixed use project with retail, office and housing units, which is encouraged in the project's zoning district. The project incorporates architectural features with facade treatment, stepbacks and modulation that provide a transition to adjacent commercial buildings." ( City Council Staff Report from City Manager, Page 4, dated May 4, 2015 ) The proposed project as designed is not incompatible or out of place...if anything, the Appellant's historic residence located in the heart of the Central Business District is the structure that is incompatible and out of place. To deny this project based on a structure that itself is incompatible with the immediate environment in which it is sited would be letting the tail wag the dog. In any case, as succinctly stated by Ms. Gitelman and reported at page 58 of the May 4 th Council Minutes, "Compatibility is in the eyes of the beholder" and certainly is not a "specific requirement of the municipal code" which must be satisfied to justify reducing the square footage allowed for this building. HRB QUESTIONS The staff reports on this project have consistently concluded that the proposed improvements do not cause any substantial adverse change in the significance of any of the historic resources on Kipling. Nothing has been advanced in the follow-on reports of the expert consultants hired by the City and the Applicant to alter that conclusion. The question posed to the HRB in Councilman Burt's referral motion asked what is the area of potential impact on historic resources under CEQA analysis, including the effect of mass, scale and compatibility on the Kipling historic residences across and down the street from the project site. CEQA is very specific on this. Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, entitled "Determining The Signficance Of Impacts To Archeological And Historical Resources" is directly applicable here. Section 15064.5(b) provides in relevant part that: "a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. (2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project: (A) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register ... or (B) in the [City's1 local register of historic resources pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)." In the instant case, this project does not meet any of those tests, because constructing this project as designed will not cause any "physical characteristics" of the historical resources on Kipling which justify their inclusion in the local register to be demolished, destroyed, relocated or altered in any way. Furthermore, there is a California Appellate Court case directly on point with the facts of this case, which arrives at the same conclusion. [ Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (ft Dist. 2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 357, 374-375, 54 Cal. Rept 3d 4851 In that case a large school playground, which neighbors found offensive and too large, was constructed without permits in a neighborhood in which there were 53 historically significant structures. The City of Eureka approved the playground "as built". The Citizens relied on a report of an expert in historical preservation that the historic structures surrounding the site had been materially impaired by the playground, and sued the City, claiming that the environmental analysis which concluded that the playground caused no damage to, or impairment of, any of these historical resources, was defective under CEQA. The Court disagreed and held as follows at pages 374-375: "While discussing [in such expert's report] the presence of about 53 historically significant structures in the 30 block general neighborhood of the Project which are identified in a local historic register, it [the report] posits no damage to, or impairment of, any of them. Certainly it does not, and could not, suggest that the Project contemplated any demolition of, or material alteration of, the physical characteristics of the identified historically significant structures. " In regard to the claim of "aesthetic impacts" of the Project on the neighborhood, the Court stated at page 37: "In response to the comments ...that the playground structure was 'enormous and garish' and 'wholly inappropriate for this site,' the City correctly observed that the CEQA issue of aesthetics is not the judging of the individual beauty of the Project, but rather physical elements of the preexisting environment the Project may significantly impact. ...The possibility of significant environmental 4 impact is not raised simply because of individualized complaints regarding the aesthetic merit of a project." Thus the "area of potential impact", though not addressed specifically by the HRB, is not the issue. The question is whether this project will impair or destroy any of the physical characteristics of the Kipling structures which qualified them for inclusion on the local historic register, and this project causes no such physical changes. In an earlier case [ Citizens for Responsible Development in West Hollywood v. City of West Hollywood (2nd Dist., 1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 490 ] citing Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, the statutory basis for Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the court allowed the construction of a 40-unit low income housing project immediately adjacent to a previously approved historic district containing "craftsmen style buildings". In that case the Court upheld a finding of the City's Cultural Heritage Advisory Board that "The proposed work [ the 40-unit development ] will neither adversely affect the significant architectural features of the cultural resource [ in the historic district ] nor adversely affect the character of historic, architectural or aesthetic interest of value of the cultural resource and its site." It is also noteworthy that the City's TDR Ordinance expressly prohibits transfers of TDRs to "an historic site, or a site containing a historic structure". In the instant case, though neither the subject property nor the Kipling historic structures are in an historic "district", the City's approval of the Applicant's property as an appropriate "receiver site" for these TDRs under the City's TDR Ordinance suggests that the City had no concerns for the proximity of the Kipling historic structures to this project when they did so. To the extent that the HRB offered views on massing, scale and compatibility which in no way would alter the physical characteristics of the historic structures on Kipling which justified their inclusion in the local historic register, those observations are of no assistance in responding to the "area of potential impact" question posed by Councilmember Burt, and should be ignored. They simply fall beyond the proper purview, role and responsibilities of the HRB to provide the Council with historic preservation recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on these matters. I would be pleased to discuss any of the foregoing with you before the continued hearing of this Appeal before the City Council. We appreciate the consistent support the City's staff has given for approval of this project and look forward to continuation of that support. I also respectfully request that this letter be included as part of the public record in any future hearings on this Appeal that come before the City Council, the ARB, the HRB and its other committees, boards and commissions. Very truly yours, /E7ifiela KENT MITCHELL 5 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF 250 Hamilton Avenue.8th Floor PALO ALTO Palo Alto.CA 94301 650.329.2171 November 11,2015 By Email: km(5>ismf.com Kent Mitchell,Esq. Jorgenson,Siegel,McClure & Flegel,LLP 1100 Alma Street,Suite 210 Menlo Park,CA 94025 Re:429 University Avenue Dear Mr.Mitchell: Thank you for meeting with City representatives and for your November 4,2015 letter regarding the 429 University Avenue project.This letter responds to the legal concerns you raised at the staff meeting and in your letter.At your request we will include a copy of your November 4 letter together with this response in the upcoming City Council packet. Background On May 4, 2015,the CityCouncil conducted an appeal hearing on the Project. The original project was a 4 story buildinglocated inthe CD-C(GF)(P)zoningdistrict. The CD-C(GF)(P) zoning district allows an FAR up to 3:1 provided the context-based findings set forth in PAMC Section 18.18.110 can be made.At the hearing the Council expressed concerns about the originally designed project's scale and character;its compatibility with other nearby properties, including historic properties;parking deficiencies due to use of TDR bonuses and alley related traffic and safety issues.Rather than upholding the appeal,the CityCouncil continued it and requested the applicant redesign the project and return to the Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board to address the following issues: Historic Resources Board a. The Preservation Architecture report focuses on whether there are criteria for a historic district.There is no need for existence of a district for there to be historic considerations.The HRB should determine whether there are other factors that should be considered. b. What is the applicable "area of potential effect"under CEQA analysis? c.There are a number of historic structures near (e.g.on Kipling),one next to the proposed project and several across the street.How will the project impact these structures? d.Whether the mass,scale,and compatibility of the proposed project has an impact on the existing historic properties should be analyzed. CityOfPaloAlto.org Printed with soy-based Inks on 100V recycled paper processed without chlorine. November 11,2015 Page 2 of 2 e.Whether the proposed building would change the setting under CEQA has an impact on the historic properties on Kipling or University. Architectural Review Board a. The design shall be compatible with the immediate environment ofthe site-the building will be designed with articulation and setbacks that minimize massing. b. In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character,the design is compatible with such character. c. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site d. The design of roof lines,entries,setbacks,mass and scale with context based criteria. e.Street building facades -building to return with greater reinforcement ofthe relationship ofthe street with building mass.The upper floors need to have set backs to fit in with the context ofthe neighborhood.Specifically,the look and feel from the street should be of a look and feel compatible with adjacent buildings, with the option of a third or fourth floor provided they are visually compatible from the streets, requiring articulation or set-backs. f. To study shadow patterns. In response to these concerns your client submitted modified plans on August 27,2015.Staff retained Carey &Co. Inc. a second historic consultant who issued an updated historic report on August 14, 2015. On September 10,2015 the HRB reviewed and commented on the plans and on September 17, 2015 the ARB did the same.Your client appeared at both hearings and had extensive dialogue with the boards. Legal Concerns Asa threshold your matter,your client has already re-submitted plans which have already been reviewed by both the HRB and ARB.Accordingly your letter objecting to these reviews is untimely.Regardless of the late timing of your objections,as explained below they neither alter the outcome ofthe HRB and ARB's review nor impact the Council's review. ARB Review With respect to ARB purview,you state that PAMC Section 18.18.080 prohibits the ARB from reducing any project square footage attributable to TDR's.Youalso assert that the Council's use of the Downtown Urban Design Guide was improper.The Citydisagrees. First,the Code expressly provides that the Citydoes not guarantee that an acceptable TDR receiver site will be available1: (d) Availability of Receiver Sites 1The contention in your letter that the City has already confirmed use ofthe TDRs on this site is also incorrect.While the City hasinfactverifiedthat yourclientowns TDR's the City has not filed aconfirmation permittinguseof the TDR's on this site.The Code requiresa valid ARB approval before such use can be confirmed and recorded. CityOfPaloAlto.org Printed with soy-based inks on 100%rocycled paper processed without chlorine. November 11,2015 Page 2 of 2 The city does not guarantee that at alltimes in the future there will be sufficient eligible receiver sites to receive such transferable development rights. Second,the text ofthe regulation itself provides two exceptions for reducing TDR square footage: (3) In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section,the architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section 16.48.120 ofthis code;however,the project may not be required to be modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy the criteria for approval under Chapter 16.48 (old code reference to architectural review section)or any specific requirement ofthe municipal code.(Parenthetical added.) While your letter acknowledges the exception for compliance with "specific requirement ofthe municipal code"it omits mention oftheotherapplicable exception:architectural review itself.2 Given the Code's second stated exception,it is entirely appropriate for the ARB and Council on appeal to review issues such as scale,character,transitions and compatibility and where applicable require reduction ofthe size ofthe proposed building if it does not meet the required findings. In addition,the project islocated in the CD-C zoning district which requires additional context- based regulations.(See PAMC section 18.18.110.)Since the context based regulations include context3 and compatibility4 findings,the Council's focus on mass and scale is also appropriate when applying this second set of findings. Finally,we do not agree with your statement that the ARBand Council's use of the Downtown Urban Design Guide was misplaced.The Guide has been in existence since 1993. You are correct it is not a regulatory document,but as with many design guides, it provides the underpinnings for the necessary design review and context-based findings. The Guide itself states:"The Architectural Review Board,the Planning Commission and City Council should use this resource reference in reviewing proposed projects...."(Guide, p. 4.) It has been the ARB and Council's common practice to use this guide on downtown projects,including other 2We note thatthis regulation contains acitation toanow outdated code provision -chapter 16.48.Ordinance No.4826 repealed the architecture review section previouslycontained inChapter 16.48 and re-codified it in Chapter 18.76. Oldcode references likethis exist throughout the ZoningCode.Whenever a major section isre-codified,we try to update allrelated references as well but occasionally miss some of the references.Incases, such as this one,wherethe legislative history shows the reference to the old section was an oversight, the City's practice has been to substitute the updated code section inits place.This practicecomports with standard rules of statutory interpretation.Silverv. Brown,63 Cal.2d 841 (1966). 3Section 18.18.110 (a)(1)(A)states "(c)ontext asused in thissection is intended to indicate relationships between thesite's development to adjacent streettypes, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such ascreeks ortrees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Planpolicies." 4Section 18.18.110 (a)(2)(A)states "(cjompatibillty is achieved when theapparent scale and mass ofnewbuildings isconsistent with the pattern of achievinga pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristicsand establishes design linkageswith the overall pattern of buildingsso that the visualunity of the street is maintained." CityOfPaloAlto.org Printed with soy-based inks on 100%recycled paper processed without chlorine. November 11,2015 Page 2 of 2 projects advanced by your client,and it has been effective in transforming the CD-C zoning district to a vibrant,pedestrian oriented,successful downtown that has stood the test of time. Indeed,many of the principles contained in the Guide have now been incorporated into the CD- C zoning district's context-based design criteria. HRB Review With respect to historic review,you are correct that historical analyses traditionally analyze whether the demolished structure is a historical resource.In cases,such as this one,where other historic resources are nearby it may also be appropriate to evaluate potential direct and indirect impacts to such off site resources.As stated in Carey and Co's supplemental historic report,the proposed project's design,mass,scale,and use of materials could have an indirect impact on the integrity of historic resources.Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic significance through the retention of physical characteristics that justify its inclusion in local,state or national registers.Thus the Carey report properly analyzes the seven aspects of integrity -location,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling and association - for each of the resources that could be impacted by the proposed project. Also, as noted by the HRB,the architectural review findings themselves involve careful review of compatibility with existing historic resources in the area.This historic compatibility review is not a CEQA requirement,but rather a design review finding. Again,thank you for your input and feel free to contact me if you have any additional concerns about the Council's review process. Sincerely yours, Cara Silver Senior Asst.City Attorney Cc:James Keene,City Manager Molly Stump,City Attorney Hillary Gitelman,Planning Director Jonathan Lait,Assistant Director CityOfPaloAlto.org Printed with soy-based inks on 100%recycled paper processed without chlorine Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT Initial Study DRAFT RELEASED NOVEMBER 2014UPDATED JANUARYAUGUST 2015 Attachment I Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 1 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE TO THE INITIAL STUDY I. PROJECT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................2 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS .................76 A. AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................... 87 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................ 1210 C. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................ 1311 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 1614 E CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 1816 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY .................................................... 2218 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................. 2420 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.......................................... 2621 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................. 2924 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................... 3126 K. MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 3328 L. NOISE .............................................................................................................. 3329 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................. 3732 N. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................... 3833 O. RECREATION ............................................................................................... 3934 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ........................................................ 3934 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................... 4540 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................... 4641 III SOURCE REFERENCES ...........................................................................................4842 SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY)............................................................................... 4842 REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................. 4842 IV DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................5044 FIGURES 1 Regional Map 2 Vicinity Map 3 Aerial Map 4 Site Plan 5 Elevations 6 Perspective Renderings Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 2 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 PREFACE TO THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is an informational document intended to disclose the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the proposed 429 University Avenue Project. The draft Initial Study was circulated for public review beginning on November 17, 2015 and ending on December 12, 2014. The draft Initial Study was considered at a public hearing by the Architectural Review Board on November 2014 to solicit public comments during the public review period. The Architectural Review Board and the public provided input on the proposed project and the project applicant subsequently made revisions to the project plans to address comments received. The Initial Study was also updated to reflect the revised project plans and was brought back to the Architectural Review Board on January 15, 2015. The Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the project and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 19, 2015. The project was tentatively approved on February 25, 2015; however, it was appealed to the City Council prior to formal approval and filing of the Notice of Determination. The project was presented at the May 4, 2015 City Council hearing and the City Council requested additional changes to the project plans, as well as clarification to be added to the Initial Study. This Initial Study includes revisions to the text based on comments received from City Council on May 4, 2015. These changes are identified in strikethrough (indicating a deletion) or underlined text (indicating an addition). The City of Palo Alto determined that based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15073.5, that the Initial Study need not be recirculated for public review because no substantial revisions were made to the Initial Study. This conclusion is based on the fact that no new, avoidable significant effects have been identified as a result of the text and project changes, no new mitigation measures were added, and revisions to the Initial Study do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 3 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1. PROJECT TITLE 429 University Avenue 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Christy Fong, Planner City of Palo Alto 650.838.2996 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Kipling Post LP Contact: Elizabeth Wong PO Box 204 Palo Alto, California 94302 650.323.5295 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 14PLN-00222 6. PROJECT LOCATION 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 The 0.25-acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto (City), in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and west of U.S. Highway 101 (Figure 1, Regional Map). The project site is located on the northwestern corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3, Aerial Map. All figures are provided at the end of this document. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 4 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Palo Alto 1998–2010 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan; City of Palo Alto 2007). This land use designation includes larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non- retail services such as offices and banks. Non-residential floor area ratios (FAR) range from 0.35 to 2.0. The project site is part of a Regional/Community Commercial district that extends from Alma Avenue on the south to Webster Street on the north and between Lytton Avenue on the west and Hamilton and Forest Avenues on the east. 8. ZONING The Zoning designation of the project site is Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The CD-C (community) subdistrict is intended to modify the site development regulations to allow specific variations to the uses and development requirements of the CD district. The project site is also within the pedestrian shopping (P) and ground floor (GF) combining districts. The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CD in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. The ground floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Initial Study has been modified subsequent to public review of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect revisions made to the project plans in January 2015 in response to issues raised by Architectural Review Board and again in August 2015 in response to issues raised by the City Council at the May 4, 2015 City Council meeting. These revisions provide clarifying information regarding the proposed project but none of the revisions to the Initial Study or project plans result in any new or increased environmental effects. The revisions to this Initial Study do not constitute “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves demolition of two one-story retail buildings located at 425 University Avenue (APN 120-15-029) and 429 University Avenue (APN 120-15-028) totaling 11,633 square feet (4,425 square feet and 7,208 square feet, respectively) on separate parcels, and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The two parcels would be combined to create a single 11,000-square-foot parcel. The new building is proposed to be 31,407 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 9,4789,581 square feet of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 square feet. The proposed building would provide 20,407 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 square feet) and 11,000 square feet of residential land uses. A total of four residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. In addition, the design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The third floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line, 7 feet, 6 inches from Kipling Street, and 9 feet from University Avenue, resulting in a scale more visually compatible with surrounding buildings. The fourth floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 5 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 the alley property line, 12 feet, 9 inches from the Kipling Street property line, and 39 feet, 7 inches from the University Avenue property line, resulting in a street façade that would appear as a three-story building. The proposed building plans are provided in Appendix A. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86 (Figure 5, Elevations). The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with transfers of development rights (TDRs) and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project FAR will be achieved through the transfer of 9,207 square feet of development rights from separate properties, of which 4,207 square feet require parking and 5,000 square feet are exempt from parking requirements. The project is also eligible for a one-time 200-square-foot bonus, which is subject to the City’s parking requirements. Together, these TDRs and bonuses would allow the project to achieve the proposed 2.86 FAR. Building design would include stone, cast concrete, and crystalized glass panels around the University Avenue/Kipling Street corner. The stone framework would be divided into segments that reflect the pattern of facades along the street. The third and fourth floors would be stepped back from the façade to create depth and visual interest, while also providing terraces for residents and guests of the building. The project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The entry lobby for the residential and office uses would be located on Kipling Street. The building would be set back approximately 4 to 6 feet from Lane 30 to allow for pedestrian accessibility in the rear of the building and a raised planter would be located at the corner of the alley to provide a transition to the landscaped frontages along Kipling Street. The proposed project would require 82 81.6 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 9.4 parking spaces for 4 residential units, for a total of 92 91 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 34 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five six spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage. Seven long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided within the underground parking garage, and six short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for carpool/clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street, and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees on Kipling Street. Both of the two existing street trees on University Avenue would be retained. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING As shown on Figures 2 and 3, the project site is located on University Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto. The project site is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 6 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Kipling Street. Located directly across University Avenue from the site is a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three-story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The surrounding uses on Kipling Street serve as a transition between the primarily commercial University Avenue and the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north. Lower-intensity commercial/office uses and single-family residential line both sides of Kipling Street. A yoga studio is located behind the project site, accessed from an alley off Kipling Street (the alley is referred to as Lane 30 E). A public surface parking lot is located on Kipling Street, less than a block north of University Avenue, which provides parking for nearby uses. Another public surface parking lot is located on Cowper Street, between University and Hamilton Avenues. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 7 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. (A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The second column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 8 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 2, 3 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1, 3 (Map L4) X c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 3 (Map L4) X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1, 2, 3 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 2 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project includes replacing two existing one-story retail buildings with a new four-story mixed-use building. While the proposed project would result in a change in the existing visual character of the site, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As shown on Figure 5, Elevations, and Figure 6, Perspective Renderings, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. The use of lighter stone and cast concrete in the building façade and substantial setbacks on the third and fourth floors would help to reduce the apparent massing of the building and improve compatibility with neighboring structures. In addition, the project would not exceed the allowable height (50 feet) for the site. The design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The façade would be divided into 25-foot sections consisting of the solid stair element, and the glass entry element with recessed residential terrace, and the secondary grid inside the main building form. The third and fourth floors of the building would set back from the alley property line and the Kipling Street property line resulting in a street façade that would appear as a two- to three-story building. The proposed stair element would be located east of the alley and would be buffered from the alley by a landscaped area near the ground-floor entrance adjacent to the alley. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District, including the four-story Lululemon Athletica/Accel Partners building located directly across University Avenue. The University Avenue façade would appear to be three stories tall. The fourth floor would be set back 3039 feet, 7 inches from the Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 9 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 front of the building creating a terrace for use by building occupants and guests. The fourth-floor terracemain three- story building block would extend along the length of the building as would the main three-story building block, giving definition to the street edge and presence to the building when seen in the context of the street. The fourth floor terrace would extend just short of the length of the building, but would be set back in order to reduce visibility from the street. The main rectangular mass of the building would be elevated so the bottom aligns with the first floor openings of the adjacent buildings along University Avenue. Frameless glass would create display windows and entries that would activate the sidewalk through visual and physical connections. Retention of existing trees along the project site’s University Avenue frontage and the planting of new trees along the Kipling Street frontage would soften the views of the new building from public roadways and adjacent uses. The building would be built within the buildable area of the property and no public views or view corridors would be affected by the proposed building. The project site is located in a developed area of the City, is not within a state scenic highway; therefore, it would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Land Use and Community Design Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes several policies related to visual resources, including the following:  Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.  Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible.  Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas.  Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character.  Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.  Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. As described above, the proposed project would comply with the height and setback requirements for the project site. In addition, the project has been designed to blend into the existing development on both Kipling Street and University Avenue. The proposed building design recognizes that the uses along Kipling Street are smaller in scale and lower in intensity than those on University Avenue, and the project design responds to the adjacent uses by minimizing the appearance of an abrupt change in scale between the two areas. The University Avenue frontage would create an inviting retail environment and provide a pleasant pedestrian experience, thereby enhancing the University Avenue/Downtown area as the City’s central business district. In addition, as described above, the proposed building design would activate the sidewalk through the use of human-scale architectural details and frameless glass windows on the ground floor. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 10 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The project site is currently developed with retail uses, which include sources of light and glare. Uses associated with the proposed structure would not create a substantial amount of additional lighting and glare. Glare is defined as a light source in the field of vision that is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. Glare can result from sunlight or from artificial light reflecting off building exteriors, such as glass windows or other highly reflective surface materials. Glare is particularly associated with high light intensity. It can be reduced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angles, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles. Glare resulting from sunlight reflecting off building exteriors can be reduced with design features that use low-reflective glass and exterior materials and colors that absorb rather than reflect light. The proposed building would increase the number and surface area of windows compared to the existing building. The Kipling Street frontage faces northeast and has limited direct sunlight exposure, while the University Avenue frontage faces southeast and receives more sunlight exposure. At the street level along these frontages, the project proposes a series of storefront system windows with canopies over the entrances. On the second floor, windows would also be provided on these frontages and would be shaded by canopies to reduce glare. The third floor would be set back from the building façade on the University Avenue frontage and Lane 30 E, creating a large overhang that would shade windows along this side. The fourth floor would be set back even farther along University Avenue, such that glare from windows would not be visible from the street. The Kipling Street frontage would receive less sunlight exposure and the windows on this side of the building are not anticipated to create substantial glare. The primary use of exterior building lighting would be to ensure safety at building entrances. Exterior building lighting is proposed at the rear entrance of the building on Lane 30, as well as within the ramp to the underground parking level. This lighting would be controlled to minimize spillover beyond the project site property lines. The project is also required to meet the City’s lighting standards, including PAMC Section 18.23.030, which establishes that “Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural lighting that projects upward.” PAMC Section 18.23.030 also requires that “lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture.” Although the project would result in increased building height compared to the existing buildings, which could increase shading, there are no adjacent public spaces other than streets and sidewalks that would be affected by additional shadows. Specifically, the proposed building would increase shading on Kipling Street and Lane 30 E, which are public streets. A shadow study was prepared for the proposed project by jt Architecture + Design in order to evaluate the projected changes in shadow lines relative to existing conditions (see Appendix J). Shadow profiles were determined for the four critical dates of the year: March 21, June 21, September 21, and December 21. As shown in the shadow study, the shadows at winter solstice (worst-case shadow) would cover a similar range under existing and proposed conditions when accounting for the shadows cast by existing trees along Kipling Street, which the project would replace. The shadows would be cast mostly on the alley, parking stalls at the alley, buildings abutting the alley, streets, and rooftops. All of these areas are mostly utility areas, such as trash enclosures or loading zones, as opposed to gardens or residential rooms. In addition, most buildings on the alley do not have windows to the alley that would be impacted by these shadows. Under no scenario would residential buildings be adversely impacted by shadows from the proposed project. Due to the similarity of shadows from the existing building and the proposed building, shading from the project would differ minimally from existing conditions. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 11 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Therefore, for the reasons described above, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 12 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 3 (Map L9), 4 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262)? 1, 4 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X X DISCUSSION As reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, the project site is located in a developed urban area in Downtown Palo Alto and does not contain and land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the Santa Clara County Important Farmland map prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (2011). The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts. The project site is within a fully developed urban area and does not support forest or timberland. No impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 1 California Public Resources Code 12220(g): “Forest land” is land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 California Public Resources Code 4526: “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 13 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1, 2, 6 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)? 1, 2, 6 X ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a. project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b. project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c. project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? 1, 2, 6, 17 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1, 2, 6 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1, 2 X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million? 1, 2 X ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI? 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 14 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 2 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review process. The California ambient air quality standards are generally more stringent than federal standards. The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants, which are referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as nonattainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region’s nonattainment status, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which is an update to the 2005 document and provides “an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate.” The 2010 plan addresses O3, PM2.5 and PM10, air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The 2010 plan identifies a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants. As the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the project site, it is consistent with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality guidelines (2010 BAAQMD Guidelines; BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. The BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that the BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than the BAAQMD’s prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. Table 1 lists several examples of screening levels set by the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 15 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Table 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria Land Use Type Construction Related Screening Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size* General office building 277,000 sf (ROG) 346,000 sf (NOx) Office park 277,000 sf (ROG) 323,000 sf (NOx) Regional shopping center or strip mall 277,000 sf (ROG) 99,000 sf (NOx) Quality restaurant 277,000 sf (ROG) 47,000 sf (NOx) Single-family residential 114 du (ROG) 325 du (ROG) Apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general 240 du (ROG) 451 du (ROG) City park 67 acres (PM10) 2,613 acres (ROG) Daycare center 277,000 sf (ROG) 53,000 sf (NOx) Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1. Notes: sf = square feet; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; du = dwelling units. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project size is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. Construction Emissions The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the screening thresholds of 277,000 square feet (office or regional shopping center/strip mall space) and 240 dwelling units (apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general) for construction emissions. While the project size is less than the screening criteria size for construction, the project would require demolition of existing buildings. The BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommend that the screening criteria should not be applied to projects that include demolition. Therefore, project-specific modeling of construction emissions has been completed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. Table 2 presents the estimated air pollutant emissions for each construction phase; the CalEEMod output results are included as Appendix B. As shown in Table 2, emissions during each construction phase would remain below the BAAQMD threshold, which is 54 pounds per day. Further, the project would implement all of the construction emission control measures as identified in Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommended for all proposed projects, as required by the City of Palo Alto standard conditions of approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Proposed Project Construction Emissions by Phase Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (maximum pounds per day) Demolition 1.62 14.21 10.98 2.56 1.94 Excavation 2.95 35.30 23.50 3.15 1.86 Building construction 1.62 15.25 10.26 1.22 0.99 Parking structure paving 1.29 11.64 8.50 0.90 0.72 Architectural coatings 28.48 2.59 2.11 0.25 0.22 Source: Air Quality Modeling Results (see Appendix B). Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 16 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Operational Emissions The project would result in a total of 20,407 square feet of retail and office space, which is a net increase of 8,774 square feet compared to the existing conditions. In addition, four new dwelling units would be constructed. This total increase in development is substantially below the screening thresholds of 346,000 square feet (office space), 99,000 square feet (regional shopping center or strip mall), and 451 dwelling units (apartment, low rise or condo/townhouse, general) for operational emissions (see Table 1). As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. Project operation would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with the air quality plan; impacts would remain less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national O3 standards and state PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As described in the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, “by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant” (BAAQMD 2010b). Because operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures None required. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1), 11 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1) X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 17 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1, 2, 3, 5 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located on a parcel that is almost entirely developed with existing buildings and paved parking, which would be removed to accommodate the project. Due to its developed nature, the site does not support sensitive habitats and has a very low potential to support candidate, sensitive, and special-status species. The site is not subject to any habitat conservation plans. The project site supports trees protected by Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. The PAMC regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees, street trees, and designated trees. As documented in the Tree Survey Report prepared for the site by Davey Resource Group (provided in Appendix A), the site includes six street trees, two in bulb-outs into the parking area along University Avenue and four in the sidewalk along Kipling Street. These trees were determined to be in poor to fair condition. The proposed project includes the retention of the two existing street trees on University Avenue (London plane trees (Platanus x acerifolia)), removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street (two ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana) and two carob trees (Ceratonia siliqua)), and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees. Construction of the project could impact the two trees to be retained on University Avenue if the trees are not properly protected. In addition, removal of the four street trees on Kipling Street would result in a significant impact if not completed in accordance with requirements for tree removal and replacement; therefore, mitigation is provided to ensure that these potential impacts remain below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees:  City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing.  Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist.  Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 18 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015  Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area.  New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree.  Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree.  Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock.  Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist.  All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1, 7 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 3 (Map L8) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1, 3 (Map L7), 8 X X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7, 8 X DISCUSSION The proposed project involves excavation and construction activities within a fully developed and previously disturbed site. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan map of archaeologically sensitive areas (Figure L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas) indicates that the project site falls within an area of "Moderate Sensitivity" based on topographic setting, including proximity to major drainages, and potential to encounter undocumented subsurface archaeological deposits. A Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search records search was conducted by Dudek on September 25, 2014 and found that no cultural resources have been recorded in the project site (see Appendix C). The only archaeological site identified within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site as a result of the records search is CA-SCL-598. This site was first identified in 1922 and was described as a Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 19 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 “mine” of bones encountered 10 feet below the surface, including the skeleton of one adult human. Because no associated artifacts were reported and no additional details about the find were reported, the context of the find is not clear. An extended history of past disturbance suggests that there is a very low potential for encountering intact subsurface cultural deposits. Based on these findings, potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological or historical resources at the project site is very low. However, there is the potential to discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant by ensuring appropriate evaluation, recordation, and protection procedures are undertaken. Historical architectural evaluations were prepared by Preservation Architecture for the existing buildings located on the project site to determine the potential for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (see Appendix D). The existing building at 429 University Avenue, which was built in 1927, has not been identified as a potential historical resource by the City or the state, nor is the building included in a historic district. Moreover, no architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. The exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, such that the original façade and storefronts are entirely lost, and the architectural building form has lost its characteristic design and material integrity. The historical evaluation determined that the building does not have historical architectural or historical resource potential and is therefore not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The existing building at 425 University Avenue was constructed circa 1937 and has since been used for office and commercial uses. The original architects of the building at 425 University Avenue, Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark of Palo Alto, are recognized as local masters. However, the exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, including the complete loss of the original façade and storefront. The building was evaluated for historical resource eligibility and although the building has the potential for significance under the CRHR, the loss of integrity of the structure renders it ineligible for listing on the CRHR. In addition to the historical architectural evaluations prepared by Preservation Architecture, a supplemental review of historic resources was completed by Carey & Co. Inc. Architecture (Appendix D). Carey & Co. responded to the City Council motion from May 4, 2015, which included several clarifying questions regarding historic resources and the proposed project’s potential effects on historic resources. On July 10, 2015, Carey & Co. conducted a walking tour of University Avenue between Cowper Street and Waverley Street, and Kipling Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue. During the walking tour, Carey & Co. observed the project site, its relationship to surrounding properties, noted the types of buildings and their architecture, and verified the integrity of historic resources on University Avenue and Kipling Street. Carey & Co. confirmed that the proposed project is not located in a designated historic district recognized by local, state or national historic registers. This statement is supported by the City Council Staff Report (dated April 6, 2015) and the City of Palo Alto’s historic inventory (which only includes National Register-listed Professorville Historic District and Ramona Street Architectural District). Carey and Co. found that a study area larger than the project site may be analyzed in order to evaluate potential direct and indirect impacts to nearby historic resources that are not part of the project site. A total of eight properties are included in the study area. Three historical resources were analyzed by Carey & Co. for potential impacts as a result of the proposed project: 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street. 423 University Avenue (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3) is adjacent to the project site and 436-452 University Avenue (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 2) is located across University Avenue from the project site. 443 Kipling Street (Palo Alto Inventory, Category 3) is located across Kipling Street diagonally from the project site. Carey & Co. found that the proposed project would not have any impacts on 423 University Avenue with the application of standard code regulations for construction activities. Carey & Co. also found that the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street since the construction site is separated by streets and all construction activity would take place on the north and west side of the streets, away from these buildings. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 20 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The proposed project’s design, mass, scale, and use of materials could have an indirect impact on the integrity of historic resources. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic significance through the retention of physical characteristics that justify its inclusion in local, state or national registers. There are seven aspects of integrity discussed in detail below: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Location Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street would remain in their current locations. The proposed project would not have an impact on the location of these properties. Design Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. The design of each property would not be affected by the proposed project. Setting Setting is defined as the physical environment of a historic property. The 400 block of University Avenue has changed over time, including previous demolitions and alterations to older buildings, such that the demolition of the subject properties and addition of the proposed project would not change the existing character of the block. University Avenue between Alma Street and Cowper Street is the center and retail core of downtown Palo Alto. Although a number of individual historical resources are located on the avenue, they do not form a historic district. Similar to Kipling Street, the proposed project would not substantially alter the physical environment of the individual historic resources on University Avenue such that their integrity would be compromised to the degree that they would lose their historic significance. Kipling Street serves as a transition between commercial University Avenue and northern residential neighborhoods of Palo Alto. The proposed project would not impact historic resources on Kipling Street directly since they are not immediately adjacent to the project site. However, potential indirect impacts to the setting of the historic properties on Kipling Street are discussed below. The overall setting of Kipling Street is defined by the properties on both sides of the street from the rear of the commercial buildings on University Avenue to Lytton Avenue. The setting of the historic properties has already been compromised in several ways. First, assuming that the street was once lined with residential structures on both the east and west sides of the street, only one altered structure with residential appearance (430 Kipling Street) remains on the west side. Second, the existing parking lot is a major intrusion on the setting of the block having removed buildings and eliminated relationships that buildings on one side of the street had to others on the opposite side. Therefore, the larger setting of the Kipling Street properties has been previously compromised. Third, while the group of buildings on Kipling Street may impart character to the street, as described in the Downtown Urban Design Plan, they do not appear to constitute a potential historic district whose resource setting may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would replace an existing commercial building and although larger in scale and height, it would not adversely impact the setting of the existing individual resources on Kipling, including 443 Kipling Street. Additionally, the proposed project would maintain the relationship between the commercial uses on University Avenue and the transitional state of Kipling Street. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 21 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Materials Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. The materials associated with each property would not change or be affected by the proposed project. Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. The workmanship evidenced in the buildings at 423 University Avenue, 436-452 University Avenue and 443 Kipling Street would remain embodied in the architectural elements and features of these buildings. The proposed project would not have an impact on the workmanship of the buildings. Feeling Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. The proposed project would not affect the physical features that convey the historic character of 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue. The same can be said of 443 Kipling Street. In both cases, the properties would continue to express their “aesthetic and historic sense.” Association Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. The historic significance of 423 University Avenue and 436-452 University Avenue is related to the commercial development of downtown Palo Alto, especially along University Avenue. The proposed project will not affect this relationship. 443 Kipling Street maintains a different relationship – that to the development of a residential neighborhood backing up to the commercial properties on University. Although the setting of Kipling Street has changed over time with fewer residential buildings on the street, 443 Kipling Street would continue to retain its residential character and relationship to the earlier residential development that took place on Kipling Street. Since the project site does not include any eligible historical resources or examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, no impacts to historical resources would be less than significantoccur. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 22 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? 9 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3 (Map N-10), 9 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 (Map N5), 12 X iv) Landslides? 3 (Map N5) X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 23 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 9 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 3 (Map N5), 9 X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 3 (Map N5), 9 X f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 2, 9 X DISCUSSION Murray Engineers Inc. (Murray Engineers) prepared a geotechnical investigation report for the project site in September 2013 (see Appendix E). The geotechnical report identifies potential geologic hazards that may affect the project site and presents recommendations for design and construction of the project. Given the project site’s location in a seismically active area, there is potential for severe ground shaking during an earthquake. High levels of ground shaking during potential future earthquakes and soil conditions that may be unsuitable to support construction-related excavations and site improvements are typical issues of concern related to development in seismically active areas. These issues are routinely encountered in California, and there is no evidence that unique or unusual geologic hazards are present on site (e.g., mapped landslide, collapsible soils, lateral spread) that would require additional mitigation beyond what is already required as part of the City’s standard development approval processes. Seismic ground shaking and the presence of adverse soil conditions would be addressed through required compliance with the California Building Code (and local amendments) as well as incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into the project’s construction and design plans. The geotechnical report indicates the project site is located in an area where there have been historical occurrences of earthquake-induced liquefaction and there is the potential for “permanent earthquake-induced ground displacement.” The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates the site is in an area with a moderate chance of liquefaction. However, there are no active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, and the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (USGS 2013). The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 5.7 miles southwest of the site. It is the opinion of Murray Engineers that the potential for fault rupture at the site is very low. The project site is flat and is not located in an area susceptible to landslides. The Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 24 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 geotechnical report did not indicate that there are expansive soils, corrosive soils, and/or soils subject to settlement present. Soils found on the project site consist of layers of fine- and coarse-grained alluvium to a depth of 45 feet. The upper approximately 5 to 8 feet consist of very stiff to hard surficial silty clay, underlain by 4 to 6 feet of medium dense to very dense gravelly to silty sand, and then underlain by 20 to 25 feet of very stiff silty clay. The clay is underlain by medium dense to very dense clayey to silty sand to a depth of 45 feet. Murray Engineers conducted additional soil testing to determine the likelihood of liquefaction occurring. Based on their analysis, the silty sand was determined to be very dense and therefore likely too dense to be considered liquefiable. In addition, the report concluded the “site should have a sufficiently thick and relatively dense, non-liquefiable layer above the groundwater table capping the potentially liquefiable layers at greater depths to mitigate the potential for sand boils or surface venting during an earthquake.” All new construction is subject to the earthquake design parameters contained in Chapter 16, Section 1613, of the 2013 California Building Code, directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the City’s standard conditions of approval will ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil remain less than significant. These conditions require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Requirements and standards of adequacy for the grading and drainage plans are contained in the PAMC. The project site would be connected to the City’s sewer system and would not involve use of septic tanks. Impacts to geologic resources and soils and impacts associated with geologic hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impacts Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2, 6 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2, 6 X DISCUSSION In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state’s plan for meeting the reduction target is outlined in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 Scoping Plan; CARB 2008). CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan fact sheet states, “This plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California’s carbon footprint—toward a clean energy future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.” CARB’s GHG emissions Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 25 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 inventory report found the total statewide GHG emissions in 2011 were equivalent to 448.1 million tons of CO2 (CARB 2013). Compared with the emissions in 2001, this is a 6% decrease. As described in Section C, Air Quality, the BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, which establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary (BAAQMD 2010b). Projects that are smaller than the GHG screening criteria size are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Table 3 presents GHG screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines. Table 3 BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Criteria Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size* Single-family residential 56 du Apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du Regional shopping center 19 ksf Strip mall 19 ksf Hardware/paint store 16 ksf Daycare center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space along with four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the BAAQMD screening thresholds of 53,000 square feet (office space), 19,000 square feet (commercial space) and 78 dwelling units (condo/townhouse) for operational GHG emissions. As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements identified in Chapter 16.14 of the PAMC, including attainment of a minimum Build It Green score of 70 for the residential portion of the project. Project operation would not result in GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 26 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1, 2 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1 X e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 3 (Map N7) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3 (Map N7) X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 27 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X DISCUSSION Phase I environmental site assessments (ESAs) were prepared for the project site and include a general assessment of the nature and extent of past activities, if any, on the site that could have used hazardous materials, and whether the site appears to have evidence of soils or groundwater contamination. A Phase I ESA was prepared for the commercial buildings located at 429, 435, 441, and 447 University Avenue by Professional Service Industries Inc. in August 1999. In June 2010 an environmental transaction screen (ETS) for buildings located at 429–447 University Avenue was prepared by AEI to identify any potential environmental issues associated with past and present activities in the handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, a follow-up Phase I ESA was prepared for 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street3 by Transaction Management Corporation (TMC) in April 2014. The Phase I ESAs and ETS are included in Appendix F. Both of the Phase I ESAs and the ETS report indicate that due to the age of the buildings there is the potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint to be present. TMC recommends preparation of an operations and maintenance plan for ACMs given the potential for occurrence in the 425 University Avenue building. The 2014 Phase I ESA indicates that the property at 425 University Avenue is not on any state or federal list of potentially hazardous sites. In addition, the 2010 ETS and the 1999 Phase I ESA indicate that the project site does not contain a recognized environmental condition, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Both reports conclude there also is no evidence of a recognized environmental condition off site that could impact the project site. In addition, the project site is not listed on the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups database and there was no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination. The project involves the demolition of two buildings and construction of a new building. Demolition activities could release hazardous building materials into the air. Construction equipment accessing the site would use hazardous and/or flammable materials including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. During project construction, there is the potential for the short-term use of hazardous materials/fuels; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not include any uses that would require the transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than typical household and landscaping materials. The types and quantities of these common household chemicals would not be substantial and would not pose a health risk to residents of the project or any adjacent uses. Groundwater was identified in the geotechnical investigation at depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. It is not anticipated that construction of the subsurface garage would require dewatering due to the depth of groundwater; however, if required, the project applicant would comply with standard conditions of the City’s architectural review process, which require special procedures for dewatering. Specifically, the City’s Public Works Department, Water Quality Control Plan section, would require that prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs; including ROGs) using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 601/602. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 micrograms per liter (5 parts per billion), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an 3 450 Kipling Street is not part of the project. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 28 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCB prior to discharge. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system is required to be free of sediment. Based on the construction date of the existing buildings (1927), it appears that the buildings may contain ACMs and may contain lead-based paints. Lead-based paints could also be present and the light ballasts may be a source of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Therefore, demolition of the existing buildings could result in hazards related to the release or disposal of these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require surveys and proper disposal methods to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school, Addison Elementary School, is located approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to schools associated with hazardous materials at the project site would occur. There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, no impact related to safety hazards associated with aircraft would occur. The proposed project would not impair or interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. The nearest evacuation route to the project site is University Avenue. The project would not result in any changes to this evacuation route, would not substantially increase traffic or roadway congestion such that use of the evacuation route would be hindered, and would not otherwise impair implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Therefore, no impact related to emergency response or evacuation would occur. The project site is located in a developed urban area that is not identified as a high or medium fire hazard area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, no impact related to fire risks would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB- containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 29 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1, 2, 3 (Map N2), 13, 14 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1, 2, 13, 14 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1, 2, 13, 14 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1, 2, 13, 14 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 2, 13, 14 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1, 3 (Map N6) X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 3 (Map N6) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100- year flood hazard area? 1, 3 (Map N8) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 3 (Map N6) X k) Result in stream bank instability? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is fully developed, and the proposed project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on the project site, nor would the project rely on groundwater for its water supply. With Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 30 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 the exception of some street trees on University Avenue and Kipling Street, the existing site is composed of buildings and paved surface parking lots and thus is largely impervious. According to the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments (included as Appendix G to this document) prepared for the project, the project site currently contains 11,000 square feet of impervious surface with the existing buildings and parking lot area. The project is proposing to maintain the same development footprint (0.252 acre). The project would not alter existing grades in the area and would not change drainage patterns or lead to increased erosion or sedimentation of nearby waterways. Groundwater was identified at a depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. In addition, stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. Locally, the NPDES project is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit. This Regional Permit identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permitee, must require of new development and redevelopment projects within the city limits. Compliance with the NPDES Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes. The proposed project would be required to comply with all city, state, and federal standards pertaining to stormwater run-off and water quality. Under the Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB generally requires new development projects to implement Low Impact Design (LID) techniques to treat stormwater runoff. However, the regional permit also allows LID treatment reduction credits for three categories of “smart growth” projects – urban infill, high-density, and transit oriented development projects. These are called “Special Projects” in the regional permit, and are approved for reductions in the requirements for LID treatment in recognition of the fact that smart growth development projects can either reduce existing impervious surfaces or create less “accessory” impervious areas and automobile-related pollutant impacts. The RWCQB recognizes that these types of projects have inherent water quality and other environmental benefits. The project applicant has applied for and obtained a C.3 Special Project Category A determination based on the following: the project would preserve or enhance a pedestrian-oriented type of urban design, would be located in a Commercial downtown zone, would replace less than 0.5 acre of impervious surface area, would have minimal surface parking, and more than 85% of the site would be covered by the proposed building. Due to the small project site and its location in a developed urban commercial corridor, it would not be feasible to construct grassy swales or other LID features to treat stormwater. There is not sufficient space to accommodate biotreatment facilities or to route runoff to an appropriate discharge point. Since the project meets the criteria listed above, the project would receive 100% LID treatment reduction credit and be allowed to treat 100% of the amount of storm water runoff with non-LID treatment measures. Stormwater runoff from the site would be collected and piped to a mechanical device (manufactured by Contech Stormwater Solutions) which is an accepted storm filter treatment facility. The mechanical device would be located onsite and stormwater runoff would be treated prior to flowing by gravity into the street and ultimately into the City’s storm drain system. The applicant would also be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee that the project provide the required maintenance and/or replacement of the device for the life of the project. By providing approved and appropriate stormwater runoff collection and conveyance, and ensuring long-term maintenance of the collection and conveyance infrastructure, the project would have less than significant impacts related to violating water quality standards or contributing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project includes a subsurface garage with a maximum depth of 27 feet below grade. Reducing the number of exposed parking spaces also reduces the potential for stormwater to carry pollutants such as litter and/or leaking motor fluids. Due to the depth of groundwater, dewatering is not anticipated; however, due to fluctuations in groundwater it is possible that construction activities could encounter groundwater. Since the garage would be designed to be watertight and no permanent dewatering system would be required, it is expected that the impact to groundwater flow would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 31 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the project site is San Francisquito Creek, located approximately 0.5 mile west of the site. Stormwater runoff is directed toward storm drain grates located in one covered parking space and in the adjacent alleyway that parallels the northwest boundary of the project site. The project site is located within Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06085C0010H (FEMA 2009). This indicates that the project site is not in a zone expected to be subject to inundation in a 100-year flood event. Additionally, the project site is not located within an area identified as a dam failure inundation area as shown on maps available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG 2003). The project site is not subject to flooding or inundation and construction of the project would result in no impacts associated with exposure of people to flood-related hazards. The project site is located in Downtown Palo Alto on relatively flat ground and is not near an open body of water or near a hillside; therefore, there is no risk for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards. No impacts related to these hazards would result from implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, there are no streams within or adjacent to the site, and the project would have no impacts related to streambank stability. Mitigation Measures None required. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 2, 3, 4 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 2 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1, 2, 3, 4 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1, 2 X f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1, 2 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The proposed project, a 31,407-square-foot, four-story commercial, office, and residential building, is an allowed use as regulated by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan (PAMC; City of Palo Alto 2007). The Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 32 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 project would replace two single-story buildings currently used for retail with the proposed mixed-use building. The increase from one story to four stories on the site would change the existing scale; however, buildings in the surrounding area include a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building across the street, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three-story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The project would increase the existing retail, office, and residential land uses in the immediate vicinity and would not introduce any incompatible land uses. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development in the project area through the following policies:  Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.  Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development.  Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses.  Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Since the project proposes a mixed-use development in an area where mixed-uses are encouraged and the project design reflects a pedestrian scale, the project would be consistent with the policies listed above. The zoning designation is Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian and Ground Floor Combining Districts (CD- C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in PAMC Chapters 18.18 and 18.30. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving City-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The project would also include construction of two levels of underground parking and installation of new landscaping. The project is in compliance with the applicable CD-C (community) subdistrict zoning and parking regulations. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86. The maximum building height in this district is 50 feet. The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with TDRs and/or bonuses for seismic and historical rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project includes TDRs and bonuses to achieve the maximum allowable FAR of 2.86. The project would not conflict with existing zoning. In addition, the Pedestrian Shopping (P) and Ground Floor (GF) combining district regulations that apply to this site are intended to enhance the pedestrian environment through the continuity of retail stores and design windows in retail districts and allow only service-oriented commercial uses on the ground floor. The proposed project is designed to comply with the combining district regulations with ground-floor retail and façade details to enhance the pedestrian experience. In addition, the project would be consistent with the Context-Based Design Criteria for development in a commercial district, which promotes pedestrian oriented design that is compatible with adjacent development. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As described in Section A., Aesthetics, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings along Kipling Street; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. In addition, the design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The third floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line, 7 feet, 6 inches from Kipling Street and 9 feet from University Avenue resulting in a scale more Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 33 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 visually compatible with surrounding buildings. The fourth floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line, and 7 feet,12 feet, 9 inches from the Kipling Street property line, and 39 feet, 7 inches from the University Avenue property line, resulting in a street façade that would appear as a three-story building. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District. The design of the proposed building is intended to minimize the potential for incompatibility with surrounding uses. In addition, as described in Section A., Aesthetics, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project would comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources, and would not impact farmland. See Sections B and D for further discussion of these topics. Mitigation Measures None required. K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 3 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The City has been classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The Division of Mines and Geology has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed mixed-use building on the currently developed project site would result in no impacts related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures None required. L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2, 3, 15 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 34 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise levels? 1, 2, 15 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2, 15 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 15 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X g) Cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1, 2, 15 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1, 2, 15 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Noise would be generated during the proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed mixed-use project. The magnitude of the construction noise would depend on the type of construction activity, the noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment, site geometry (i.e., shielding from intervening structures), and the distance between the noise source and receiver. Construction noise levels are based on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study (EPA 1971), which measured average noise levels during construction stages for a variety of typical projects. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing and 60 dB corresponding roughly to the noise level of a typical conversation. Typically, a weighting system is applied to sound levels to more closely correlate sound levels with human perception, recognizing that humans are less Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 35 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 sensitive to sounds in frequency ranges below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz. This system is called the A- weighted sound level, and is abbreviated as dBA. As shown in Table 4, average noise levels generated on a construction site could be as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during the loudest phases of construction. Typically, construction noise is cyclical in nature and noise levels vary throughout the day. All development in the City, including the proposed construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in less-than- significant impacts to nearby land uses and sensitive receptors. The project is located in a busy commercial district with an active train station in the vicinity. Although there are residential uses in the project vicinity, the existing noise conditions are not quiet and the temporary construction activities will not create any new significant noise impacts. Table 4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities Construction Activity Average Sound Level at 50 feet (dBA Leq) 1 Standard Deviation (dB) Ground Clearing 84 7 Excavation 89 6 Foundations 78 3 Erection 87 6 Finishing 89 7 Source: EPA 1971 1 Sound level with all pertinent equipment operating. The proposed project would be located on a site that is currently developed with two one-story retail buildings and is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Kipling Street. Residential land uses are located approximately 60 feet to the north and northwest. The proposed office building is not anticipated to result in significant levels of on-site noise or traffic noise because of the nature of the proposed land use and the relatively small size (which would generate a less than significant increase in traffic as discussed in Section P., below). The Environmental Noise Study for the project was prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. (Appendix H). This assessment found that existing noise levels in the project area range from 64 dB to 70 dB during the peak traffic hours and between 63 dB and 73 dB when measured as a day-night-level (DNL), which assigns a penalty to noises generated during nighttime hours to reflect heightened sensitivity to noise in those hours. Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan requires that the average interior noise level in multi-family dwellings be limited to DNL 45 dB. However, the City also states that residences exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater should limit maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. Since the existing noise levels in the project area exceed 60 dB, architectural upgrades (as detailed in Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2) would be required to meet interior noise standards. Additionally, rooftop mechanical equipment noise from exhaust fans was analyzed, as shown in Table 5, to assess whether the equipment noise would comply with Section 9.19.040 of the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states: Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 36 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 “No person shall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight decibels above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.” Table 5 Predicted Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels Property Line Predicted Noise Level (dB) Criteria (dB) At Nearest Receiver At Property Plane North 49 65 57 East 47 58 56 South 48 69 54 West 49 68 54 Currently there are no adjacent receivers at or near the property plane that are 50 feet in height; therefore, adjacent receivers would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s standard due to rooftop mechanical equipment noise, as shown in Table 5. However, as shown in Table 5, noise levels at the property plane would be above the criteria; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is required to reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance. Potential project-related noise effects from traffic were analyzed by comparing existing, future (existing plus cumulative growth), and estimated project-related traffic volumes, as provided by the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix I). It was determined that the “future with project” traffic noise levels would increase by approximately 1 dBA along University Avenue and 2 dBA along Kipling Street. Based on the Federal Transit Administration noise impact criteria, a 2 dB increase in noise levels due to a project would result in a significant noise impact where the ambient noise levels without the project are in excess of 76 dB. Where noise levels are less than 76 dB, a project-generated noise level increase of more than 2 dB is required for a finding of significant noise impact. Since the ambient noise levels in the project area are less than 76 dB without the project, the maximum noise increase of 2 dBA would result in a less-than-significant impact to noise levels as a result of project generated traffic. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. There would be no impact associated with noise from planes. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air- conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 37 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 2, 3 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1, 2 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project would replace two existing one-story retail buildings with a four-story mixed-use building that would include a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four residential dwelling units. The increase of four residential units would not add substantial population, nor is the increased commercial or office space expected to induce substantial population growth. The addition of four dwelling units in the University Avenue/Downtown area would provide a small amount of housing in the Downtown area, thereby improving the jobs-housing balance in this employment center. The project would not displace any housing or people. Standard conditions of approval require fees to cover any increased need for housing. The City addresses the community’s cumulative affordable housing needs through the Affordable Housing Fund, which is a local housing trust fund that provides financial assistance for the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households within the City. The Affordable Housing Fund is made up primarily of two sub-funds composed of local sources of housing monies: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. The Commercial Housing Fund is funded through fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 16.47 of the PAMC. Under this requirement, the project applicant would be required to pay into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund at the time that building permits are issued. This fee is currently set at $18.44 per square foot for nonresidential development and would be applied only to the new gross square footage of commercial space proposed to be constructed at the site. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 38 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 The Residential Housing Fund is funded through the City’s Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Program, as expressed in Policy H-36 of the Housing Element and Chapter 18.14 of the PAMC. The BMR Program is intended to meet the City’s goal of retaining an economically balanced community. Specifically, residential projects with four or fewer dwelling units are exempt from the City’s BMR Program ordinance based on the City’s determination that construction of four or fewer units would not have a significant effect on affordable housing in the City, even in a cumulative context. As the project proposes construction of four residential units, it is exempt from the BMR program. With compliance with the PAMC and standard conditions of approval regarding payment of the Affordable Housing Fee, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 X X X X X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police and Fire Departments and the four proposed residential units would not cause a substantial increase in population that would demand additional services. In addition, the conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. Standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for community facilities, schools, and housing. With payment of development impact fees for community facilities, schools, libraries, and parks, the project’s impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 39 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 2 X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would construct a new mixed-use building with commercial and office space and four residential units replacing two existing retail buildings. The 8,774-square-foot increase in commercial and office space and the addition of four residential units are not expected to have a significant effect on existing recreational facilities. Development impact fees for parks and community facilities for the increase in floor area and residential units are required per City ordinance. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 2, 17 X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 2, 17 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1, 2 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 40 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 2 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 2 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1, 2, 3 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1, 2, 17 X j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1, 2, 17 X l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1, 2, 17 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1, 2, 17 X n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1, 2, 3 X o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1, 2, 17 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 41 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis for 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use (Transportation Impact Analysis; Hexagon 2014, included in Appendix I). The analysis was completed in a manner consistent with other transportation impact studies in the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. This includes use of the level of service (LOS) methodology described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM; TRB 2000) for signalized intersections, use of the LOS methodology described in Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM for unsignalized intersections, and use of the methodologies and standards described in the VTA 2013 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for intersections included in the CMP (VTA 2013). The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by Hexagon by applying applicable trip generation rates to the existing and proposed building. These calculations (see Table 6) are based on the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, ninth edition (ITE 2012). The project would replace existing retail/restaurant space of the same size; therefore, trip generation from the first floor retail/restaurant space is excluded from the analysis. In addition, the rooftop office/lunchroom is intended for use by office employees and it therefore included in the office space calculation for trip generation purposes only. The trip generation estimates do not reflect potential reductions from the robust transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access at the project location. In this respect, the project trip generation estimates are conservative. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Land Use Type Size Daily Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate1 In Out Total Rate1 In Out Total General Office 12.603 ksf 6.65 139 1.56 17 2 20 1.49 3 16 19 Apartment 4 du 11.03 27 0.51 0 2 2 0.62 1 1 2 Net Project Trips 166 17 4 22 4 17 21 Source: Hexagon 2014. 1 Trip rates based on ITE 2012, Office (710), Apartment (230). ksf = 1,000 square feet; du = dwelling units The proposed project is calculated to cause 22 new AM peak hour trips and 21 new PM peak hour trips. Hexagon applied the project’s trip generation and trip distribution estimates to each of the study intersections to determine whether the project would result in a significant change in LOS at any location. The Transportation Impact Analysis evaluated the following five intersections: 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street The project would create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo Alto if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 42 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under no project conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by 4 seconds or more and the critical-movement volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. The results of the LOS analysis are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Project Effects on LOS and Delay Intersection (control) Peak Hour Average Delay (in seconds) and LOS Existing Existing Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street (Signal) AM 9.5 A 9.7 A 0.1 0.003 10.6 B 10.7 B 0.2 0.004 PM 9.9 A 10.6 B 0.1 0.006 10.7 B 11.4 B 0.2 0.008 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street (TWSC) AM 17.6 C 17.7 C -- -- 22.9 C 23.0 C -- -- PM 15.0 B 15.1 C -- -- 18.6 C 19.1 C -- -- 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 28.2 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001 PM 31.3 C 31.3 C 0.0 0.000 260.5 F 260.3 F 0.0 0.000 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 30.6 C 30.6 C 0.0 0.001 36.1 D 36.1 D 0.1 0.001 PM 37.0 D 37.0 D 0.0 0.001 158.5 F 158.8 F 0.1 0.001 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street (Signal) AM 18.0 B 18.1 B 0.2 0.002 18.6 B 18.7 B 0.2 0.003 PM 20.9 C 21.0 C 0.2 0.002 23.6 C 23.8 C 0.2 0.002 TWSC = two-way stop control Bold indicates a substandard level of service. The results in Table 7 show that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under existing plus project conditions. The results in Table 7 also show that two of the signalized study intersections (University Avenue & Kipling Street and Lytton Avenue & Alma Street) would continue to operate adequately (LOS D or better) under cumulative plus project conditions. Two other signalized intersections (University Avenue & Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue & Middlefield Road) are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F) under cumulative conditions both with and without the project. The project traffic would not cause a significant impact on the operation of these intersections, based on the significance criteria described above. As shown in Table 7, project traffic would only increase the critical delay by 0.1 second and the critical V/C value by 0.001, which are less than the significance thresholds of 4 seconds and 0.01, respectively. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 43 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities The Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Hexagon also considered impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project location is approximately 0.5 miles from the Caltrain station and transit center and in a pedestrian and bicycle friendly downtown area, and the underground parking garage is proposed to include bike lockers and a shower room for employees. It is reasonable to assume that some employees would utilize transit or bicycles. Due to the project size, it is unlikely to produce significant bicycle trips or pedestrian trips or impact the nearby trains and buses. It is expected that these additional trips could easily be accommodated by the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Site Access and Onsite Circulation Access to the alley adjacent to the site (Lane 30) would be assisted by breaks in traffic on Waverly Street created by the nearby traffic signals at Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. In the event that a vehicle making a right turn out of the alley onto Kipling Street encountered a significant queue, the driver might choose to make a left turn onto Kipling Street and then onto Lytton Avenue to circle around the block. Such maneuvers are common in downtown settings during commute periods. Based on the estimated traffic generated during the peak periods, it is anticipated that the project’s garage access to and from Lane 30 at Waverly and Kipling Streets, respectively, would operate acceptably and would be typical of a development in an urban setting with underground parking. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires that mirrors and/or a warning light be installed at garage entrance/exit. Truck access and loading would be provided adjacent to the project site via the alley (Lane 30). The alley is 20 feet in width and truck loading requires a width of 10 feet, which leaves the remaining 10 feet available for vehicles to pass in this one-way alley. The alley currently provides adequate truck access for other adjacent businesses, and it is expected that it would provide adequate access for the proposed project as well since the width of the alley would remain the same. Adequate corner sight distance is required at the exit of the alley to ensure that drivers can see approaching vehicles on Kipling Street. Sight distance is typically measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The proposed project would provide a 4-foot setback from the edge of the alley. The project would also replace the large street tree nearest this corner which would improve the visibility of the roadway. The combination of the setback and the tree removal is expected to provide adequate visibility of other vehicles and pedestrians. Hexagon also prepared a review of traffic operations into and out of the alley adjacent to the site (Lane 30), which is included in Appendix I. Lane 30 runs between Waverley Street and Kipling Street and is designed for one-way traffic, with vehicles entering from Waverley Street and driving eastbound to exit onto Kipling Street. There is a loading zone along a portion of the northern side of the alley near Waverley Street and 18 total parking spaces along the southern side. The available parking is used primarily by employees at the businesses with doors onto the alley. The northern side of the alley has a few dumpsters for the adjacent businesses; these dumpsters still leave at least 15 feet for a traveled way. The total clearspace in the alley varies in width from 20 feet building-to- building near Waverley, to approximately 40 feet along 415-423 University Avenue. Observations of traffic activity in the alley were conducted by Hexagon on Thursday, June 11, 2015 and traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, June 18, 2015. The counts showed that the alley carried 68 cars and light trucks, 7 heavy trucks, 16 bicycles, and 108 pedestrian trips between the hours of 6 AM and 8 PM (daylight hours). Observations showed that between the hours of 9 AM and 4 PM, pedestrians accounted for 56% of trips into and out of the alley, passenger vehicles accounted for 31%, and delivery vehicles accounted for 10%. Both pedestrians and vehicles used the alley as a shortcut (i.e., traveled from one end to the other) as well as to access businesses located off of the alley. While some delivery trucks were observed using the loading zone, several Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 44 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 double parked to make their deliveries or stopped in the No Parking zone near Kipling Street. Vehicles parked in the No Parking zone generally cut the available width of the alley in half, from 20 feet to 10 feet. While most of the vehicles using the parking spaces along the southern side of the alley entered from Waverley Street and left via Kipling Street, most of the vehicles parking behind the 429-447 University Avenue building entered the alley from Kipling Street, against a One Way sign. Most of the vehicles entering the wrong direction approached the alley from southbound Kipling Street. Coming from that direction, the signage indicating that the alley is one way is not prominent. The entrance to the alley at Waverley Street has good visibility for vehicles turning off of Waverley. Parked cars along the southbound side of Kipling Street were the main factor limiting the visibility of vehicles exiting the alley. Two large street trees adjacent to the curb cut further obstructed drivers’ views onto Kipling Street. The proposed project would include removal of the southern tree, to be replaced by a narrower tree approximately 15 feet back from the property line and curb cut, eliminating the visual obstruction for drivers looking to their right as they exit the alley. The corner of the proposed building would improve the sight lines onto Kipling Street, as the building would obstruct less than the existing street parking and street trees, and visibility of approaching vehicles would be very similar on both the driver’s left and right. Drivers exiting the alley would be likely to be driving down the center of the alley, which gives them about 7 feet of clearance on each side. This clear space allows view of pedestrians on the sidewalk. Despite the sight distance challenges, under existing conditions, drivers appeared to have no difficulty safely turning out of the alley onto Kipling Street. Vehicles entering right-angled parking spaces along the alley have ample space to turn, even with the dumpsters lining some portions of the alley. The proposed project would similarly have ample space for drivers to enter and exit the underground parking garage. The alley would be used by future building tenants accessing the underground parking garage in the same way that it is currently used. There is no potential impact from the proposed building on the operation of the alley, as it would continue to operate as it does currently. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. Additionally, bike lockers require a five foot aisle in front of the door openings. The proposed parking plan meets these minimum specifications, as well as providing the minimum dimensions for standard, accessible, and van-accessible spaces. However, due to the limited footprint of the underground parking, vehicles are required to navigate tight 90 degree turns near the ends of both ramps and the middle of the lower ramp, where sight lines may be restricted. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 requires that mirrors be installed in the parking garage to provide adequate site distance. Parking The project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Specifically, the PAMC requires that the project provide one parking space for every 250 square feet of new commercial space and two spaces for each of the residential units plus guest spaces (one space plus 10%). The proposed project would require 82 81.6 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 9.4 parking spaces for four residential units, for a total of 92 91 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in- lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 34 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 45 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five six spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage. The project would also meet the applicable bicycle parking requirements. PAMC Section 18.52.040 requires 1 bicycle space per 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, with a mix of 80% for long-term parking and 20% for short-term parking. In addition, 4 long-term bicycle spaces (1 per unit) are required for the residential units. The project is required to provide 13 total bicycle parking spaces. As reflected in the site plans, the project proposes to provide 7 long-term bicycle parking spaces within the underground parking garage and 6 short-term bicycle parking spaces near the entrances of the building on University Avenue and Kipling Street. The bicycle parking spaces provided on the project site meet the requirements of Ordinance 18.52.040 and follow layout requirements of PAMC Section 18.54.060. While this project does not include an explicit transportation demand management (TDM) plan, several elements common to TDM are present. Most importantly, the project is located in a transit-rich and pedestrian friendly location. Second, the project proposes to include both bicycle lockers and a restroom with a shower. Both of these features should result in some reduction in automobile trips generated by the project and reduce the amount of parking needed by employees. In addition, the project is in a good location for transit-related TDM strategies that may be implemented by future tenants, such as Caltrain and VTA Go Passes or reimbursement of transit fares. However, due to the small project trip generation, a TDM plan is not necessary to reduce peak hour trips. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure-TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1, 2 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X c) Require or result in the construction of new 1, 2 X Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 46 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1, 2 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 2 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1, 2 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 2 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off-site water, sewer, and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. The project would tie into the City’s existing water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure and would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements set forth in the California Green Building Code and the City’s Build It Green program. This would ensure that water conservation and solid waste reduction measures are included in the project to reduce demands for utility services. The project’s impacts on utility services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 47 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 2 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1, 2 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources with mitigation as described in Sections D and E. As described in Section A, Aesthetics, the proposed use is appropriate for the site and although the project would alter the visual character of the site, the building has been designed to ensure that it does not result in an adverse visual impact. The project’s impacts would all be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the previous sections. The project would therefore not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise as described in Sections H and L. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 48 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 III SOURCE REFERENCES SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY) 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2. Project Plans, updated 2015 (Appendix A) 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998–2010 (City of Palo Alto 2007) 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Ordinance 5. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 8.10.030, Tree Technical Manual 6. Air Quality Modeling Results, 2014 (Appendix B) 7. Cultural Resources Memorandum (Appendix C) 8. Historic Architectural Evaluations, 2014, updated 2015 (Appendix D) 9. Geotechnical Investigation, 2013 (Appendix E) 10. Phase I ESA 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street, 2014 (Appendix F) 11. Phase I ESA for the Commercial Buildings, 1999 (Appendix F) 12. Environmental Transaction Screen, 429–447 University Avenue, 2010 (Appendix F) 13. Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments, 2014 (Appendix G) 14. Special Projects Worksheet, 2014 (Appendix G) 15. Environmental Noise Study, 2014 (Appendix H) 16. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10, Noise Ordinance 17. Traffic Impact Analysis, 2014, updated 2015 (Appendix I) 17.18. Shadow Study, 2015 (Appendix J) REFERENCES CITED 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2003. “Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford.” http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/dfpickc.html. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20 Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2010%20Clean%20Air%20P lan/CAP%20Volume%20I%20%20Appendices.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010b. Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_ Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en. California Department of Conservation. 2011. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2010. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. June 2011. California Public Resources Code, Chapter 8, Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, Article 2, Definitions, Section 4526, “Timberland.” California Public Resources Code, Article 3, Definitions, Section 12220(g), “Forest land.” California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185. Metallic Discards Act of 1991. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 49 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. CARB. 2013. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2011 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” October 2, 2013. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. July 17, 2007. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared by Bolt, et.al., Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Boston, MA. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California. Map Number 06085C0010H. May 18, 2009. PAMC (Palo Alto Municipal Code). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/municode.asp. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center – U.S. Seismic Design Maps webpage with seismic design value application. Accessed September 25, 2013. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. REPORT PREPARERS DUDEK 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 Heather Martinelli, AICP Katherine Waugh, AICP Christine Kronenberg, AICP Christine Wolfe Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 50 November 2014, updated JanuaryAugust 2015 IV DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ___________________________________ _________________________ Project Planner Date Milpitas SanJose Mountain View PaloAlto Gilroy Campbell SanRamon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town Alamo Discovery Bay Orinda Lafayette Walnut Creek Clayton Brentwood Pleasant Hill OakleyConcord PrunedaleElkhorn Ho Aptos Hills-Larkin Valley Interlaken Santa Cruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton Day Valley ScottsValley Ben Lomond Boulder Creek Morgan Hill Lexington Hills SanJose Los Gatos Saratoga Cupertino LosAltosHills Los Altos Santa ClaraSunnyvale Portola Valley Woodside Atherton SanCarlosHalfMoon Bay Menlo Park BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity Montara Hillsborough SanMateo Foster City Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South SanFrancisco San Francisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSanLeandroCastro Valley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch VineHill Richmond BethelIsland Martinez Pittsburg WestPittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Tracy Mill Valley San Rafael Lagunitas-Forest Knolls Lucas Valley- Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo American Canyon Santa C r u z County San MateoCounty San Francisco County Marin County Co n t r a C o s t a Co u n t y S t a n i s l a u s C o Contra Costa C o u n t y nty Marin Count y Sonoma Co u n t y Sacramento County Monter e y County Santa C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y oun t y Santa C r u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y Santa Cruz County San Mateo County Alameda Co u n t y Alameda County Al a m e d a C o u n t y Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y 35 82 113 24 131 121 29 123 13 61 185 156 25 237 37 17 129 152 12 130 9 160 84 92 4 1 101 101 780 80 205 238 680 280 580 880 FIGURE 1 Regional Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 1 _ R e g i o n a l . m x d 0115.5 Miles Project Site 82 101 FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Palo Alto Quadrangle. Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 2 _ V i c i n t y . m x d 02,0001,000 Feet Project Site FIGURE 3 Aerial Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: BING 2014 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 1 9 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ M A P S \ I S \ F i g u r e 3 _ A e r i a l _ M a p . m x d 0 200100Feet Project Boundary Site Plan 429 University Avenue Initial Study SOURCE: Kipling Post LP 2015 Da t e : 8 / 5 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 4 _ S i t e P l a n . m x d FIGURE 4 Elevations 429 University Avenue Initial Study SOURCE: Kipling Post LP 2015 Da t e : 8 / 5 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 5 _ E l e v a t i o n s . m x d FIGURE 5 Perspective Renderings 429 University Avenue Initial Study SOURCE: Kipling Post LP 2015 Da t e : 8 / 5 / 2 0 1 5 - L a s t s a v e d b y : c b a t t l e - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 6 _ P e r s p e c t i v e _ R e n d e r i n g s . m x d FIGURE 6 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program January 2015 INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 429 University Avenue project. This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the 429 University Avenue Project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing monitoring requirements; and 4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Initial Study prepared for the 429 University Avenue Project (Dudek 2014). Attachment J 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 No mitigation measures are required for the following resources:  Aesthetics  Agricultural Resources  Air Quality  Geology, Soils, and Seismicity  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hydrology and Water Quality  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. Applicant City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Group/Planning Division Arborist  Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits  During demolition, excavation, and construction  Approved site plans reflect applicable conditions  Field inspections conducted to verify adherence to conditions 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to Applicant City of Palo Alto Prior to and during earth disturbance  Training materials provided to construction contractors  Field inspections conducted to verify compliance 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos- related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of demolition permit and during demolition Building survey report submitted LCMs and ACMs handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the California Occupational Health and Safety’s 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. PCBs, mercury and other hazardous building materials handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations as identified. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include window sound transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include details of the residential ventilation system. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include garage exhaust fan manufacturer’s information regarding equipment noise levels and noise attenuation details TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors ATTACHMENT K PROJECT PLANS (Hardcopies submitted to Councilmembers and Libraries only) These plans can be reviewed at the following link: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49669 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6301) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Work Plan for Fiber to-the-Premises and Wireless Network and Ongoing Discussions with Google & AT&T Title: Approval of Staff's Plan to Simultaneously Pursue Response to Council's Motion on Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan and Continuation of Negotiations With Google Fiber, AT&T; Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Amendments to two Contracts with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation dba CTC Technology & Energy Extending Each Contract Term Through June 30, 2016 and Increasing Compensation Under: (1) Contract Number C15152568 by $94,490 for a Total not to Exceed Amount of $226,140; and (2) Contract Number C15152569 by $58,850 for a Total not to Exceed Amount of $203,794; Approval of a Temporary Fiber and Wireless Senior Program Manager Position for Three Years at $228,000/year; and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2016 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $172,850 From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve staff’s plans to pursue the following work concurrently, given that delay in either case could foreclose future options for the City: a. Response to Council Motion (Attachment A) on Municipal Fiber and Wireless: Staff has developed the Work Plan set forth below to address, by the third quarter of 2016, the Council’s September 28, 2015 Motion (the “Council Motion”) requesting clarification and additional work in connection with the City’ Fiber to the Premises (“FTTP”) Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan; and b. Third Party Provider (Google Fiber, AT&T) Negotiations: Staff is continuing discussions and negotiations with third parties considering new service deployments in Palo Alto, including both Google Fiber (potential citywide FTTP network) and AT&T (GigaPower service), and is currently targeting the end of City of Palo Alto Page 2 2015 through Q1 2016 for Council consideration of necessary agreements and approvals. 2. Approve a temporary contract position for a Fiber and Wireless Senior Program Manager, dedicated to Fiber-to-the-Premises and wireless initiatives, in the amount of $228,000 annually, $684,000 for a period up to three (3) years. 3. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute amendments to two contracts with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation dba CTC Technology & Energy (“CTC”) as follows: a. Increasing the not-to-exceed amount for Contract No. C15152568 (Wireless Network Plan) by $94,490 from $131,650 to $226,140 (includes a 10% contingency for the provision of related additional, but unforeseen consulting services) and extend the contract to June 30, 2016 to develop a Request for Proposal for dedicated wireless communications for Public Safety and Utilities, in addition to evaluating the expansion of wireless access in retail areas (Attachment B). b. Increasing the not-to-exceed amount for Contract No. C15152569 (FTTP Master Plan) by $58,850 from $144,944 to $203,794 (includes a 10% contingency for the provision of related additional, but unforeseen consulting services) and extend the contract to June 30, 2016 to provide technical analysis of the RFI responses and any consulting services needed to help develop a “Dig Once” ordinance for consideration by the Council (Attachment C). 4. Approve a related Budget Amendment Ordinance (“BAO”) in the total amount of $172,850 for Fiscal Year 2016 from the Fiber Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve; appropriate $114,000 to fund the temporary Fiber and Wireless Senior Program Manager position for the second half of FY 2016 and $58,850 to fund the CTC contract amendments for FTTP (Attachment D). Staff’s recommendation is to actively pursue the proposed Work Plan in response to the Council Motion on the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan and negotiations with third party providers (Google Fiber and AT&T) simultaneously, rather than phasing these efforts. Staff’s recommendation that work be completed in parallel is driven by the requirement to preserve both options, inherent in the Council’s motion. There may be a significant risk in delaying third party negotiations (particularly Google Fiber) in order to complete aspects of the Council Motion first, may affect Google Fiber or AT&T interests in building in Palo Alto. At the same time, note that concurrent work required will impact timelines for work products associated with both the Council Motion and negotiations with Google Fiber and AT&T. One of the most critical and immediate requirements then is for direct meetings between the City Manager and Google to clarify and define opportunities sought by the Council for over-build and co-build initiatives, as part of Google’s plans for fiber in Palo Alto. Executive Summary City of Palo Alto Page 3 On September 28, 2015, staff reviewed with Council the two reports prepared by CTC Technology & Energy (“CTC”) for the Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan (“FTTP Master Plan”) and the Wireless Network Plan (Reference CMR ID # 6104)1. Council did not adopt staff’s recommendation. Instead, the Council Motion, among other things, directed staff to (1) proceed immediately with two formal solicitations for an RFI for a municipally-owned and/or public-private partnership FTTP network, and an RFP for wireless communications for Public Safety and Utilities, and potentially the expansion of wireless access in retail areas; (2) perform cost model analyses; (3) develop a “Dig Once” ordinance; (4) discuss a “co-build” with AT&T and Google, based on the City laying its own conduit to the premise during the respective buildouts. A copy of the Council Motion is attached to this Staff Report as Attachment A. Staff has developed a work plan to address all the components of the Council’s Motion. Work related to the Motion began immediately after the Council meeting and staff recommends Council approval of amendments to the City’s existing contracts with CTC to assist staff in addressing the Council Motion. Palo Alto and four neighboring cities (Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale) are under consideration as expansion cities for Google Fiber. Google has indicated that it intends to make an announcement in the beginning of 2016 on whether it will deploy Google Fiber in these cities. Staff understands that Google’s announcement is contingent on each city addressing various agreements and the environmental review by the end of the year (e.g., California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) determination, encroachment agreements for the use of the public rights-of-way, and agreements for utility pole attachments). Staff has reached out to the other cities regarding timelines to formalize applications, permits, agreements and approvals. It appears these cities are on schedule to meet Google’s end-of-the- year target. AT&T has submitted the first permit application to the City for review. AT&T plans to begin construction and provide service in 2016. Given the timelines for both the Council Motion and third party providers Google and AT&T, staff recommends moving forward with the activities related to the Council Motion and third party providers concurrently to keep all options viable; however, Google’s timeline for its planned announcement early next year, both third-party providers’ desire to move forward with build-outs in 2016, and the next steps for City fiber and wireless based on Council’s direction create some conflict. For instance, there may be a real risk that delays ( either as a direct or indirect consequence of the current effort to keep both options open) on Google Fiber work could affect Google’s inclusion of Palo Alto in its planned announcement. The work on 1 Although staff has not re-attached the underlying agreements with CTC to this staff report, full copies of those contracts are available as attachments to CMR ID # 5443, available here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45634 City of Palo Alto Page 4 the various items covered in the Motion and our ability to be timely and responsive to the third party providers is slowed and complicated by the additional, unanticipated work required by the Motion. The goals in the motion are worthy—a desire to ensure the potential for near ubiquitous access to fiber, now and into the future, and preserve City flexibility over the long term in the quantity and quality of fiber access in Palo Alto. But the dual directives are not simple to manage and accomplish and are not without risk. Background On September 28, 2015, Council reviewed the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan (Reference CMR ID # 6104), which had recommended: 1. Defer issuing a Request for Information (RFI) until after December 31, 2015 to determine interest from the private sector in partnering with the City to build and operate a citywide fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) network. The intervening time between now and the end of the year should enable emerging gigabit broadband services from the private sector to be settled. During this time staff will further evaluate strengths and weaknesses of public utility options. 2. Issue Request for Proposal(s) (RFP) to add dedicated wireless facilities to improve communications for Public Safety and Utilities departments; with an option for expanding Wi-Fi coverage at City facilities and public areas. The Council did not support staff’s recommendation to defer issuing an RFI until after December 31, 2015, while the emerging private broadband services settled. Council directed staff to move forward with the RFI to explore two FTTP models: (1) a municipal-owned model with contractors for build and ongoing operations and (2) a public-private model with City- owned fiber and private partner (such as Sonic.net) operating and owning electronics -- in addition to considering both Google in the market and not in the market. To that end, staff will also need to consider the impact of Google Fiber in both models, if Google elects to build a network in Palo Alto. In addition to issuing the RFI, Council directed staff to:  Review with the Citizen Advisory Committee (“CAC”) the model assumptions and cost estimates in the FTTP Master Plan report for a city owned and operated network. If there is a disagreement between CTC’s report and the CAC’s recommendation, staff will report to the Council the highlights of the discrepancy and provide the Council with a revised forecast as an Action Item;  Develop a “dig once” ordinance;  Initiate discussions with AT&T and Google Fiber on a “co-build” model. For the Wireless Network Plan, Council approved staff’s recommendation to issue an RFP to improve wireless communications for Public Safety and Utilities. Council also directed staff to:  Work with CTC to develop a 20-year forecast for citywide wireless consistent with the FTTP report; and City of Palo Alto Page 5  Evaluate expanding wireless access in retail areas, with an option of expanding Wi-Fi coverage at City facilities and public areas as part of the RFP. Discussion Staff seeks direction and approval from Council to pursue the Council Motion Work Plan and Third Party Provider Negotiations with Google Fiber and AT&T concurrently. Staff recommends expediting efforts on both initiatives because they have the potential to achieve the Council’s goal of creating a ubiquitous fiber network in Palo Alto reaching nearly all residents and businesses. Since the same staff members are working on both the Motion and Third Party Providers, staff also recommends adding additional resources to meet the targeted timelines. Additional expertise may also be required. 1. STAFF WORK PLAN COUNCIL MOTION ON MUNICIPAL FIBER AND WIRELESS A. Review FTTP Master Plan with Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) On October 29, 2015, staff facilitated an interactive session with members of the CAC and CTC to review the FTTP Master Plan report. CTC provided an overview of the detailed data and cost assumptions supporting the $47 million FTTP outside plant (OSP) cost estimates. This overview covered the network design model, cost estimation methodology, key field survey metrics surrounding Palo Alto, unit pricing and cost estimate breakdown. The meeting did not cover the additional $30 million required for equipment purchases, financing and operational and maintenance expenses. Since the meeting, CTC has provided a detailed summary of the model assumptions, cost drivers, and unit pricing of the OSP buildout. Staff scheduled a follow up meeting with CAC on November 12, 2015 to identify and discuss any disagreements between CTC’s report and CAC’s recommendations (and other matters). The results of the meeting were productive regarding dialog between staff and the CAC in terms of identifying discrepancies. Staff will report the disagreements between the CTC and CAC cost estimates in the next Council FTTP update. B. Update Wireless Network Model based on 20 Year Forecast CTC updated the 20 year financial models (Attachments E1 and E2) for scenario 2 phase A (Provide 100 Mbps blanketed public Wi-Fi to core City businesses and residential areas) and scenario 2 phase B (Provide 1 Gbps blanketed public Wi-Fi to core City businesses and residential areas). The results from the updated models did not change significantly from the original 7 year forecasts because new technologies are constantly emerging and the lifecycle of Wi-Fi technologies is between five to seven years. As is the case with much of the equipment associated with Information Technology, there is a relatively short user technology timeframe for wireless equipment. In other words, while the equipment may still be operational and fully functional over possibly a decade, the combination of the movement of technology to new generations of hardware, the development of new software, and the lack of cost-effective long- City of Palo Alto Page 6 term support from equipment manufacturers requires fairly frequent equipment replacement cycles. In the 20-year model, CTC assumes replacement of equipment every seven years so the financial forecast repeats itself after every seven years. It is important to note both staff and CTC are not recommending a citywide public Wi-Fi deployment under scenario 2 phases A and B. Staff’s recommendation is to improve Wi-Fi access for Public Safety and Utilities and highly visited public facilities (i.e. community centers, parks) if feasible. C. Provide Cost Estimate and Fiber Backhaul Information to Expand Wireless Access in City Facilities and Retail Areas Staff has provided CTC with a map of the existing fiber network and splice points in the City. CTC will first focus on the priority I and II sites identified in the report and will eventually address the priority III sites. Based on the existing fiber network and splice points, CTC will provide a high level interconnection cost estimate of each individual access point to a central control and distribution center. CTC may be required to make individual site visits to review existing infrastructure, targeted coverage area and opportunities for a common build. A high level estimate can be completed by December 2015. Expanding Wi-Fi access to retail areas (e.g. University Avenue, California Avenue) was not included in the original scope of work. Based on the existing fiber network and splice points, CTC can develop an engineering design and cost estimates on the installation and equipment required to provide wireless access in these targeted retail areas. This will require a contract amendment in the amount of $15,000 and can be completed by December 2015. D. Issue RFP to Add Dedicated Wireless Communications for Public Safety and Utilities CTC has provided the City an RFP template to construct a Critical Infrastructure Wireless Network (CIWN) that will enable secure wireless data transfer in the FCC-licensed 4.9 GHz Public Safety wireless band. The RFP defines the full range of equipment and services to be procured to support the CIWN deployment, including network hardware components, system integration support for the network implementation, staff training, testing, maintenance, and documentation. A contract amendment (Exhibit B) in the amount of $94,490 will be required to customize the RFP to meet the business needs of Public Safety and Utilities in scenario 3 (Deploy a Point-to-Multipoint Network for Secure City Enterprise Access) and scenario 4 (Deploy a Citywide Mobile Data Network for Public Safety). CTC will have to gather specific user requirements from the departments including site locations, number of users, minimum throughput and coverage area in order to prepare an engineering design. The RFP would be issued by March 2016 and final findings and recommendations will be completed by the third quarter of 2016. As noted in Staff Report No. 5443, CTC’s assistance with RFP development and evaluation precludes CTC’s involvement in subsequent project phases. Where parties collaborate in the City of Palo Alto Page 7 development of an RFP, general conflict of interest prohibitions, including section 1090 of the California Government Code, often preclude such from subsequently bidding on the resultant RFP they have helped to develop. The contract amendments recommended for Council approval here only contemplate CTC’s assistance with development of an RFP and evaluation of responses for a possible second build-out phase (if Council decides such an RFP is warranted). The recommended contract amendments do not in any way contemplate CTC’s involvement in any manner, including as a bidder, in such a second phase given conflict of interest prohibitions. In addition, CTC is not affiliated with equipment manufacturers or cable operators and has no relationships with firms or individuals who may submit proposals in response to future RFPs that may be developed through this engagement. CTC’s responses to the FTTP and Wireless RFPs states that “we can provide independent guidance; we have, as a policy, no financial stake in the strategies you choose and will not bid on any resulting construction work.” E. Develop a Dig-Once Ordinance The Council Motion requested that staff bring forth a “Dig-Once” ordinance to Council as soon as possible. As staff indicated at the September 28, 2015 Council Meeting, development of a Dig-Once strategy for the City requires coordination and input from the City’s Utilities, Public Works, and Development Services departments, the City Attorney’s Office as well as additional research to: (1) identify the City’s existing strengths in coordinating underground work; and (2) survey approaches adopted and/or proposed in other jurisdictions. Staff is currently pursuing such coordination and research efforts (including federal, state and other municipal Dig-Once approaches) in order to evaluate the City’s existing Dig-Once approach and any opportunities that may exist for expansion. Staff recommends approval of the attached contract amendment with CTC (Exhibit C), which includes a not-to-exceed amount of $10,000 for Dig-Once related research and consulting services to supplement staff’s work in this area. Staff is currently targeting the first quarter of 2016 to return to Council with this item. Although staff’s research and coordination effort is already underway, staff may nevertheless benefit from additional direction Council may be to provide, particularly with respect to Council’s goals for a City Dig-Once strategy. Additional information concerning Dig-Once policies is provided below, including a description of the City’s already existing tools for encouraging coordination amongst internal departments and external parties. i. Dig-Once Defined “Dig-Once” is typically a reference to polices, practices, ordinances, resolutions, agreements and other efforts that attempt to consolidate work in the Public Right-of-Way (“PROW”) amongst utility and telecommunications providers by opening streets and the PROW to related construction simultaneously. City of Palo Alto Page 8 ii. Goals for a Dig-Once Strategy Potential objectives for a Dig-Once strategy vary, and may include:  Protection of newly and recently paved roads and sidewalks  Enhancing the uniformity of construction and efficient, non-duplicative placement of infrastructure in the PROW  Reducing overall costs of all underground work, both utility and telecommunications related, in the PROW for public and private parties.  Specifically facilitating communications network deployment by private entities by reducing the cost of construction  Leveraging construction by third party entities for the deployment of a public communications network. Achievement of any of the above stated goals using a Dig-Once strategy is not without trade- offs. For instance, implementation of a Dig-Once strategy may extend overall construction work on a given project or increase daytime noise and impact parking. A Dig-Once strategy could also have significant staff impacts and costs, including previously unanticipated increases in internal staff work, the need to engage third party consultants and contractors for various studies and construction work, and the sheer cost of materials for installation. The goals underlying a Dig-Once strategy are also subject to limitations imposed by the legal framework applicable work in the PROW discussed briefly in this staff report. iii. Methods for Implementing a Dig-Once Strategy Existing Dig-Once strategies can generally be categorized as requiring:  Some form of joint planning, notice and coordination of work in the PROW; and  Whenever technically feasible and economically practicable, that the public agency and/or private party install conduit and/or telecommunications infrastructure in an open PROW. Local governments rely on a patchwork of ordinances, resolutions, formal and informal policies, guidelines, standard specifications for communications conduit installation, joint trench agreements, master conduit agreements to impose the above stated requirements on private and public parties working in the PROW. Such requirements may be imposed on all construction underway in the City, or on a more targeted basis in connection just with capital improvement projects of a significant size being undertaken by the public agency or private party. iv. City’s Existing Dig-Once and Coordination Tools City of Palo Alto Page 9 Even though the City has not adopted a formal Dig-Once policy, the City has a suite of policies and negotiated agreements with external parties in place that encourage coordination amongst City departments and external parties when streets or the PROW are opened for construction. These policies and agreements share a number of characteristics with “Dig-Once” policies, ordinances and agreements adopted in other jurisdictions. Third Party Applicant Coordination with the City: Section 12.10.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“Coordination with City”) requires applicants desiring to utilize the PROW or any street, alley, sidewalk or other public place to notify the City in advance. Those applicants must coordinate, to the fullest extent practicable, utility and street work to minimize damage, avoid undue disruption and interference with the public use of PROW, streets, alleys, sidewalks or other public places. In addition, whenever two or more parties have concurrently proposed a major excavation in the same block, section 12.10.060 directs these parties to meet and confer with the City to determine whether it is feasible to conduct a joint operation. Joint Trench Coordination in Underground Utility Districts: Section 12.16.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“Underground Utilities”) prohibits poles, overhead lines and associated overhead structures in established underground districts. When the City establishes new underground utility districts, the City must coordinate with existing utility and telecommunications providers in the district in order to cooperatively underground all infrastructure that was previously above ground. The City relies on its existing Master Agreement for Installation of Underground Facilities in the City of Palo Alto (the “Master Agreement”) with AT&T and Comcast to facilitate joint trenching and placement of the underground facilities belonging to the City and to third party telecommunications providers in the PROW and on private properties in underground utility districts. Under the terms of the Master Agreement, the trenching party must notify and offer joint participation to the non- trenching parties. In particular, the trenching party provides non-trenching parties with the proposed trenching location, approximate time of opening, and an offer to perform the construction, installation and placement of underground facilities. The cost of the trenching and construction is then shared amongst the participating parties. Targeted Work Zones: In response to the Audit of Street Maintenance (Office of the City Auditor, 2006), staff established a “Targeted Work Zones” concept to improve coordination of street work being performed by the City’s utilities and public works departments to protect street resurfacing projects to minimize utility street cuts in restored streets. Master License Agreement for use of City Conduit: The City also adopted a Master License Agreement for the use of City-controlled spaces for communications infrastructure, including installations on utility poles and streetlight poles and in underground conduit (Resolution 9193), which can obviate the need for time consuming negotiations of new agreements every time a third party provider desires to access City conduit underground. v. Other Dig-Once Strategies City of Palo Alto Page 10 A variety of Dig-Once strategies are being considered or have otherwise been adopted at both the federal and local level. For instance, both the City and County of San Francisco2 and Santa Cruz County3 have adopted local Dig-Once strategies. Each approach takes a number of steps to facilitate cooperation, most notably requiring coordination amongst City departments and third parties working in the PROW and the establishment of standard specifications for the placement of communications conduit in the PROW. In each case, the adopted Dig-Once measures require the placement of conduit where practicable and feasible. Dig-Once related legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced the “Streamlining and Investing in Broadband Infrastructure Act” (S.2163) and Representative Anna Eshoo (CA-18) introduced the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act (H.R.3805). Both measures adopt a nearly identical approach to Dig-Once, requiring that conduit be installed in connection with projects that receive federal highway funding. Note that in each case, installed conduit is not dedicated to the federal government’s use for the purpose of establishing a federal, state or local broadband network; the conduit is available to all potential providers. The bills expressly require that “any requesting broadband provider would have access to the installed conduit on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for a charge not to exceed a cost-based rate.” Senator John Thune (R- SD) is also circulating draft legislation, entitled the MOBILE NOW Act, which would likely include a Dig-Once component that is less prescriptive than the requirements in the Klobucher and Eshoo bills. Staff will continue to monitor the draft of the MOBILE NOW Act as it is developed.4 On June 14, 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order directing the U.S. Department of Transportation to review Dig-Once requirements in existing programs and opportunities for installation of broadband on highway rights of way.5 The Executive Order directs the Department of Transportation to identify best practices for minimizing excavations and for opportunities to utilize Dig-Once policies. vi. Legal Framework Generally, under federal and California law, and subject to certain conditions protecting the City’s PROW management and compensation authority and land use authority, the City cannot prohibit most third party providers from gaining access to the PROW and utilities infrastructure 2 Ordinance No. 220-14, adopted November 2014 (http://tinyurl.com/oaz2qly) 3 http://tinyurl.com/oozsuq3 4 Note that the Klobuchar and Thune bills are not stand-alone Dig-Once legislation. Instead, each measure packages Dig-Once provisions alongside language of great concern to local governments because of its potential to restrict local authority and flexibility in the area of wireless and telecommunications siting. 5 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/14/executive-order-accelerating-broadband- infrastructure-deployment City of Palo Alto Page 11 located therein. The City can, however, establish reasonable rates, terms and conditions of access to utilities infrastructure in the PROW, including adopting rules and regulations relating to the time, place and manner of attachment to that infrastructure. F. Discuss a Co-Build Model with AT&T and Google In the September 28, 2015 Motion, Council directed staff to discuss a co-build model with AT&T and Google on how the City can lay its own conduit to the premise during the buildouts. Citizen’s Advisory Committee (“CAC”) Members discussed the co-build concept at the CAC’s November 12, 2015 meeting. CAC Member Bob Harrington provided Council with a memo describing the co-build concept during the September 28, 2015 Council meeting. Staff has conducted some preliminary research and raised the co-build concept with CTC. Based on initial research and discussions, the City is unaware of any existing co-build model that has occurred between a municipality and an incumbent or an overbuilder. Staff has informed Google of Council’s Motion and Google has requested a more detailed description of the co-build model. Most importantly, as discussed at the most recent CAC meeting, it is imperative that the City Manager meet with top Google Fiber decision makers to discuss the co-build options and opportunities. Clarification on this subject will be most instructive and could influence the next steps the City takes and our timelines in response to current Council directives. Staff also plans to raise the issue in its discussions with AT&T concerning the AT&T GigaPower expansion. G. Issue RFI to Explore a Municipal-Owned and a Public-Private Partnership FTTP Network CTC will assist the City in developing an RFI to explore and evaluate potential vendors or partners who are interested in building a fiber network in Palo Alto. The RFI document should clearly articulate the City’s needs and desires, and invite private companies to respond and outline their unique approaches to solving the City’s connectivity needs. The RFI will be strategically developed to elicit interest from an array of vendors or partners and provide the City a better cost estimate associated with its goals. CTC encourages the City to exercise caution in the requirements of the RFI because it may deter potential vendors or partners from responding if they do not believe they possess the staff or qualifications to meet a strict list of City’s demands. The RFI will be issued by March 2016. Given the importance and time sensitivity of the RFI responses, staff recommends amending CTC’s contract to provide technical analysis and recommendation of the responses. The additional scope of work includes analysis of the individual responses, high level summary of the responses, outline of the perceived City risks and benefits and areas that require further investigation. Depending on the number of responses and discussions with the potential City of Palo Alto Page 12 provider(s) and the City, the contract amendment is $58,850. Final findings and recommendations will be completed by the third quarter of 2016. 2. THIRD PARTY PROVIDER (GOOGLE FIBER, AT&T) NEGOTIATIONS A. Google Fiber Google Fiber’s proposed FTTP (fiber-to-the-premises) deployment would largely be limited to the public right of way, both underground and on utility poles. Google is proposing to construct an FTTP infrastructure network that would allow them to provide Internet and video service throughout the City. According to Google, the proposed project includes the installation of aggregators that connect to main line fiber-optic infrastructure. From these aggregators (in existing equipment rooms), the fiber cables would travel along existing utility corridors (either above or below ground) into underground vaults (or, if necessary, aboveground utility cabinets) and then the vaults/cabinets to customers. Criteria that would be used to site vaults and other network infrastructure include the following:  Network optimization  Conflict with other utilities  Safety  Impact on residences  Aesthetics  Street characteristics Google’s basic network design would include a fiber ring, in addition to approximately 300 large vaults and up to 4,000 small vaults distributed throughout the City. Although it is anticipated that traditional utility cabinets would not be necessary, certain situations may require the deployment of aboveground cabinets as part of the system to enhance network performance. At this time, Google does not plan to build “Local Aggregation Sites” in Palo Alto (also known as “prefabricated fiber huts”). Google’s FTTP network in Palo Alto would be served by fiber huts located in adjacent cities. At this time, staff does not believe that Google’s fiber ring would have any impact on the City’s existing fiber ring in terms of being a competitor to the commercial dark fiber enterprise. Google’s network design will require attaching fiber-optic cable and supporting infrastructure to the majority of utility poles in Palo Alto. Of the 6,000 utility poles in Palo Alto, approximately 5,400 are co-owned with AT&T under a Joint Pole Agreement executed in 1918. Attachment of Google’s fiber and supporting facilities to utility poles, or attachment of similar facilities by any other third party, requires the execution of a Master License Agreement (“MLA”) for the use of City-controlled space on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits. The City anticipates that substantial staff and third party contracting resources for legal services, engineering, inspection, planning and administration will be required in connection with the Google Fiber Project. The significant staff and third party contractor time required is City of Palo Alto Page 13 attributable to the both the complex nature of the project and Google’s desire to pursue an accelerated timeline. Google’s goal is to complete its project within 24 to 36 months. For instance, the Google Fiber project currently requires staff and third party consultant work, including:  Drafting and negotiation of a Master License Agreement, Master Encroachment Agreement, Cost Recovery Agreement and potential amendments to existing City agreements related to utility poles and development of a California Environmental Quality Act determination.  Planning for engineering review of work submittals, field inspection of utility poles and construction, joint pole coordination with AT&T, locating of underground infrastructure, mapping and customer communication.  Preparation for plan reviews, permit processing, traffic control reviews and tree trimming coordination. As noted above, the City has already incurred and will incur costs and expenses beyond what the City would otherwise recover for under the Municipal Fee Schedule and will request that Google reimburse the City for such costs and expenses through a cost recovery agreement. B. AT&T GigaPower In April 2014, AT&T announced their plan to bring fiber to the Silicon Valley area. Subsequently, in May 2015, AT&T approached the City with intentions to bring its gigabit Internet service to Palo Alto. This service, called “GigaPower”, is an upgrade to AT&T’s existing U-verse services (Project LightSpeed) and will be deployed to residents by the installation of approximately twenty seven (27) new cabinets that will be placed next to existing U-verse cabinets. Initially, AT&T will select neighborhoods with high potential for adoption and will use consumer demand levels to determine further deployments in the city. AT&T has submitted the first permit application to the Department of Public Works for review. AT&T plans to begin construction and provide service in 2016. 3. STAFFING A. Temporary Fiber and Wireless Senior Program Manager Approximately 1.75 FTEs are assigned from the Information Technology and Utilities Departments to work on the various fiber-related initiatives. Given the time sensitivity and rigorous workload and expertise needed in relation to Council’s Motion, Google Fiber, AT&T GigaPower and other third party telecommunication requests, staff recommends adding a contractor position for up to three years who will be dedicated to the fiber-to-the-premises and wireless initiatives for the City. The current market rate for a non-benefit Senior Project City of Palo Alto Page 14 Manager consultant is $110/hour, which equated to an annual cost of $228,000 and an overall cost of $684,000 over the three-year period. B. Cost Recovery for Third Party Projects Staff will be returning to Council in January 2016 for approval for reimbursable contract services if the departments of Public Works and Utilities retain temporary staff or through a RFP process to engage third party contract services to facilitate Google’s FTTP network deployment and AT&T upgrades, if necessary. Determining total estimated costs for temporary staffing and contract services are in progress. Staff’s current plan is to propose funding for these resources initially from Fiber Fund reserves pending Council’s approval to use the reserves, in the event that the City’s costs are not recoverable up front, but rather require reimbursement. Timeline Staff expects most of the work on the Motion to be completed by March 2016. The findings and recommendations of the two solicatations will be completed by the third quarter of 2016. The deployment of Google Fiber in the City is expected to take approximately 24-36 months from the start date, which is to be determined. The first phase of AT&T GigaPower is expected to be completed during 2016. Conclusive decision meetings on co-build between the City Manager and Google need to occur before the end of the calendar year. Given the aggressive timelines for both the Council Motion and third party providers, staff is concerned about its capacity to complete all the activities described in this report on a timely basis. Resource Impact A Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $172,850 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, offset with a reduction to the Fiber Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve, is recommended to fund the following:  $114,000 for a temporary Senior Project Manager consultant for six months from January through June 2016; beginning in FY 2017, staff will request the full funding for this position as part of the annual budget process.  $58,850, which includes a 10 percent contingency, for a contract amendment with CTC to provide analysis and recommendation of the RFI responses for the municipal-owned and public-private partnership FTTP network and consultation on a dig once policy. A contract amendment in the amount of $94,490, which includes a 10 percent contingency, with CTC to develop a detailed RFP and provide analysis for wireless communications for Public Safety, Utilities, City facilities and retail areas will be funded by existing operating budgets in IT, Public Safety and Utilities. City of Palo Alto Page 15 If staff is tasked with accomplishing the effort with existing resources, electric and fiber system improvements will be deferred, audits will need to be delayed, and new customer connections will be significantly delayed. Environmental Review Council’s approval of the following does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition of a “project” set forth in California Public Resources Code Sec. 21065, thus no environmental review is required: (1) staff’s plan to pursue its response to the Council Motion on Municipal Fiber and Wireless and negotiations with third party providers (Google Fiber, AT&T) concurrently; (2) a temporary contract position for a Fiber and Wireless Senior Program Manager; (3) two amendment to the City’s contract with CTC for the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan; and (4) related BAOs. Attachments:  Attachment A - 09-28-15 Excerpt Item 8 DRAFT ACTION Minutes (PDF)  Attachment B - CTC Wireless Network Plan Contract Amendment Final (PDF)  Attachment C - CTC FTTP Master Plan Contract Amendment Final (PDF)  Attachment D - BAO XXXX - FTTP AND WIRELESS NETWORK (DOCX)  Attachment E1 - Palo Alto Wireless Scenario 2 Phase A - 20 Year Forecast (PDF)  Attachment E2 - Palo Alto Wireless Scenario 2 Phase B - 20 Year Forecast (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 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: Action Items 8. Discussion of Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and Direction to Staff on Next Steps for Fiber and City Wireless Services. 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 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 9/28/15 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. 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.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 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 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.” 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.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 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 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 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 P.M. 1 AMENDMENT ONE TO CONTRACT NO. C15152568 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION DBA CTC TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY This Amendment One (“First Amendment”) to Contract No. C151525668 (“Agreement”) is entered into ___________, 2015 (“Amendment Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, dba CTC Technology & Energy, a Maryland corporation, located at 10613 Concord Street, Kensington, MD (“CONSULTANT”) (collectively, the “Parties”). R E C I T A L S A. The Agreement dated effective December 1, 2014, was entered into between the Parties for Consultant to develop a Wireless Network Plan with a near-term focus on Wi-Fi deployment and a long-term consideration of other wireless technologies (“Project”) for the City. B. The Parties now desire to expand the scope of work, extend the term of the Agreement from its current expiration date of May 30, 2015 to June 30, 2016 and to increase the current “Not to Exceed Amount” by from $131,650 to $217,550, with a contingency (10 percent of the increased amount) for the provision of related additional, but unforeseen consulting services.for a total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $226,140, to allow for Consultant to work with staff to: (1) evaluate expanding wireless access in retail areas, with an option to expand Wi-Fi coverage of City facilities and public areas as part of a Request for Proposal; and (2) issue a Request for Proposal and analyze responses to add dedicated wireless communications to increase communication for Public Safety and Utilities departments. C. To accomplish these purposes, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this First Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2. TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from December 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A-1”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred and Twenty-Six Thousand and One Hundred and Forty Dollars ($226,140), which includes a contingency amount of Eight Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety Dollars ($8,590) as described in DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 2 Exhibit “C-2” for the provision or related additional, but unforeseen consulting services. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C- 1”, entitled “COMPENSATION,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C-1”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A-1”. SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) are hereby added to the Agreement as set forth in the attachment(s) to this First Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF SERVICES”. b. Exhibit “B-1” entitled “SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE” c. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “SUPPLEMENTAL COMPENSATION” SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this First Amendment on the Amendment Effective Date. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORTION dba CTC TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 President Joanne Hovis 3 EXHIBIT “A-1” SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF SERVICES Background: The City desires to engage Consultant to assist staff with preparing a response to the City Council’s September 28, 2015 Motion, including the following work that was not covered in by Exhibit “A”: 1. Evaluate expanding wireless access in retail areas, with an option for expanding Wi-Fi coverage at City facilities and public areas as part of the RFP (Scenario 1). 2. Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) and provide technical analysis of responses to add dedicated wireless communications to increase communication for Public Safety and Utilities departments (Scenarios 3 and 4). Tasks for Evaluating Expansion of City Wi-Fi in City Sites and Retail Areas: 1. Based on the maps of the existing fiber optic backbone network, Consultant will work with staff to identify splice points in the network (including the amount of dark fiber strands available at these points) to support backhaul for wireless access points. This information will be used to analyze the capacity of the existing network to support fiber backhaul for priority City sites 1 and 2, and eventually priority site 3 listed in the Wireless Network Plan, in addition to Wi-Fi service in retail areas such as California Avenue and University Avenue. 2. Dependent on the analysis of the fiber maps, splice points and available dark fiber strands at these splice points, review existing infrastructure (e.g. streetlight poles and traffic signal poles) to support the installation of wireless access point, and identify targeted coverage areas and opportunities for a common build. Deliverables: 1. Based on this analysis and identification of fiber-connected wireless access points, Consultant will provide a cost estimate for the interconnection of each access point to a central control and distribution center. 2. Consultant to develop an engineering design and cost estimate for the installation of equipment required to expand the City’s existing Wi-Fi Network (i.e. priority sites noted above), in addition to deploying Wi-Fi access in retail areas to be identified by staff. Tasks for Issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to add dedicated wireless communications to increase communication for Public Safety and Utilities departments (Scenarios 3 and 4): 1. Consultant has provided staff with a RFP template to construct a Critical Infrastructure Wireless Network (CIWN) that will enable secure wireless data transfer in the FCC- licensed 4.9 GHz Public safety wireless band. The RFP template defines the full range of equipment and services to be procured to support the CIWN deployment, including network hardware components, system integration support for the network implementation, staff training, testing, maintenance, and documentation. The RFP will be customized for Scenario 3 (Deploy a Point-to-Multipoint Network for Secure City DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 4 Enterprise Access) and Scenario 4 (Deploy a Citywide Mobile Data Network for Public Safety). a. In Scenario 3, the City would deploy a citywide high-reliability, dedicated, critical infrastructure broadband wireless network to support Public Safety and Utilities’ needs. City Hall would serve as the core site for a point-to-multipoint deployment. Consultant will confirm information gathered during the April-May 2015 user assessment conducted with Public Safety and Utilities for Scenario 3, including site locations, number of users, minimum throughput and coverage area; Consultant to prepare an engineering design for the contemplated RFP; Consultant to work with staff to confirm the estimated capital costs stated in the Wireless Network Plan to construct the infrastructure for this deployment and the estimated annual operating costs. b. In Scenario 4, the City would create hot spots for Public Safety mobile data network access to augment existing wireless operations at key facilities (e.g. schools, stadiums, business/commercial zones). The hot spots would provide radial coverage to first responders and other authorized users. The City would equip its public safety vehicles with exterior mounted antennas and mobile routers capable of acting as access points. Consultant to evaluate locating access points at Utilities’ nine electric substations and other fiber-connected City facilities to provide coverage to a significant portion of the City. Consultant to work with Public Safety staff to confirm the estimated capital costs stated in the Wireless Network Plan to construct the infrastructure for this deployment and the estimated annual operating costs. Deliverables: 1. Upon completion of (a) and (b), Consultant to finalize the RFP(s) and work with staff to identify potential respondents prior to issuance. Staff will determine with Consultant if one comprehensive RFP will be issued for Scenarios 3 and 4, or separate RFPs for each scenario. 2. Consultant to work with staff to evaluate the RFP responses for Scenarios 3 and 4 and present findings and recommendations for City Council review and approval. DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 5 EXHIBIT “B-1” SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones1 Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP Evaluate Wi-Fi Expansion at City Facilities/Parks 30 days & Retail Areas RFP(s): 60 days • Scenario 3 – Point to Multipoint Network • Scenario 4 – Mobile Data Network RFP(s) Evaluation 120 days 1 References to Deliverables correspond to the Deliverables in Exhibit “A” attached to this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 6 EXHIBIT “C-2” SUPPLMENTAL COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A-1” (the “Supplemental Services”) and 10 percent contingency shall not exceed $94,490. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Supplemental Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Additional Services are not authorized under this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Supplemental Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $94,490. Additional Services are not authorized under this Agreement. BUDGETSCHEDULE 2 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Evaluate Wi-Fi Expansion at City Facilities/Parks & Evaluate Retail Areas $15,000 RFP(s): • Scenario 3 – Point to Multipoint Network $25,000 • Scenario 4 – Mobile Data Network $27,900 RFP(s) Technical Analysis and Recommendation $18,000 Sub-total Supplemental Services $85,900 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Supplemental Services and Reimbursable Expenses $85,900 10 Percent Contingency for the provision of related additional, but unforeseen consulting service3 $8,590 Total Supplemental Services, Reimbursable Expenses & Contingency $94,490 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $0 2 References to deliverables correspond to the deliverable set forth in Exhibit “A” attached to this Agreement. 3Calculated as 10% of Total Supplemental Services and Reimbursable Expenses. DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 1 AMENDMENT ONE TO CONTRACT NO. C15152569 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION DBA CTC TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY This Amendment One (“First Amendment”) to Contract No. C15152569 (“Agreement”) is entered into ___________, 2015 (“Amendment Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, dba CTC Technology & Energy, a Maryland corporation, located at 10613 Concord Street, Kensington, MD (“CONSULTANT”) (collectively, the “Parties”). RECITALS A. The Agreement dated effective December 1, 2014, was entered into between the Parties for Consultant to develop a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan (“Project”) for the City. B. The Parties now desire to expand the scope of work, extend the term of the Agreement from its current expiration date of May 30, 2015 to June 30, 2016 and to increase the current “Not to Exceed Amount” from $144,944 to $198,444, with a contingency (10% of the increased amount) for the provision of related additional, but unforeseen consulting services for a total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $203,794, to allow for Consultant to work with staff to: (1) research and provide advice regarding “Dig Once” strategies; (2) develop a Request for Information and provide technical analysis of the responses for exploring both municipal-owned fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) models and contractors for build and ongoing operations, and a Public-Private model with City-owned fiber and private partner operating and owning electronics, considering both Google Fiber in the market and not. C. To accomplish these purposes, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this First Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2. TERM is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from December 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A-1”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred and Three Thousand and Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four Dollars ($203,794), which includes a contingency amount of Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($5,350) as described in Exhibit DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 2 “C-2” for the provision of related additional, but unforeseen consulting services. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “COMPENSATION,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C-1”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A-1”. SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) are hereby added to the Agreement as set forth in the attachment(s) to this First Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF SERVICES”. b. Exhibit “B-1” entitled “SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE” c. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “SUPPLEMENTAL COMPENSATION” SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this First Amendment on the Amendment Effective Date. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORTION dba CTC TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 Joanne Hovis President 3 EXHIBIT “A-1” SUPPLEMENTAL SCOPE OF SERVICES Background The City desires to engage Consultant to assist staff with preparing a response to the City Council’s September 28, 2015 Motion, including the following work that was not covered in by Exhibit “A”: : 1. Assist with research and development of a “Dig Once” strategy, as requested by City. Many localities have adopted some form of “dig once” policy that opens streets and rights-of-way to utility construction when related projects are underway. 2. Move forward with an Request for Information (RFI) exploring both municipal-owned models and contractors for build and ongoing operations, and Public-Private model with City owned fiber and private partner (such as Sonic.net) operating and owning electronics, considering both Google in the market and not. Task for “Dig Once” Ordinance: Consultant will work with City (including City Attorney’s Office), as requested by City, to assist with research and analysis of “dig once” ordinances and approaches in other communities and to evaluate existing City policies, practices and municipal codes that are already in place assure coordination among City departments and external parties (e.g. Google Fiber, AT&T and Comcast) for installing communication conduit for future use when any underground utility work occurs. Deliverable for “Dig Once” Ordinance: 1. As requested by City, written materials and/or oral reports concerning City policies, practices and municipal codes and Dig Once approaches in other communities. Tasks for Request for Information: The RFI will be completed under the current contract scope of services(Exhibit “A”). Consistent with the Supplemental Schedule of Performance set forth in Exhibit “B-1”, a draft of the RFI will be completed by mid-December 2015 in the current Agreement; however, due to the importance and time sensitivity of the RFI response, Consultant to provide technical analysis and recommendations of the RFI responses. Deliverables for Request for Information: 1. Consultant to prepare a preliminary technical analysis of all of the RFI responses. After this preliminary analysis is completed, prepare a high level summary of all responses. This analysis will include conducting follow up teleconferences with up to three of the respondents if additional information is necessary to complete the analysis. Once the analysis and summary are completed, conduct a WebEx with staff to review the summary and findings and recommendations. 2. Consultant will work with City to conduct a detailed analysis of the preferred RFI responses. This analysis will include detailed discussions and information requests from the respondents. Consultant will prepare a report with findings and recommendation regarding the feasibility of the response and the vendor’s ability to offer a viable proposal to deploy a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network solution in the City. DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 4 EXHIBIT “B-1” SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones1 Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Dig Once Strategy 120 days 2. Request for Information Deliverables • Prepare RFI Draft 30 days • Initial Technical Analysis of Responses 90 days 3. Report with an in-depth analysis of the responses that Consultant and staff deem to be the most responsive 120 days to the RFI 1 References to tasks correspond to the Deliverables in Exhibit “A-1” attached to this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 5 EXHIBIT “C-2” SUPPLEMENTAL COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A-1” (the “Supplemental Services”) and 10 percent contingency shall not exceed $58,850. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Supplemental Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Additional Services are not authorized under this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses and 10 percent contingency, does not exceed $58,850. Additional Services are not authorized under this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE2 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Deliverable 1 (Dig Once Strategy)3 $10,000 Deliverable 2 (Initial RFI Response Analysis) $13,500 Deliverable 3 (Report with technical analysis and recommendation of preferred RFI responses) $30,000 Sub-total Supplemental Services $53,500 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Supplemental Services and Reimbursable Expenses $53,500 10 Percent Contingency for the provision of related additional, but unforeseen consulting services4 Total Supplemental Services, Reimbursable Expenses & Contingency $58,850 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $0 2 References to deliverables correspond to the deliverable set forth in Exhibit “A-1” attached to this Agreement. 3 Not-to-Exceed Amount is not a lump sum payment, and total amount is not guaranteed. Consultant agrees to bill City for work related to Dig-Once strategy only for such work requested by City, based on hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1 up to the Not-to-Exceed Amount identified herein. 4 Calculated as 10% of Total Supplemental Services and Reimbursable Expenses DocuSign Envelope ID: EF5C2785-B14F-4403-81EA-C66B66A0A9F3 1 Revised November 16, 2015 XXXX/so Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 IN THE FIBER OPTIC FUND TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $172,850 TO THE FIBER OPTICS FUND BUDGET TO FUND A TEMPORARY PROJECT MANAGER CONSULTANT FOR FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISES AND WIRELESS INITIATIVES AND THE AMENDMENT OF A CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH CTC TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY FOR THE FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISES MASTER PLAN, OFFSET BY A REDUCTION TO THE FIBER OPTIC FUND RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2015 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2016; and B. Palo Alto and four neighboring cities (Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale) are under consideration as expansion cities for Google Fiber, with a potential deployment start in early 2016. Google has indicated that the City will only remain in contention for Google Fiber expansion if various agreements and environmental reviews are resolved by the end of the year; and C. Palo Alto is in negotiations with AT&T regarding implementation of AT&T GigaPower internet service upgrades; and D. On September 28, 2015, the City Council reviewed two reports prepared by CTC Technology & Energy (CTC) for the Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan (FTTP Master Plan) and the Wireless Network Plan; and E. Council approved a motion directing staff to proceed immediately with two formal solicitations for a Request For Information (RFI) for a municipally-owned and/or public- private partnership FTTP network, and a Request For Proposals (RFP) for wireless communications for Public Safety and Utilities, and potentially the expansion of wireless access in retail areas; perform cost model analyses; develop a “Dig Once” ordinance; and discuss a “co-build” with AT&T and Google, based on the City laying its own conduit to the premise during the respective buildouts; and F. In response to Council’s motion, staff has developed a wireless initiatives work plan to accommodate Google Fiber’s proposed FTTP deployment, parallel review of Google and AT&T’s plans, possibility of infrastructure “co-build,” and develop a “Dig Once ordinance”; and E. Staff recommends adding additional resources to supplement staff currently working on wireless initiatives to meet targeted timelines in Fiscal Year 2016; and 2 Revised November 16, 2015 XXXX/so F. One Hundred Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($172,850) is needed to fund these wireless initiatives for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2016, of which $114,000 will fund a temporary Senior Project Manager consultant dedicated to Fiber-to- the-Premises and wireless initiatives, and $58,850 for a contract amendment with CTC to provide analysis and recommendation of the Request For Information responses for the municipal-owned and public-private partnership FTTP network and consultation on a “dig once” policy; and SECTION 2. The sum of One Hundred Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($172,850) is hereby appropriated to the Fiber Optic Fund operating budget to fund the temporary Senior Project Manager consultant and the amendment to the CTC contract. This increase is offset by a reduction to the Fiber Optics Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve. SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 3 Revised November 16, 2015 XXXX/so ____________________________ Utilities Director City of Palo Alto Scenario 2 Option A - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 g/n November 4, 2015 The projections used in this analysis were prepared to assist in the assessment of the financial feasibility of establishing a enterprise to offer connectivity services in the identified service area. Where appropriate, the analysis includes projected operating revenues, expenses, and cash flows for the life of the system based on estimated construction costs and various market penetration rates. This analysis should not be used for any other purpose. There will be differences between the projected and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. CTC has no responsibility to update or certify this projection for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this projection. Wireless Financial Analysis - Scenario 2 Option A Financial Projections Rev 2 Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto Scenario 2 Option A - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 g/nFinancial Projections Rev 2 November 4, 2015 Income Statement Year 12345678910 a. Revenues Wireless Connection 492,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000 612,000 612,000 Wireless Equipment and Connection Fees (non-recurring) - - - - - - - - - - Total 492,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ b. Operating Expenses - Cash (not including taxes in line h) Operating Expenses 171,510$ 383,160$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ Operating Expenses - Misc. 256,700 185,200 160,200 160,200 160,200 160,200 160,200 142,200 142,200 142,200 Support Allocations 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Total 478,210$ 618,360$ 605,930$ 605,930$ 605,930$ 605,930$ 605,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ c. Revenues less Cash Operating Expenses (a-b)13,790$ (6,360)$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ d. Operating Expenses - Non-Cash Depreciation 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ e. Operating Income (d-c)(600,710)$ (620,860)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ f. Non-Operating Income Interest Income -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Investment Income - - - - - - - - - - Interest Expense (Short-Term) - - - - - - - - - - Interest Expense (Long-Term)) - - - - - - - - - - Interest Expense (Internal) - - - - - - - - - - Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ g. Net Income (600,710)$ (620,860)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ h. Taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ i. Net Income After Fees & In Lieu Taxes (600,710)$ (620,860)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ CTC Technology & Energy 2 City of Palo Alto Scenario 2 Option A - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 g/nFinancial Projections Rev 2 November 4, 2015 Income Statement Year a. Revenues Wireless Connection Wireless Equipment and Connection Fees (non-recurring) Total b. Operating Expenses - Cash (not including taxes in line h Operating Expenses Operating Expenses - Misc. Support Allocations Total c. Revenues less Cash Operating Expenses (a-b) d. Operating Expenses - Non-Cash Depreciation e. Operating Income (d-c) f. Non-Operating Income Interest Income Investment Income Interest Expense (Short-Term) Interest Expense (Long-Term)) Interest Expense (Internal) Total g. Net Income h. Taxes i. Net Income After Fees & In Lieu Taxes 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 612,000 612,000 612,000 612,000 612,000 612,000 612,000 612,000 612,000 612,000 - - - - - - - - - - 612,002$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 612,000$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 395,730$ 142,200 142,200 142,200 142,200 142,200 142,200 142,200 142,200 142,200 142,200 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 587,930$ 24,072$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ (590,428)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (590,428)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (590,428)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ CTC Technology & Energy 3 City of Palo Alto Scenario 2 Option A - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 g/nFinancial Projections Rev 2 November 4, 2015 Cash Flow Statement Year 1234567891011 a. Net Income (From Income Statement)(600,710)$ (620,860)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (608,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,428)$ b. Cash Outflows Debt Service Reserve -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Interest Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Depreciation Operating Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Financing - - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures (4,686,660)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (4,184,160)$ -$ -$ -$ Total (4,686,660)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (4,184,160)$ -$ -$ -$ c. Cash Inflows Interest Reserve -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Depreciation Operating Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Debt Service Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Short Term Financing - - - - - - - - - - - Long Term Financing (Bond) - - - - - - - - - - - Cash Start - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Loan - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Funding (non‐loan)4,686,660 - - - - - - 4,184,160 - - - Total 4,686,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,184,160$ -$ -$ -$ d. Total Cash Outflows and Inflows (b+c)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ e. Non-Cash Expenses - Depreciation 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ f. Adjustments (Proceeds from) Short Term Financing -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Long Term Financing (Bond) - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Loan - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Funding (non-loan) (4,686,660) - - - - - - (4,184,160) - - - Total (4,686,660)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (4,184,160)$ -$ -$ -$ g. Adjusted Available Net Revenue (4,672,870)$ (6,360)$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ (4,160,090)$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,072$ h. Principal Payments on Debt Short Term Bond/Loan Principal -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Long Term Bond Principal - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Loan Principal - - - - - - - - - - - Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ i. Net Cash 13,790$ (6,360)$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,072$ Avoided Costs (see j and k below) - - - - - - - - - - - Adjusted Net Cash 13,790$ (6,360)$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 6,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,072$ Cash Balance (Enterprise) Unrestricted Cash Balance 13,790$ 7,430$ 13,500$ 19,570$ 25,640$ 31,710$ 37,780$ 61,850$ 85,920$ 109,990$ 134,062$ Depreciation Operating Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Debt Service Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Total Cash Balance 13,790$ 7,430$ 13,500$ 19,570$ 25,640$ 31,710$ 37,780$ 61,850$ 85,920$ 109,990$ 134,062$ CTC Technology & Energy 4 City of Palo Alto Scenario 2 Option A - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 g/nFinancial Projections Rev 2 November 4, 2015 Cash Flow Statement Year a. Net Income (From Income Statement) b. Cash Outflows Debt Service Reserve Interest Reserve Depreciation Operating Reserve Financing Capital Expenditures Total c. Cash Inflows Interest Reserve Depreciation Operating Reserve Debt Service Reserve Short Term Financing Long Term Financing (Bond) Cash Start Internal Loan Internal Funding (non‐loan) Total d. Total Cash Outflows and Inflows (b+c) e. Non-Cash Expenses - Depreciation f. Adjustments (Proceeds from) Short Term Financing Long Term Financing (Bond) Internal Loan Internal Funding (non-loan) Total g. Adjusted Available Net Revenue h. Principal Payments on Debt Short Term Bond/Loan Principal Long Term Bond Principal Internal Loan Principal Total i. Net Cash Avoided Costs (see j and k below) Adjusted Net Cash Cash Balance (Enterprise) Unrestricted Cash Balance Depreciation Operating Reserve Debt Service Reserve Total Cash Balance 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ (590,430)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ (4,184,160)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (4,184,160)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,184,160 - - - - - -$ -$ -$ 4,184,160$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ 614,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (4,184,160) - - - - - -$ -$ -$ (4,184,160)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ (4,160,090)$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ - - - - - - - - - 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 24,070$ 158,132$ 182,202$ 206,272$ 230,342$ 254,412$ 278,482$ 302,552$ 326,622$ 350,692$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 158,132$ 182,202$ 206,272$ 230,342$ 254,412$ 278,482$ 302,552$ 326,622$ 350,692$ CTC Technology & Energy 5 City of Palo AltoScenario 2 Option A - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 g/n November 4, 2015 Capital Additions Year 12345678910 a. Fiber Implementation Costs Fiber (30 year depreciation) 502,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Expansion Fiber (30 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - Headend and Hub Equipment (10 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - Headend and Hub Equipment (7 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - Network Equipment (6 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - CAI Customer Equipment (6 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - Total 502,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ e. Wireless Network Costs (7 year depreciation) Microwave (10 year) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Structures (20 year) - - - - - - - - - - Access (10 year) - - - - - - - - - - Network Equipment (7 year) 3,045,500 - - - - - - 3,045,500 - - Spare Equipment (7 year) 25,000 - - - - - - 25,000 - - Installation & Engineering (7 year) 1,113,660 - - - - - - 1,113,660 - - Total 4,184,160$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,184,160$ -$ -$ f. Wireless Customer Connection Cost (5 year depreciation) CPE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Capital 4,686,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,184,160$ -$ -$ Total Accrued Capital 4,686,660$ 4,686,660$ 4,686,660$ 4,686,660$ 4,686,660$ 4,686,660$ 4,686,660$ 8,870,820$ 8,870,820$ 8,870,820$ Total Funded by Depreciation Account ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                          ‐$                         Financial Projections Rev 2 CTC Technology & Energy 6 City of Palo AltoScenario 2 Option A - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 g/n November 4, 2015 Capital Additions Year 1 a. Fiber Implementation Costs Fiber (30 year depreciation) 502,500$ Expansion Fiber (30 year depreciation) - Headend and Hub Equipment (10 year depreciation) - Headend and Hub Equipment (7 year depreciation) - Network Equipment (6 year depreciation) - CAI Customer Equipment (6 year depreciation) - Total 502,500$ e. Wireless Network Costs (7 year depreciation) Microwave (10 year) -$ Structures (20 year) - Access (10 year) - Network Equipment (7 year) 3,045,500 Spare Equipment (7 year) 25,000 Installation & Engineering (7 year) 1,113,660 Total 4,184,160$ f. Wireless Customer Connection Cost (5 year depreciation) CPE -$ Total -$ Total Capital 4,686,660$ Total Accrued Capital 4,686,660$ Total Funded by Depreciation Account ‐$                          Financial Projections Rev 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,045,500 - - - - - - - - - 25,000 - - - - - - - - - 1,113,660 - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,184,160$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,184,160$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,870,820$ 8,870,820$ 8,870,820$ 8,870,820$ 13,054,980$ 13,054,980$ 13,054,980$ 13,054,980$ 13,054,980$ 13,054,980$ ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         CTC Technology & Energy 7 City of Palo Alto Senerio 2 Option B - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 ac November 4, 2015 The projections used in this analysis were prepared to assist in the assessment of the financial feasibility of establishing a enterprise to offer connectivity services in the identified service area. Where appropriate, the analysis includes projected operating revenues, expenses, and cash flows for the life of the system based on estimated construction costs and various market penetration rates. This analysis should not be used for any other purpose. There will be differences between the projected and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. CTC has no responsibility to update or certify this projection for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this projection. Wireless Financial Analysis - Scenario 2 Option B Financial Projections Rev 2 Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto Senerio 2 Option B - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 acFinancial Projections Rev 2 November 4, 2015 Income Statement Year 12345678910 a. Revenues Wireless Connection 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000 444,000 444,000 Wireless Equipment and Connection Fees (non-recurring) - - - - - - - - - - Total 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ b. Operating Expenses - Cash (not including taxes in line h) Operating Expenses 170,440$ 225,990$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ Operating Expenses - Misc. 242,700 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 Support Allocations 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Total 463,140$ 426,190$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ c. Revenues less Cash Operating Expenses (a-b)(19,140)$ 17,810$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ d. Operating Expenses - Non-Cash Depreciation 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ e. Operating Income (d-c)(462,540)$ (425,590)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ f. Non-Operating Income Interest Income -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Investment Income - - - - - - - - - - Interest Expense (Short-Term) - - - - - - - - - - Interest Expense (Long-Term)) - - - - - - - - - - Interest Expense (Internal) - - - - - - - - - - Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ g. Net Income (462,540)$ (425,590)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ h. Taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ i. Net Income After Fees & In Lieu Taxes (462,540)$ (425,590)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ CTC Technology & Energy 2 City of Palo Alto Senerio 2 Option B - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 acFinancial Projections Rev 2 November 4, 2015 Income Statement Year a. Revenues Wireless Connection Wireless Equipment and Connection Fees (non-recurring) Total b. Operating Expenses - Cash (not including taxes in line h Operating Expenses Operating Expenses - Misc. Support Allocations Total c. Revenues less Cash Operating Expenses (a-b) d. Operating Expenses - Non-Cash Depreciation e. Operating Income (d-c) f. Non-Operating Income Interest Income Investment Income Interest Expense (Short-Term) Interest Expense (Long-Term)) Interest Expense (Internal) Total g. Net Income h. Taxes i. Net Income After Fees & In Lieu Taxes 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 444,000 444,000 444,000 444,000 444,000 444,000 444,000 444,000 444,000 444,000 - - - - - - - - - - 444,002$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 444,000$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 233,180$ 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 150,200 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 433,380$ 10,622$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ (432,778)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (432,778)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (432,778)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ CTC Technology & Energy 3 City of Palo Alto Senerio 2 Option B - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 acFinancial Projections Rev 2 November 4, 2015 Cash Flow Statement Year 1234567891011 a. Net Income (From Income Statement)(462,540)$ (425,590)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ b. Cash Outflows Debt Service Reserve -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Interest Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Depreciation Operating Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Financing - - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures (3,324,160)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (3,036,660)$ -$ -$ -$ Total (3,324,160)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (3,036,660)$ -$ -$ -$ c. Cash Inflows Interest Reserve -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Depreciation Operating Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Debt Service Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Short Term Financing - - - - - - - - - - - Long Term Financing (Bond) - - - - - - - - - - - Cash Start - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Loan - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Funding (non‐loan)3,324,160 - - - - - - 3,036,660 - - - Total 3,324,160$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,036,660$ -$ -$ -$ d. Total Cash Outflows and Inflows (b+c)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ e. Non-Cash Expenses - Depreciation 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ f. Adjustments (Proceeds from) Short Term Financing -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Long Term Financing (Bond) - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Loan - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Funding (non-loan) (3,324,160) - - - - - - (3,036,660) - - - Total (3,324,160)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (3,036,660)$ -$ -$ -$ g. Adjusted Available Net Revenue (3,343,300)$ 17,810$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ (3,026,040)$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ h. Principal Payments on Debt Short Term Bond/Loan Principal -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Long Term Bond Principal - - - - - - - - - - - Internal Loan Principal - - - - - - - - - - - Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ i. Net Cash (19,140)$ 17,810$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ Avoided Costs (see j and k below) - - - - - - - - - - - Adjusted Net Cash (19,140)$ 17,810$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ Cash Balance (Enterprise) Unrestricted Cash Balance (19,140)$ (1,330)$ 9,290$ 19,910$ 30,530$ 41,150$ 51,770$ 62,390$ 73,010$ 83,630$ 94,250$ Depreciation Operating Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Debt Service Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - Total Cash Balance (19,140)$ (1,330)$ 9,290$ 19,910$ 30,530$ 41,150$ 51,770$ 62,390$ 73,010$ 83,630$ 94,250$ CTC Technology & Energy 4 City of Palo Alto Senerio 2 Option B - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 acFinancial Projections Rev 2 November 4, 2015 Cash Flow Statement Year a. Net Income (From Income Statement) b. Cash Outflows Debt Service Reserve Interest Reserve Depreciation Operating Reserve Financing Capital Expenditures Total c. Cash Inflows Interest Reserve Depreciation Operating Reserve Debt Service Reserve Short Term Financing Long Term Financing (Bond) Cash Start Internal Loan Internal Funding (non‐loan) Total d. Total Cash Outflows and Inflows (b+c) e. Non-Cash Expenses - Depreciation f. Adjustments (Proceeds from) Short Term Financing Long Term Financing (Bond) Internal Loan Internal Funding (non-loan) Total g. Adjusted Available Net Revenue h. Principal Payments on Debt Short Term Bond/Loan Principal Long Term Bond Principal Internal Loan Principal Total i. Net Cash Avoided Costs (see j and k below) Adjusted Net Cash Cash Balance (Enterprise) Unrestricted Cash Balance Depreciation Operating Reserve Debt Service Reserve Total Cash Balance 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ (432,780)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ (3,036,660)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (3,036,660)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,036,660 - - - - - -$ -$ -$ 3,036,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ 443,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3,036,660) - - - - - -$ -$ -$ (3,036,660)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ (3,026,040)$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ - - - - - - - - - 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 10,620$ 104,870$ 115,490$ 126,110$ 136,730$ 147,350$ 157,970$ 168,590$ 179,210$ 189,830$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 104,870$ 115,490$ 126,110$ 136,730$ 147,350$ 157,970$ 168,590$ 179,210$ 189,830$ CTC Technology & Energy 5 City of Palo Alto Senerio 2 Option B - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 ac November 4, 2015 Capital Additions Year 1 2 345678910 a. Fiber Implementation Costs Fiber (30 year depreciation) 287,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Expansion Fiber (30 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - Headend and Hub Equipment (10 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - Headend and Hub Equipment (7 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - Network Equipment (6 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - CAI Customer Equipment (6 year depreciation) - - - - - - - - - - Total 287,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ e. Wireless Network Costs (7 year depreciation) Microwave (10 year) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Structures (20 year) - - - - - - - - - - Access (10 year) - - - - - - - - - - Network Equipment (7 year) 1,995,500 - - - - - - 1,995,500 - - Spare Equipment (7 year) 25,000 - - - - - - 25,000 - - Installation & Engineering (7 year) 1,016,160 - - - - - - 1,016,160 - - Total 3,036,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,036,660$ -$ -$ f. Wireless Customer Connection Cost (5 year depreciation) CPE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Capital 3,324,160$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,036,660$ -$ -$ Total Accrued Capital 3,324,160$ 3,324,160$ 3,324,160$ 3,324,160$ 3,324,160$ 3,324,160$ 3,324,160$ 6,360,820$ 6,360,820$ 6,360,820$ Total Funded by Depreciation Account ‐$                          ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                          ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         Financial Projections Rev 2 CTC Technology & Energy 6 City of Palo Alto Senerio 2 Option B - Blanket Wi-Fi 802.11 ac November 4, 2015 Capital Additions Year a. Fiber Implementation Costs Fiber (30 year depreciation) Expansion Fiber (30 year depreciation) Headend and Hub Equipment (10 year depreciation) Headend and Hub Equipment (7 year depreciation) Network Equipment (6 year depreciation) CAI Customer Equipment (6 year depreciation) Total e. Wireless Network Costs (7 year depreciation) Microwave (10 year) Structures (20 year) Access (10 year) Network Equipment (7 year) Spare Equipment (7 year) Installation & Engineering (7 year) Total f. Wireless Customer Connection Cost (5 year depreciation) CPE Total Total Capital Total Accrued Capital Total Funded by Depreciation Account Financial Projections Rev 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,995,500 - - - - - - - - - 25,000 - - - - - - - - - 1,016,160 - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,036,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,036,660$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,360,820$ 6,360,820$ 6,360,820$ 6,360,820$ 9,397,480$ 9,397,480$ 9,397,480$ 9,397,480$ 9,397,480$ 9,397,480$ ‐$                          ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                          ‐$                         ‐$                         ‐$                         CTC Technology & Energy 7 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6193) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/30/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Greer Park Single Story Overlay Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 72 Homes Within the Greer Park Tract Number 796, by Amending the Zoning Map to Re-Zone the Area 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. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Rezoning only the 47 Parcels with Frontage on Metro Circle and Moffett Circle From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), reflecting the applicant-requested Greer Park North boundary for rezoning to R-1-S, Single Story Overlay (SSO) zone district. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that City Council adopt an alternate draft ordinance (Attachment D) rezoning to R-1-S, SSO zone district only those properties with frontage on Metro and Moffett Circles, excluding the properties with frontage on Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road, as shown on map Attachment C. Executive Summary Greer Park North homeowners have requested the rezoning of 72 residential properties from the Single Family Residential (R-1) zone to the Single-Family Residential Single-Story Overlay zone (i.e. R-1-S). This rezoning, if adopted, would prohibit new two-story homes and second story additions in the designated area. This report forwards the recommendation of Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), as required by Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.80. The PTC recommended that the rezoning apply to an area containing 47 rather than 72 homes, and exclude homes with frontage on Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road for the reasons described later in this report. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The attached property owner correspondence (Attachment H) is the first letter of concern staff has received about this proposal. It was received via email within 16 hours of the publication of this report. Background The City Council adopted the Single Story Overlay 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. The June 2015 Council report (ID #5907) is viewable at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47895. Since June 29, 2015, the City has received three SSO applications that meet the code-described criteria for initiation (Los Arboles, Greer Park North, and Royal Manor). These proposed SSOs are shown on Attachment G, along with the City’s existing single story overlays. The Royal Manor SSO proposal was submitted October 27, 2015, and will be presented to Council in 2016. SSO Regulations The City’s regulations for zone changes are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80. Regulations for development within a SSO district are contained in PAMC Chapter 18.12. Existing two story homes, homes with a loft or mezzanine, and homes exceeding maximum height of 20 feet on SSO zoned properties within a flood zone are considered ‘legal non-complying facilities’ subject to the regulations of PAMC Chapter 18.70. The height of a new home within a SSO district is restricted by a formula. The home’s height may be increased by half of the increase in elevation required to reach the base flood elevation, up to a maximum height of 20 feet above grade. Basements and attics that have no stairway or built-in access are allowed, but lofts and mezzanines are not allowed; these include any space above the first floor in excess of five feet (5') from the floor to the roof above. In a flood zone, a basement providing habitable area is not allowed. Only zoning compliance review is required for one-story home construction, in conjunction with a building permit. Single story homes are not subject to the Individual Review application process; therefore, continued privacy and design compatibility are not assured for replacement homes within a SSO boundary. Greer Park North City of Palo Alto Page 3 A rezoning of the properties within the applicant-proposed boundary would complete the rezoning of Tract #796 to R-1-S, Single Story Overlay. The Greer Park North proposal meets the eligibility criteria to initiate a SSO district rezone application:  a 72% support level was achieved;  92% of the homes within the proposed boundary are one-story homes; and  the proposed boundary for rezoning is easily identifiable, since it is the portion of the original Greer Park Tract #796 that has not been rezoned to single story overlay. The application letter includes compelling statements as to why the Greer Park North boundary is requested. It states: “The prevailing single-story character plus shared age and design of these homes help nurture a valued community feeling. Residents in our neighborhood cross generations, vary in years of home ownership, and come from a wide array of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Within this diversity, we share a deep appreciation of our Eichler homes and a commitment to maintain the unique communal spirit of our historical neighborhood. Since the Greer Park North neighborhood has demonstrated unified support, and meets the criteria, the Single-Story Overlay is a valuable and appropriate designation.” Commission Review The PTC had the following options for recommendations on October 14, 2015: (1) recommend that Council adopt the boundaries as proposed, (2) recommend that Council expand or contract the boundaries of the overlay district, or (3) recommend that Council deny the request for a SSO. The PTC conducted the hearing, considered input from staff, the applicant and one affected homeowner who expressed her concern about restrictions on her property located at 2767 Greer Road. Many owners of properties who support the applicant-proposed SSO boundary attended the meeting but did not speak directly to the PTC. The PTC was concerned about restrictions on future development of these flood zone properties, and did not recommend the SSO boundary as proposed by the applicant. The PTC: (1) determined the proposed application for a Single Story Overlay is in accord with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, (2) recommended approval of the Single Story Overlay for 47 homes within a smaller boundary, excluding all of the homes having frontage on Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road, (3) stipulated that the building permit plans filed for a tall one-story home at 1066 Metro Circle should be “grandfathered” so the proposed home, which would be taller than the 20-foot maximum height allowed for new single story homes on SSO properties within a flood zone, could be approved, (4) commented that Council and staff should consider modifying the requirements to City of Palo Alto Page 4 “overturn” a Single Story Overlay; that is, the PTC questioned why the same percentage is used to initiate a rezoning a SSO back to the R-1 zone district. In this case, the PTC asked whether 60% is the correct support level to initiate a rezoning of Greer Park North back to the R-1 zone, (5) noted it would be helpful for future applications to include a map showing the properties with registered yes and no votes, “absentee owner” properties, etc., and (6) asked whether owners of existing 2-story homes should be allowed to vote, citing the concept of "closing the drawbridge once you've built your tower". The two findings summarized by the PTC Vice Chair for excluding homes fronting on Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road are contained in the draft alternate ordinance (Attachment D): (1) on the whole, these lots are significantly smaller and would thus be more impacted by the down-zoning, and (2) the level of support was significantly lower on these streets (54% if you exclude the properties containing existing 2-story homes where the owner signed in support of the SSO). PAMC Chapter 18.80 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, and timely notices were sent as required by this chapter for the PTC hearing. The PTC did not recommend an expansion of the SSO boundary; therefore, the same notice radius was used for mailing notices of the Council consideration of the applicant-requested boundary. The PTC meeting minutes of October 14, 2015 (Attachment F) and the staff report without attachments (Attachment E) are attached to this report. Report attachments included in the PTC staff report may be found on the city’s website at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49403. Discussion The attached maps reflect the applicant-proposed Greer Park North SSO boundary and the PTC recommended proposal for a boundary reduction. The draft ordinance Attachment A contains an embedded map of the applicant-proposed Greer Park North SSO boundary. The Attachment B map shows the entire Tract #796, with properties colored to reflect particular significance as noted below. The Attachment C map shows the reduced boundary recommended by the PTC, and reflects the properties with owners in support of the applicant-proposed boundary. Attachment B Map Staff supports the applicant’s proposal to rezone the remainder of Tract #796 (Attachment B). The pink-highlighted area of Tract #796 is the Van Auken Circle single story overlay neighborhood, bounded by Greer Road to the north. The green-highlighted area of the tract, north of Greer Road, is the proposed SSO boundary. The lavender colored properties shown within the proposed SSO boundary represent the six properties already developed with two- City of Palo Alto Page 5 story homes that would become non-complying facilities (2779 Greer Road, 1034 and 1098 Moffett Circle, 1026, 1056, and 1072 Metro Circle). The map reflects that 92% of the homes within the proposed boundary are one-story homes. The eligibility criteria for initiation include that single-story homes comprise 80% of all homes within the boundary. Attachment C Map As in the Attachment B map, the Van Auken Circle SSO is shown in pink, south of Greer Road, and the two story homes are shown in lavender. The homes the PTC recommends removing from the Greer Park North SSO are shown in yellow and the boundary the PTC recommends is shown in green. The votes of “support”, and the “no owner signature” and “non-resident” properties are reflected on the map and summarized as follows:  Of 23 Metro Circle owners, 17 owners are in support (three are two story homeowners, one is a non-resident), and six did not sign (two are non-residents). This is a 74% support level.  Of 24 Moffett Circle owners, 18 owners are in support (two are nonresidents), and six did not sign (one is a two story homeowner, five are nonresidents). This is a 75% support level.  Of 10 Amarillo Avenue owners, seven owners are in support and three owners did not sign. There are no two story homes on Amarillo Avenue. This is a 70% support level.  Of 15 Greer Road owners, ten owners are in support (two are nonresidents and two are two-story homeowners) and five did not sign (two of which are nonresidents). This is a 66% support level. Staff Recommendation vs. PTC Recommendation Staff continues to support the applicant’s proposal to rezone the remainder of Tract #796, reflected in Attachment B. If the Council desires to adopt the proposed Greer Park North SSO, Council can act on the draft ordinance Attachment A. If Council concurs with the PTC that a reduced boundary area is warranted, Council can act on draft alternate ordinance Attachment D. Staff’s and the applicant’s responses to the PTC concerns with the proposed Greer Park North SSO boundary follow: 1. All but one of the six homeowners of the six two-story homes signed the petition for rezoning to a SSO. The PTC was concerned that this appeared as “pulling up the drawbridge” and this contributed to the motion for boundary reduction. However, staff notes that the five-two story homeowners who support the SSO are willing to impose restrictions on their own properties, which would become “legal non-complying” facilities subject to the regulations of PAMC Chapter 18.70. Further, the ordinance does not state that the votes of two-story homeowners are not qualifying votes for the required support level of 60% in this case. 2. The PTC was concerned about the homeowner who stated that (a) she might want to create a two story home on her Greer Road property in the future and (b) she received a City of Palo Alto Page 6 late notice of the hearing. Staff confirmed that the City mailed a timely notice to this property owner. In response to the public speaker’s assertion that notification of the proposal was provided only days before the PTC hearing, the applicant stated: “I personally spoke with Mr. Tahiliani at 2767 Greer and sent him our informational letter by email, 14 July 2015. I did receive a negative reply from him. Mrs. Tahiliani spoke at the PTC hearing. Also, they are next to a 2-story home, but the only taller structure near them is the one-story rebuild at 1016 Metro.” 3. The PTC noted that smaller lot sizes along Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road would limit the size of replacement homes. Following the PTC meeting, and in response to the PTC’s assertion, the applicant has stated that there are as many small lots (6,000 to 7,000 sf) within the two circles as on Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road. Staff would add that this is also true of the properties within the existing Van Auken Circle SSO, also within the same Eichler tract. 4. The PTC was concerned about a lower level of support from property owners along Amarillo and Greer. The applicant has noted that while three owners of properties on Amarillo that did not sign the petition, seven owners (or 70% of ten property owners) did sign in favor of the SSO rezoning. The applicant also noted that removal of properties at 1074 Amarillo and 2889 Greer Road, outliers within the boundary and properties with non-responsive owners, would result in a support level above the 72% support level currently evidenced in the petition. Staff would support leaving both Amarillo and Greer fronting properties inside the SSO boundary, given that:  Required support levels were met, and it would complete the tract’s single story overlay designation,  Following the PTC hearing, the applicant reiterated that seven of the ten owners of properties with addresses on Amarillo Avenue support the SSO proposal; this is a support level of 70%, well over the 60% support requirement (and not the 54% suggested by the PTC) and therefore, excluding Amarillo from the SSO does not make sense,  The 66% support level of Greer Road property owners is valid and qualifying (10 of 15 property owners), as it is 6% greater than the 60% required support level,  It is true that two two-story homeowners of the 15 owners of homes with Greer Road addresses signed in support of the Greer Park North SSO, and the PTC expressed concern that the support level for Greer Road is reduced to 53% (8 of 15 owners) if these “yes” votes were removed from the calculation. Staff again notes these two owners are willingly committing their homes to be Legal Non- Complying Facilities, and the ordinance for SSO establishment does not suggest removing the votes of existing two-story homeowners from qualifying percentage; in this case, the 66% Greer Road support level should stand as the justifiable support level, and  If Greer Road is not included in the SSO boundary at this time, it may become City of Palo Alto Page 7 difficult later to add it into the remainder of the SSO Tract. Upon construction of two additional two-story homes on Greer Road, the street would be beyond the “tipping point” (more than 20% of all homes as two story homes) such that the street would no longer be eligible for a single story overlay rezoning at that point. Leaving out the Greer Road properties from this overlay boundary could result in a physical division of an original Eichler tract by a row of two-story replacement homes. PAMC Section 18.80.100 provides Council with the option to provide notice of the Council’s hearing on the proposed SSO rezoning. In advance of both PTC and Council hearings, 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. Policy Implications The proposed SSO meets the code requirements for SSOs, 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 20 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. 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: Greer Park North SSO Ordinance Applicant Request (PDF)  Attachment B: Greer Park North SSO Map Applicant's Proposal (PDF)  Attachment C: Greer Park PTC Recommended SSO Map (PDF)  Attachment D: SSO Ordinance Reduced Boundary per PTC Recommendation (PDF)  Attachment E: PTC Staff Report without Attachments 10-14-15 (PDF)  Attachment F: Draft PTC Excerpt Minutes Greer Park North SSO (DOC)  Attachment G: SSOs existing and proposed including Royal Manor (PDF)  Attachment H: Neighbor Letter Received November 17 2015 (DOCX) ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* 151005 jjs 0160087 1 Ordinance No. XXXX Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to change the classification of certain properties on Greer Road, Amarillo Avenue, Metro Circle and Moffett Circle, a portion of that property known as Greer Park, Tract #796, from R-1 to R-1-S The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed hearing held October 14, 2015, has recommended that section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. 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 Boundaries) is hereby amended by changing the zoning of a portion of that property known as Greer Park, Tract #796 (the “subject property”), from “R-1 Single-Family Residence” to “R-1-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 Metro Circle and Moffett Circle, 11 homes facing Amarillo Avenue (from 1020 to 1074 Amarillo Avenue), and 14 homes fronting on Greer Road (from 2701 to 2889 Greer 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* 151005 jjs 0160087 2 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment R -1(S) RM -3 0 R M-1 5 P C-3 1 8 3 RM -1 5 R-2 PF 1 7 P C- 1889 R OLM RM-15 P F P F R -1(S) Drive lbr i d g e W a y Clara Drive Stockton Maddux Drive Piers Ct nD ri v e Dennis Drive Agnes Way g Dr ive Sycamore D rive Amarillo Avenue Van Au ken C i r c le eDrive Co l o n i a l L a n e Moreno Ave nue Ce li a D r iv e Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue Sandra Place Clara Drive Colo rado Avenue Colora do Avenue Simkins Court Otterson Ct Higgins Place Lawrence Lane Metr o Circ l e Moff e t t Ci r c l e Greer Road ar d i n a l Way Arrowhead Wa y Aztec Way Chabot Terrace Tanland Drive Orego Oregon Exp ress w ay Colorado Pl 859 866 860 865 28 9 8 878 872 883 887 889 891 893 894 890 2928 2946 888 879 884880 8 73 898 2966 2982 895 899 891885 907 2975 925 2911908 2901 872 878 884 890 30 6 4 3104 2997 2931 2933 31 0 1 31 0 5 31 1 0 31 2 0 8 876 86 30 7 0 891 883 859 875 8673105 3103 3102 30 6 5 927 925 915 30 7 5 920 910 30 8 5 30 9 5 921 931 927 30 5 9 912 906 918 924 942 936 930 954 931 29 8 4 937 947 919 913 943 948 938 930 31 0 8 31 1 3 31 1 9 31 0 1 951 943 959 967 24 2 4 24702448 2510 24 9 0 25 3 0 2548 2564 24 2 7 24 3 9 24 6 3 24 5 1 24 7 4 968 960 985 993 1010 26 2 1 26 0 7 24 8 7 26 4 3 1035103326 4 0 26 3 2 26 1 8 2 651 26 3 1 26 1 3 10 8 0 26 0 1 1021 1011 25 7 9 25 9 1 2563 2 5 51 992 24 6 0 24 7 5 979 249 9 24 2 0 1031 1074 1062 1072 1082 1052 1051 1063 10531054 24 3 2 24 4 4 24 5 6 24 8 0 24 9 2 24 6 8 25 0 6 25 1 8 25 2 7 2539 2505 2515 24 4 1 2459 24 9 1 24 2 1 24732433 1057 1092 1098 2491 24 7 7 24 6 3 24 4 9 24 3 5 24 2 1 24 3 0 1075 1074 1073 10831084 1064 1063 24 7 0 24 4 0 24 3 1 24 5 5 24 6 8 24 5 6 24 4 2 10 8 5 2450 2452 1065 1085 24 4 1 24 2 9 1128 875 871 870 862 837 890 25 5 0 25 7 0 879 885 876 880 884 888 891 89724 9 0891 887 883 879 25 4 3 25 2 1 24 9 3 24 7 7 24 7 0 24 8 0 24 6 3 878 884 879 896 885 2 490 25 6 7 87 8 27 4 2 27 2 2 27 0 4 883 893 872 87168 26 9 2 890 896 88 2 888 893 885 871878 886 898 853 876 905 906 27 0 1 950 27 1 1 90128 1 1 909 917 900 28 9 7 908 28 7 688028 0 2 28 2 4 27 7 0 27 5 0 886 892 27 9 0 928 920 912 27 0 7 27 3 9 926 27 8 1 27 5 1 27 9 6 877 871 25 7 7 25 8 5 25 9 9 909 91 9 92 3 92 592 7 929 931 933914 925 919 911 908 910 26 7 5 914 916 26 3 5 91 8 92 0 92 292 4 92191 5 92 692 0 91 4 90 8 935937 931 907 910 25 6 9 930 934 938 978 960 966 972 926 922 984 990 971 967 956 952 946 963 957940 951 945 939 936 932 94 2 935 939 948 24 4 5 24 2 3 24 2 1 928 931 920 912 915 923 24 3 0 24 4 0 24 5 0 24 6 5 24 6 0 24 6 9 922 930 938 946 954 951 947 943935 911 919 927 971 963 952 955 944 947 939936 976 955962 959970 963 967986 973 101526 6 9 26 5 7 996 983 985984 964 960 975 979 994 986 991 1003 1013 947 953954 958 962 966 961 957 965 975972 978 983 991 984 95 8 95 495 0 925 929 90 9 94 7 914 918 271 8 270 8 1002 1008 27 0 1 1020 1026 1027 28 7 9 909 915 921 924 916 949 941 933 925 94 6 10 6 9 10 8 1 10 7 5 1047 1063 1045 10 8 6 1031 1037 1041 1039 2495 2 4 96 2641 10 9 0 24 6 7 24 7 9 1087 10 8 1 10 8 3 96 2 966 970 974 978 982 2882 927 932 940 933 939 945948 9 5 1 950 957 965 971 979 973 993 983 9 6 295 8 957 9 63 969 910 914 924 930 936 29 2 4 2944 29 1 4 916 968 1082 1088 10961092 27 0 7 27 4 3 27 1 9 27 3 1 1032 1038 1044 1050 1056 27 4 2 27 3 0 27 6 8 91 0 90 6 27 5 4 90 2 95 1 90 5 95 5 95 9 99 7 90 1 963 993 1098 10 9 5 10211075 1071 1049 10 1 2 1 01 6 27 5 5 1062 1072 1076 28 0 9 27 6 7 27 9 1 27 7 9 99 8 27 9 2 28 0 8 99 4 28 2 6 990 986 2842 2862 2964 30 2 4 30 3 2 30 4 0 30 4 8 30 5 6 30 6 4 29 7 9 29 6 3 29 4 7 972 966 960 29 7 2 295 0 29 6 5 29 4 5 29 2 5 957 965956 946 978 1013 1023 30 9 5 937 941 951 961 971 30 9 4 31 0 2 960 29 2 8 29 7 0 29 6 0 991988 982 985 981 975 29 9 3 1003 100129 7 5 29 6 5 970 30 1 6 29 3 1 968 30 2 3 30 3 9 30 5 5 30 6 8 30 5 2 30 2 0 30 3 6 30 1 7 30 2 9 30 4 1 30 5 3 30 6 5 30 7 7 3084 3089 30 7 1 1010 1020 1030 990 978 10 1093 1083 1073 1063 1053 1043 1033 1034-1036 1040 1042 1044 1046 1048 1050 1052 1054 1056 1058 10601062 10641066 1068 10701072107410761078 1014 1010 1031 10051083 1079 1073 1047 1026 1022 1052 1056 1046 1042 1036 1032 1024 1020 1064 1060 1070 1074 1084 1080 1090 1094 287328572841 2963 2955 29 6 0 2956 29 0 5 2889 1031-1045 1030 1040 1034 1050 1044 1054 101129 7 8 29 7 2 29 6 8 2901 2903 2907 2905 2909 2911 2913 2915 2917 2919 2850 1125-1139 1090 10 8 0 10 7 1 10 7 3 10 7 5 10 7 7 10 7 9 1062 1068 107410 8 7 1095 1069 1067 1065 1049 1093 24582456 2454 2462 1177 1089 2800 1066 10 9 1 10 9 3 1072 10 9 4 1145 1151 1163 1157 24 8 0 2995 2891 29 2 5 1082 27 2 1 1047-1061 1063-1075 1077-1091 1095-1107 1109-1123 1143-1151 2999 2860 1098 1076 1078 1088 1199 310 0 26 9 0 1105 1080 2870 882 1130 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Existing Single Story Combining District Proposed Single Story Combining District (Greer Park N portion of Tract # 796) Existing Two Story Structures on Property 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 Gr e e r P a r k N o r t h pa r t of T r a c t # 7 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, 2015-09-22 16:02:20SingleStoryOverlay GreerParkNTract796 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) EXHIBIT A R -1(S) RM -3 0 R M-1 5 P C-3 1 8 3 RM -1 5 R-2 PF 1 7 P C- 1889 R OLM RM-15 P F P F R -1(S) Drive lbr i d g e W a y Clara Drive Stockton Maddux Drive Piers Ct nD ri v e Dennis Drive Agnes Way g Dr ive Sycamore D rive Amarillo Avenue Van Au ken C i r c le eDrive Co l o n i a l L a n e Moreno Ave nue Ce li a D r iv e Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue Sandra Place Clara Drive Colo rado Avenue Colora do Avenue Simkins Court Otterson Ct Higgins Place Lawrence Lane Metr o Circ l e Moff e t t Ci r c l e Greer Road ar d i n a l Way Arrowhead Wa y Aztec Way Chabot Terrace Tanland Drive Orego Oregon Exp ress w ay Colorado Pl 859 866 860 865 28 9 8 878 872 883 887 889 891 893 894 890 2928 2946 888 879 884880 8 73 898 2966 2982 895 899 891885 907 2975 925 2911908 2901 872 878 884 890 30 6 4 3104 2997 2931 2933 31 0 1 31 0 5 31 1 0 31 2 0 8 876 86 30 7 0 891 883 859 875 8673105 3103 3102 30 6 5 927 925 915 30 7 5 920 910 30 8 5 30 9 5 921 931 927 30 5 9 912 906 918 924 942 936 930 954 931 29 8 4 937 947 919 913 943 948 938 930 31 0 8 31 1 3 31 1 9 31 0 1 951 943 959 967 24 2 4 24702448 2510 24 9 0 25 3 0 2548 2564 24 2 7 24 3 9 24 6 3 24 5 1 24 7 4 968 960 985 993 1010 26 2 1 26 0 7 24 8 7 26 4 3 1035103326 4 0 26 3 2 26 1 8 2 651 26 3 1 26 1 3 10 8 0 26 0 1 1021 1011 25 7 9 25 9 1 2563 2 5 51 992 24 6 0 24 7 5 979 249 9 24 2 0 1031 1074 1062 1072 1082 1052 1051 1063 10531054 24 3 2 24 4 4 24 5 6 24 8 0 24 9 2 24 6 8 25 0 6 25 1 8 25 2 7 2539 2505 2515 24 4 1 2459 24 9 1 24 2 1 24732433 1057 1092 1098 2491 24 7 7 24 6 3 24 4 9 24 3 5 24 2 1 24 3 0 1075 1074 1073 10831084 1064 1063 24 7 0 24 4 0 24 3 1 24 5 5 24 6 8 24 5 6 24 4 2 10 8 5 2450 2452 1065 1085 24 4 1 24 2 9 1128 875 871 870 862 837 890 25 5 0 25 7 0 879 885 876 880 884 888 891 89724 9 0891 887 883 879 25 4 3 25 2 1 24 9 3 24 7 7 24 7 0 24 8 0 24 6 3 878 884 879 896 885 2 490 25 6 7 87 8 27 4 2 27 2 2 27 0 4 883 893 872 87168 26 9 2 890 896 88 2 888 893 885 871878 886 898 853 876 905 906 27 0 1 950 27 1 1 90128 1 1 909 917 900 28 9 7 908 28 7 688028 0 2 28 2 4 27 7 0 27 5 0 886 892 27 9 0 928 920 912 27 0 7 27 3 9 926 27 8 1 27 5 1 27 9 6 877 871 25 7 7 25 8 5 25 9 9 909 91 9 92 3 92 592 7 929 931 933914 925 919 911 908 910 26 7 5 914 916 26 3 5 91 8 92 0 92 292 4 92191 5 92 692 0 91 4 90 8 935937 931 907 910 25 6 9 930 934 938 978 960 966 972 926 922 984 990 971 967 956 952 946 963 957940 951 945 939 936 932 94 2 935 939 948 24 4 5 24 2 3 24 2 1 928 931 920 912 915 923 24 3 0 24 4 0 24 5 0 24 6 5 24 6 0 24 6 9 922 930 938 946 954 951 947 943935 911 919 927 971 963 952 955 944 947 939936 976 955962 959970 963 967986 973 101526 6 9 26 5 7 996 983 985984 964 960 975 979 994 986 991 1003 1013 947 953954 958 962 966 961 957 965 975972 978 983 991 984 95 8 95 495 0 925 929 90 9 94 7 914 918 271 8 270 8 1002 1008 27 0 1 1020 1026 1027 28 7 9 909 915 921 924 916 949 941 933 925 94 6 10 6 9 10 8 1 10 7 5 1047 1063 1045 10 8 6 1031 1037 1041 1039 2495 2 4 96 2641 10 9 0 24 6 7 24 7 9 1087 10 8 1 10 8 3 96 2 966 970 974 978 982 2882 927 932 940 933 939 945948 9 5 1 950 957 965 971 979 973 993 983 9 6 295 8 957 9 63 969 910 914 924 930 936 29 2 4 2944 29 1 4 916 968 1082 1088 10961092 27 0 7 27 4 3 27 1 9 27 3 1 1032 1038 1044 1050 1056 27 4 2 27 3 0 27 6 8 91 0 90 6 27 5 4 90 2 95 1 90 5 95 5 95 9 99 7 90 1 963 993 1098 10 9 5 10211075 1071 1049 10 1 2 1 01 6 27 5 5 1062 1072 1076 28 0 9 27 6 7 27 9 1 27 7 9 99 8 27 9 2 28 0 8 99 4 28 2 6 990 986 2842 2862 2964 30 2 4 30 3 2 30 4 0 30 4 8 30 5 6 30 6 4 29 7 9 29 6 3 29 4 7 972 966 960 29 7 2 295 0 29 6 5 29 4 5 29 2 5 957 965956 946 978 1013 1023 30 9 5 937 941 951 961 971 30 9 4 31 0 2 960 29 2 8 29 7 0 29 6 0 991988 982 985 981 975 29 9 3 1003 100129 7 5 29 6 5 970 30 1 6 29 3 1 968 30 2 3 30 3 9 30 5 5 30 6 8 30 5 2 30 2 0 30 3 6 30 1 7 30 2 9 30 4 1 30 5 3 30 6 5 30 7 7 3084 3089 30 7 1 1010 1020 1030 990 978 10 1093 1083 1073 1063 1053 1043 1033 1034-1036 1040 1042 1044 1046 1048 1050 1052 1054 1056 1058 10601062 10641066 1068 10701072107410761078 1014 1010 1031 10051083 1079 1073 1047 1026 1022 1052 1056 1046 1042 1036 1032 1024 1020 1064 1060 1070 1074 1084 1080 1090 1094 287328572841 2963 2955 29 6 0 2956 29 0 5 2889 1031-1045 1030 1040 1034 1050 1044 1054 101129 7 8 29 7 2 29 6 8 2901 2903 2907 2905 2909 2911 2913 2915 2917 2919 2850 1125-1139 1090 10 8 0 10 7 1 10 7 3 10 7 5 10 7 7 10 7 9 1062 1068 107410 8 7 1095 1069 1067 1065 1049 1093 24582456 2454 2462 1177 1089 2800 1066 10 9 1 10 9 3 1072 10 9 4 1145 1151 1163 1157 24 8 0 2995 2891 29 2 5 1082 27 2 1 1047-1061 1063-1075 1077-1091 1095-1107 1109-1123 1143-1151 2999 2860 1098 1076 1078 1088 1199 310 0 26 9 0 1105 1080 2870 882 1130 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Existing Single Story Combining District Proposed Single Story Combining District (Greer Park N portion of Tract # 796) Existing Two Story Structures on Property 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 Gr e e r P a r k N o r t h pa r t o f T r a c t # 7 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, 2015-09-22 16:02:20SingleStoryOverlay GreerParkNTract796 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) ATTACHMENT B R -1(S) R R M -1 5 P C -3 1R-2 P F RM -15 P F 925 2933 912 918 924 942 936 930 954 931 29 8 4 937 947 919 913 943 948 985 993 1010 26 2 1 26 0 7 26 4 3 1035 103326 4 0 26 3 2 26 1 8 2 65 1 26 3 1 26 1 3 10 8 0 26 0 1 1021 1011 25 7 9 25 9 1 992 979 1031 10741051 1063 1057 1085 950 27 1 1 90 917 90 928 920 912 926 91 9 92 3 92 592 7 929 931 933 925 919 911910 914 916 91 8 92 0 92 292 4 92191 5 92 692 0 91 4 90 8 935 937 931 9 930 934 938 978 960 966 972 926 922 984 990 971 967 956 952 946 963 957940 951 945 939 936 932 94 2 935 939 948951 947 943 955 959 963 967 973 101526 6 9 26 5 7 996 983 985984 964 960 975 979 994 986 991 1003 1013 947 953954 958 962 966 961 957 965 975972 978 983 991 984 95 8 95 4 95 0 925 929 90 9 94 7 914 918 27 1 8 27 0 8 1002 1008 27 0 1 1020 1026 1027 915 921 924 916 949 941 933 925 94 6 10 6 9 10 8 1 10 7 5 1047 1063 1045 10 8 6 1031 1037 1041 1039 2641 10 9 0 1087 10 8 1 10 8 3 96 2 966 970 974 978 982 2882 927 932 940 933 939 945 948 951 950 957 965 971 979 973 993 983 9 6 29 5 8 957 9 6 3 969 910 914 924 930 936 29 2 4 2944 29 1 4 916 968 1082 1088 10961092 27 0 7 27 4 3 27 1 9 27 3 1 1032 1038 1044 1050 1056 27 4 2 27 3 0 27 6 8 91 0 90 6 27 5 4 90 2 95 1 90 5 95 5 95 9 99 7 90 1 963 993 1098 10 9 5 10211075 1071 1049 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 6 27 5 5 106 2 1072 1076 28 0 9 27 6 7 27 9 1 27 7 9 99 8 27 9 2 28 0 8 99 4 28 2 6 990 986 2842 2862 2964 30 2 4 30 3 2 30 4 0 30 4 8 29 7 9 29 6 3 29 4 7 9 960 29 7 2 29 5 0 29 6 5 29 4 5 29 2 5 957 965956 946 29 2 8 29 7 0 29 6 0 991988 982 985 981 975 29 9 3 1003 100129 7 5 29 6 5 970 30 1 6 29 3 1968 30 2 3 30 3 9 30 5 5 30 5 2 30 2 0 30 3 6 30 1 7 30 2 9 30 4 1 30 5 3 1010 1020 1030 990 978 1040 1042 1044 1046 10701072 1074 10761078 1014 1010 1031 10051083 1079 1073 1047 1026 1022 1052 1056 1046 1042 10 36 1032 1024 1020 1064 1060 1070 1074 1084 1080 1090 1094 287328572841 2963 2955 29 6 0 2956 29 0 5 2889 1031-1045 1030 1040 1034 1050 1044 1054 101129 7 8 29 7 2 29 6 8 2901 2903 2907 2905 2909 2911 2913 2915 2917 2919 1125-1139 1 10 8 0 10 7 1 10 7 3 10 7 5 10 7 7 10 7 9 1062 1068 107410 8 7 1095 1069 1067 1065 1049 1093 1066 1072 2995 2891 29 2 5 27 2 1 1047-1061 1063-1075 1077-1091 1095-1107 1109-1123 1143-1151 1098 1076 1078 1199 1080 ClaraDrive SycamoreDrive Amarillo Avenue Va n A u k e n C i r c le Co l o n i a l L a n e Moreno A venue Elmdale Pl Tanland Drive Moren o Ave n ue Amarillo Av Sandra Place Clara Drive ColoradoAvenue ColoradoAv enue Simkins Court Otterson Ct Higgins Place LawrenceLane Met r o C i rc l e Mof f e t t C i r c l e Greer Road Color This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Supports No Owner Signature Existing Second Story Non-Resident PTC Recommended Boundary of Proposed Single Story Combining District Proposed Single Story Combining District (Original Proposal) Zone Districts 0'280' PT C R e c o m m e n d e d B o u n d a r y of 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 Gr e e r P a r k N o r t h pa r t o f T r a c t # 7 9 6 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R PO 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, 2015-11-04 13:54:11SingleStoryProposed GreerParkVote (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) R-1 R-1 ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D *NOT YET APPROVED* 151005 jjs 0160087 1 Ordinance No. XXXX Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change the Classification of Certain Properties Only on Metro Circle and Moffett Circle, a Portion of that Property Known as Greer Park, Tract #796, from R-1 to R-1-S The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed hearing held October 14, 2015, has recommended that section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth, with a smaller boundary than requested by the applicant, excluding properties fronting Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road because: (1) on the whole, these lots are significantly smaller and would thus be more impacted by the down-zoning, and (2) the level of support was significantly lower on these streets - 54% when excluding the properties containing existing 2-story homes where the owner signed in support of the SSO. 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 Boundaries) is hereby amended by changing the zoning of a portion of that property known as Greer Park, Tract #796 (the “subject property”), from “R-1 Single-Family Residence” to “R-1-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 Metro Circle and Moffett Circle (except those corner lots that are also fronting on Greer Road (i.e. 1098 Moffett Circle, 2841 Greer Road, 2755 Greer Road and 2743 Greer Road). SECTION 3. This ordinance shall not preclude the improvement of the property at 1066 Metro Circle with a one-story home up to the height proposed in a building permit application submitted to the City for such improvement as of October 14, 2015. SECTION 4. 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 ATTACHMENT D *NOT YET APPROVED* 151005 jjs 0160087 2 unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment R -1(S) R M -3 0 R M -15 P C -3183 R M -1 5 R-2 P F 1 7 P C - 1 8 8 9 R O L M RM-15 P F P F R -1(S) eDrive Elbri d g e W a y Clara Drive Stockton Pl Maddux Drive Piers Ct nD ri v e Dennis Drive Agnes Way g Dr ive Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue Van Auk en C i r c le e Drive Co l o n i a l L a n e Moreno Avenue Ce li a D r iv e Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue Sandra Place Clara Drive Colorado Avenue Colorado Avenue Simkins Court Otterson Ct Higgins Place Lawrence Lane Ge Metr o Circ l e Moff e t t Ci r c l e Greer Road ard i n a l Way Arrowhead Wa y Aztec Way Chabot Terrace Tanland Drive Orego Oregon Exp ress w ay Colorado Pl 859 866 860 865 28 9 8 878 872 883 887 889 891 893 894 890 2928 2946 888 879 884880 87 3 898 2966 2982 895 899 891885 907 2975 925 2911908 2901 872 878 884 890 30 6 4 3104 2997 2931 2933 31 0 1 31 0 5 31 1 0 31 2 0 868 876 860 30 7 0 891 883 859 875 8673105 3103 3102 30 6 5 927 925 915 30 7 5 920 910 30 8 5 30 9 5 921 931 927 30 5 9 912 906 918 924 942 936 930 954 931 29 8 4 937 947 919 913 943 948 938 930 31 0 8 31 1 6 31 1 3 31 1 9 31 0 9 31 0 1 951 943 959 967 24 2 4 24702448 2510 24 9 0 25 3 0 2548 2564 24 2 7 24 3 9 24 6 3 24 5 1 24 7 4 968 960 985 993 1010 26 2 1 26 0 7 24 8 7 26 4 3 1035103326 4 0 26 3 2 26 1 8 26 5 1 26 3 1 26 1 3 10 8 0 26 0 1 1021 1011 25 7 9 25 9 1 2563 255 1 992 24 6 0 24 7 5 979 2 499 24 2 0 1031 1074 1062 1072 1082 1052 1051 1063 10531054 24 3 2 24 4 4 24 5 6 24 8 0 24 9 2 24 6 8 25 0 6 25 1 8 25 2 7 2539 2505 2515 24 4 1 2459 24 9 1 24 2 1 24732433 1057 1092 1098 2491 24 7 7 24 6 3 24 4 9 24 3 5 24 2 1 24 3 0 1075 1074 1073 10831084 1064 1063 24 7 0 24 4 0 24 3 1 24 5 5 24 6 8 24 5 6 24 4 2 108 5 2450 2452 1065 1085 24 4 1 24 2 9 1128 875 871 870 862 837 890 25 5 0 25 7 0 879 885 876 880 884 888 891 89724 9 0891 887 883 879 25 4 3 25 2 1 24 9 3 24 7 7 24 7 0 24 8 0 24 6 3 878 884 879 896 885 2 490 25 6 7 87 8 27 4 2 27 2 2 27 0 4 883 893 872 871 868 26 9 2 890 896 88 2 888 893 885 871878 886 898 853 876 905 906 27 0 1 950 27 1 1 90128 1 1 909 917 900 28 9 7 908 28 7 688028 0 2 28 2 4 27 7 0 27 5 0 886 892 279 0 928 920 912 27 0 7 27 3 9 926 27 8 1 27 5 1 27 9 6 877 871 25 7 7 25 8 5 25 9 9 909 91 9 92 3 92 592 7 929 931 933914 925 919 911 908 910 26 7 5 914 916 26 3 5 91 8 92 0 92 292 4 92191 5 92 692 0 91 4 90 8 935937 931 907 910 25 6 9 930 934 938 978 960 966 972 926 922 984 990 971 967 956 952 946 963 957940 951 945 939 936 932 94 2 935 939 948 24 4 5 24 2 3 242 1 928 931 920 912 915 923 24 3 0 24 4 0 24 5 0 24 6 5 24 6 0 24 6 9 922 930 938 946 954 951 947 943935 911 919 927 971 963 952 955 944 947 939936 976 955962 959970 963 967986 973 101526 6 9 26 5 7 996 983 985984 964 960 975 979 994 986 991 1003 1013 947 953954 958 962 966 961 957 965 975972 978 983 991 984 95 8 95 495 0 925 929 90 9 94 7 914 918 27 1 8 27 0 8 1002 1008 27 0 1 1020 1026 1027 28 7 9 909 915 921 924 916 949 941 933 925 94 6 10 6 9 10 8 1 10 7 5 1047 1063 1045 10 8 6 1031 1037 1041 1039 2495 2 4 9 6 2641 10 9 0 24 6 7 24 7 9 1087 10 8 1 10 8 3 96 2 966 970 974 978 982 2882 927 932 940 933 939 945948 9 5 1 950 957 965 971 979 973 993 983 9 6 295 8 957 9 6 3 969 910 914 924 930 936 29 2 4 2944 29 1 4 916 968 1082 1088 10961092 27 0 7 27 4 3 27 1 9 27 3 1 1032 1038 1044 1050 1056 27 4 2 27 3 0 27 6 8 91 0 906 27 5 4 90 2 95 1 90 5 95 5 95 9 99 7 90 1 963 993 1098 10 9 5 10211075 10 71 1049 1 0 1 2 1 01 6 27 5 5 1062 1072 1076 28 0 9 27 6 7 27 9 1 27 7 9 99 8 27 9 2 28 0 8 99 4 282 6 990 986 2842 2862 2964 30 2 4 30 3 2 30 4 0 30 4 8 30 5 6 30 6 4 29 7 9 29 6 3 29 4 7 972 966 960 29 7 2 29 5 0 29 6 5 29 4 5 29 2 5 957 965956 946 978 1013 1023 30 9 5 937 941 951 961 971 30 9 4 31 0 2 960 29 2 8 29 7 0 29 6 0 991988 982 985 981 975 29 9 3 1003 100129 7 5 29 6 5 970 30 1 6 29 3 1 968 30 2 3 30 3 9 30 5 5 30 6 8 30 5 2 30 2 0 30 3 6 30 1 7 30 2 9 30 4 1 30 5 3 30 6 5 30 7 7 3084 3 0 89 30 7 1 1010 1020 1030 990 978 1044 1032 10 1093 1083 1073 1063 1053 1043 1033 1034-1036 1040 1042 1044 1046 1048 1050 1052 1054 1056 1058 10601062 10641066 1068 10701072107410761078 1014 1010 1031 10051083 1079 1073 1047 1026 1022 1052 1056 1046 1042 1036 1032 1024 1020 1064 1060 1070 1074 1084 1080 1090 1094 287328572841 2963 2955 29 6 0 2956 29 0 5 2889 1031-1045 1030 1040 1034 1050 1044 1054 101129 7 8 29 7 2 29 6 8 2901 2903 2907 2905 2909 2911 2913 2915 2917 2919 2850 1125-1139 1090 10 8 0 10 7 1 10 7 3 10 7 5 10 7 7 10 7 9 1062 1068 107410 8 7 1095 1069 1067 1065 1049 1093 24582456 2454 2462 1177 1089 2800 1066 10 9 1 10 9 3 1072 10 9 4 114511631157 24 8 0 2995 2891 29 2 5 1082 27 2 1 1047-1061 1063-1075 1077-1091 1095-1107 1109-1123 1143-1151 299 9 2860 1098 1076 1078 1088 1199 31 0 0 26 9 0 1105 1080 2870 882 1130 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels PTC Recommended Boundary of Proposed Single Story Combining District Proposed Single Story Combining District (Original Proposal) Existing Single Story Combining District Existing Two Story Structures on Property 0' 400' PT C R e c o m m e n d e d B o u n d a r y of 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 Gr e e r P a r k N o r t h pa r t o f T r a c t # 7 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, 2015-11-02 18:51:26SingleStoryOverlay GreerParkNTract796 PTC (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6155) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 10/14/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Greer Park Single Story Overlay Rezoning Title: Greer Park North Single Story Overlay: Request by David Hammond on Behalf of the Property Owners of the Greer Park North Tract #796 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: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hear from the public (who received notice cards), discuss the proposed Single Story Overlay rezoning, and recommend City Council approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A). Executive Summary Greer Park North homeowners (52 of 72 properties within the proposed boundary, or 72% of homeowners), represented by David J Hammond, request a rezoning of the remaining 72 properties within the original Greer Park Tract #796 from R-1 to the R-1-S, Single-Family Residential Single-Story Overlay (SSO) zone. The Greer Park North 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 Greer Park Tract #796. The pink-highlighted area of Tract #796 is the Van Auken Circle neighborhood, including adjacent properties fronting the southerly sides of Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road (already zoned R-1-S). The green-highlighted area of the tract, north of Greer Road, is the proposed SSO boundary, which includes 72 properties: All properties fronting Metro and Moffett Circles, The 14 properties within the original tract adjacent to Metro Circle and Moffett Circle 1 A standard SSO district involves no changes to the text of PAMC Chapter 18.12. ATTACHMENT E City of Palo Alto Page 2 properties fronting the northerly side of Greer Road, and including addresses 2701 to 2889 Greer Road, and  The ten properties within the original tract adjacent to Metro Circle properties fronting the southern side of Amarillo Avenue, and including addresses 1020 to 1074 Amarillo Avenue. The lavender colored properties shown within the proposed SSO boundary represent the six properties already developed with two-story homes that would become non-complying facilities (2779 Greer Road, 1034 and 1098 Moffett Circle, 1026, 1056, and 1072 Metro Circle). All but one of the six homeowners of the six two-story homes signed the petition for rezoning to a SSO. 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 and Pending 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 is a map showing all existing and pending SSOs. On September 30, 2015, the PTC recommended Council adopt the rezoning of Los Arboles as a single story overlay. 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 recommendations available to the PTC include these: (1) recommend that Council adopt the boundaries as proposed, (2) expand or contract the boundaries of the overlay district, or (3) deny the request for a SSO. If the PTC wishes to recommend an expansion in boundaries, additional notice and a continued hearing will be necessary. 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 properties as requested by the applicant. The City’s rezoning regulations are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80. Prior to recommending a change in zoning, pursuant to PAMC Section 18.80.070 (e), 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. Staff recommends that the PTC make such a determination and recommend that Council re-classify the zoning within the proposed SSO boundary from R-1 to R-1-S by adopting the attached draft ordinance. Discussion Greer Park Tract #796 Existing Conditions  Greer Park North neighborhood is comprised primarily of single-story, single-family Eichler homes of a similar age (their construction started in 1950), design and character;  The properties within the proposed SSO boundary are within the flood zone, so the finished first floor of any new home in the neighborhood must be set at least 10.5 feet above sea level; City of Palo Alto Page 4  The original ‘Restrictions, Conditions, Charges and Agreements’ for Tract #796 (provided by the applicant, and found within Attachment C) limited development to only one detached, single-story, single-family dwelling per lot;  92% (66) of the 72 homes within the proposed SSO boundary are single-story homes; most of these are the original Eichler homes (designed by Anshen & Allen Architects);  Five of the six two-story homes within the proposed boundary are the original one-story Eichler homes with small second floor additions that are “reasonably compatible” with the Eichler home, according to the applicant;  The sixth two story home (1034 Moffett Circle) is a replacement home that complies with the Flood Zone requirements (with a higher finished floor);  The two story home at 2891 Greer Road is the property adjacent to the southernmost edge of the original Tract #796. The home is excluded from the proposed SSO boundary because it was not part of the original Eichler tract, and is unlike the nearby Eichlers. This residence is a two-story, stucco and clay tile roof home built in 1994 on the filled-in Seale canal, with a character more similar to homes of the neighborhood to the east.  There are no two-story home applications currently on file with the City within the proposed SSO boundary;  The most recently approved second floor addition, under construction at 1072 Metro Circle, is nearly completed; this 678 sq. ft. second story addition was approved via the Individual Review process in 2013, followed by issuance of a building permit in May 2015. The height of the roof overhang reaches 22 feet above grade at the highest point; therefore, this home would become a non-complying facility following rezoning to a single story overlay zone.  The two-story home originally proposed in 2014 at 1066 Metro Circle was withdrawn by the applicant following the submittal of an appeal to City Council. A building permit request for a 23-foot tall, one-story home at this address was filed on August 28, 2015 (after the filing of this SSO application). City of Palo Alto Page 5 The building permit plans are under review for zoning compliance only (no Individual Review is required for one-story homes). The height of the home is proposed to be 23 feet above grade given that the proposed finished floor must be at least 10.5 feet above sea level (it is proposed at 11.5 feet above sea level); the home, if constructed as proposed, would become a ‘non-complying facility’ due to its height following successful rezoning of the Greer Park North neighborhood. Notable on elevations are what appear to be first floor windows providing light to “unconditioned crawlspace” with a six foot ceiling height and dividing walls, according to the filed plans. Proposed Boundary The proposed boundary for rezoning is easily identifiable: it is the remainder of the Greer Park Tract, the portion that has not yet been rezoned to single story overlay. Greer Park North SSO Submittal On August 12, 2015, the applicant submitted information containing the SSO rezone proposal materials (Attachments C-F), which includes a letter that conveys the neighborhood values expressed by the supporters of this rezoning. The Greer Park North 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.  This application states that it has the support of 53 (73.6%) of the 72 homeowners within the proposed SSO boundary. A close inspection of the petition reveals that one of the signatures is the daughter of the owners, so it is not considered a valid signature. The total 52 signatures represent 72% of the 72 owners, where a lesser minimum (60%) of tract homeowner signatures is required because the original tract had covenants restricting new homes to one-story homes. This support level is 12% more than the level required for initiation.  The applicants distributed a survey in April 2015 ‘to gauge support’; a two-page document of Frequently Asked Questions was distributed as well.  The applicants gathered signatures on the attached petition in May and June of 2015. City of Palo Alto Page 6  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.  92% 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 appropriately completing the original Eichler home tract.  The lot sizes within the boundary range from 6,000 square feet (sf) to 13,000 sf, and the original home sizes ranged from 1,100 sf to 1,400 sf, but have since increased in size with additions. 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 (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. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Single-Story Overlay Level of Support and Outreach Applicant’s Outreach Efforts The applicants conducted neighborhood outreach by distributing a letter including two pages of frequently asked questions, and gathering of signatures from the neighbors within the SSO boundary on a petition. The SSO process regulations do not require the City to further verify homeowner support via postcard mailing. Staff reviewed the applicant’s outreach letter and petition and, due to the 72% level of support for the SSO proposal, where only 60% support is required, 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. Petition Signatures The petition of 53 signatures gathered in the summer of 2015 shows that 20 addresses have no owner signatures. As noted, the applicant’s report of 53 owner signatures does not mention that one of those signatures is the daughter of an owner, not the owner. Technically, the owner signatures are only 52 or 72% of the 72 homeowners; the 60% signature threshold for initiation is still met. Owners of property at these 20 addresses did not sign the petition: Moffett Circle: 1005, 1040, 1060, 1080, and 1073 Moffett Circle properties are owned by persons not living at the address (AKA absentee-owners). The daughter of owners of 1073 Moffett lives at that address and signed the petition on behalf of her absentee-owner parents. Also, 1034 Moffett Circle is a property without a signature; the owner of this two-story home lives at the home, but did not sign the petition. Metro Circle: 1092, 1082, 1076, 1071, 1066, 1012. The last three of these properties are absentee-owned. Amarillo Avenue: 1032, 1062, 1074. Greer Road: 2719, 2731, 2767, 2809, 2889. The last two of these properties are absentee- owned. The percentage of homeowners not providing signatures on the petition is 72%; therefore, the 60% minimum signature threshold is still met. Five of the six two story homeowners signed the petition, whereas one did not (1034 Moffett Circle). Public Notice Notice cards were sent to property owners and residents within the proposed Greer Park North SSO boundary and to property owners and residents within a 600 foot radius of the boundary. A newspaper notice was placed to meet the code requirements for publication for the October City of Palo Alto Page 8 14, 2015 public hearing. 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 tentative date for Council consideration of the proposed SSO is November 16, 2015. Environmental Review The proposed rezoning is exempt from CEQA per Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Attachments:  Attachment A: Greer Park North SSO ordinance (PDF)  Attachment B: Greer Park North Map (PDF)  Attachment C: Applicant letter and map (PDF)  Attachment D: Neighbor SSO Survey + Map (PDF)  Attachment E: Greer Park North Mail List (DOCX)  Attachment F: Petition (PDF)  Attachment G: Existing and Proposed Single Story Overlays (PDF)  Attachment H: PAMC Chapter 18.12.010 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 October 14, 2015 3 4 EXCERPT 5 Public Hearing 6 Greer Park North Single Story Overlay: Recommendation to the City Council regarding a request by 7 David Hammond on Behalf of the Property Owners of the Greer Park North Tract #796 for a Zone 8 Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. 9 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 10 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. For more information, contact Amy French at 11 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 12 13 14 Chair Tanaka: Let’s go to Item 2 which is the public hearing for Geer Park North Single Story Overlay 15 (SSO). Does staff have a report? 16 17 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yeah, so Chief Planning Official Amy French will give a presentation. I 18 think she’s just getting her presentation set up if you can just give us one moment. 19 20 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good evening, Commission. Tonight we are considering the 21 proposal by the Greer Park North neighborhood for a SSO. We have the purpose here of SSOs. We 22 covered this last time we did the Los Arboles SSO. In this example … this is the proposal. The area I’m 23 pointing at here is the Greer Park North area, which is adjacent to the Van Auken SSO which some 24 decades ago became a SSO, but is part of the same tract. And they are all original Eichler tract homes. 25 With some exceptions as noted here - these pink addresses are all two-story homes. 26 27 So we have a neighborhood that’s primarily one-story. We have 91, over 91 percent of the homes, 66 28 homes are one-story homes, so it meets the threshold, which is 80 percent one-story homes for a SSO. 29 We do have one new second story addition that’s under construction, but there are no individual review 30 projects on file for a two-story home. So these were all built in the Fifties. They are in a flood zone so 31 this is significant. The reason is because when one builds in a flood zone one has to build the finished 32 floor above the base flood elevation. It would vary through the tract, but generally several feet above 33 grade would do the trick. 34 35 The lots are moderate, moderately sized. And then some are larger than moderately sized. They go up 36 to 13,000 square feet (sf). The nature of the circular streets makes some lots larger. The homes are 37 moderately sized, not large. The original homes I should say, are 1,100 to 1,400 square feet. 38 39 So as we covered last time, when I say last time I mean the Los Arboles SSO, we talked about how what 40 happens when you implement a SSO is that existing homes that are over 17 feet in height or two-story 41 become noncomplying facilities. And in this case because it’s a flood zone the height limit would become 42 20 feet allowing for that additional height, or up to 20 feet I should say, allowing for the flood, base flood 43 elevation and the finished floor. So basically the caveat here is that when you do become a SSO you are 44 not going to have design review for the one-story homes that follow. So there’s no guarantee that the 45 replacement homes would be Eichler in style or Eichler compatible because we do not have discretionary 46 reviews of one-story homes. 47 48 The applicant will adequately cover what they did for outreach, but they did appropriate outreach with 49 the neighbors. Again, here are the rules. They followed the rules. They, we followed the rules as far as 50 sending out notices. And their support level is 73 percent, 53 of 72 property owners, and because they 51 had CC&R’s which run with their property, the support level only needs to be 60 percent so they’re well 52 above that at 73 percent. 53 54 ATTACHMENT F City of Palo Alto Page 2 And that’s it. I can, let’s see, I think that’s the larger area up on the screen there so that concludes 1 staff’s presentation. We ask that you recommend initiating this SSO tonight and we would take it then to 2 the City Council as a next step. 3 4 Chair Tanaka: Great, thank you. So let’s open it for public comment. So any members of the public wish 5 to speak to this item again fill a card out, bring it to someone here in front, and then the Vice-Chair will 6 read the names off. Any cards? 7 8 Ms. French: We have an applicant as well. 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Oh, yes. 11 12 Ms. French: He is here. 13 14 Chair Tanaka: Ok, can the applicant, does the applicant want to speak? 15 16 David Hammond, Applicant: Hey do I have a means of changing the slides? Well, good evening 17 Commission. My name is David Hammond, I’m a retired structural engineer having worked in Palo Alto 18 for 45 years or so and lived in Palo Alto for 60 some. The basic information has already been somewhat 19 covered. I’ll go through it fairly fast. 20 21 The homes, number of homes already talked about. Lot sizes, already talked about. One of the reasons 22 for the 13,000 sf is that some time ago there was a canal called the Seale Wooster Canal and that was 23 filled and so all the homes on east side of the tract received 30 feet more and so that gave them about 24 another 1,000 or more feet. We are in the CC&R’s do have the statement as listed there. The flood plain 25 as already been stated is requires a 10.5 foot elevation for the first floor and like my first floor at this 26 point is 5.5 so that may give you some idea of the new homes which start 5 feet higher than they are 27 now. We feel that the boundary is very logical and that what we’re doing is completing the original tract 28 and as mentioned the south part of the tract was done in 2002. 29 30 So there we are. The outline in black is what we’re proposing and we back up to the rear of Park and 31 south of then, or southwest of us is Van Auken Circle. These Eichlers they’re a little different Eichlers. 32 They’re the first of the Eichlers. These were designed by Anshen and Allen in San Francisco, whereas the 33 newer ones are designed, were designed by Jones and Emmons in Los Angeles. These, but they’re 34 similar as you probably know the mid-century design, three and one with carports. I gave Amy a little bit 35 bad information on the minimum size. They’re actually 1,150 square foot. I guess my glasses weren’t 36 too clean when I looked at that. 37 38 So we did in April send out an initial survey and went essentially door to door. We didn’t send it out. We 39 brought it out basically, left it in some places and got around 70 percent response. Then we had a little 40 bit of a hiatus because we were waiting, worrying about the fee charging and whether that some people 41 didn’t think that they could support it if there was a fee. And so that was resolved at the end of June 42 and so we started our door to door with the petition and just into July and have the, I think the numbers 43 are up there. We feel the support is great. Because it is such an old tract we have and the homes were 44 relatively inexpensive we have 16 nonresident owners and of course they weren’t too much in favor or 45 not very responsive really. 46 47 So our original houses most this is not what you’d call a pristine tract. Most of the houses have been 48 remodeled one way or the other. As an example in my case I moved into a with three kids and a wife a 49 three in one and my intent was to make it a four and two which I did because I bought a lot that was 50 almost 9,000 square foot and it was easy to see what one could do with it and so that was my intent. So 51 just some examples that’s what almost that I got that as what I thought was an original, but now I see it 52 has a little bit of a change to it, but any rate that’s what they look like. A little different the spacing of 53 the beams is eight feet instead of the six foot six of the new Eichlers and the siding is vertical redwood 54 boards. So but it’s still it has some of the same feeling to it. This was what my house looked like to start 55 with. This is one of the few that’s actually still existing type house where it has the, it actually has a 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 raked roof and a raked back wall and a slot window. I don’t know if you can see it next to the fireplace, 1 but the full height slot window is sort of the vocabulary that was used by the architect. 2 3 This is what a some kind of a remodel would look like. This happens to be mine. Where you take that 4 little bit and change, I added about 900 sf in the back which was a deck, covered deck and a the 5 bedroom and master bedroom wing. So going quickly through a lot of remodels, a lot of them just 6 involved around the entry or the garage or filling in the carport. This is like my favorite remodel. This 7 was done by Dirk Vin in the late Sixties, early Seventies. Outstanding I think. Outstanding looking 8 house. This is the one right next to it where they a few years ago picked up some of the same tone and 9 did a real good, this would qualify under the SSO. It’s less than 20 feet and it doesn’t have a, it has a 10 loft, doesn’t have a loft, it just has a high bay. This is an architect design one where they added this is a 11 very large lot so they have the first original part of the house and then they added a similar sympathetic 12 addition. This is a two-story on our block. This was a house done about three years ago with a complete 13 tear down and so it starts the five feet up, but and it’s not an Eichler, but in my opinion at least it is 14 compatible with the simple lines. This is a incompatible the one two-story that we have tear down that 15 the good thing I can say about it we shove to the back of the lot because it was near the sealed canal so 16 it doesn’t impact our neighborhood too much. 17 18 So what, what we see as what we want to do is maintain existing scale. So we have the larger lots 19 because of the corners. We want, we can keep the houses, the new houses down to 20 feet. And we 20 know that it won’t design, won’t assure design capability, compatibility, but that might happen in the 21 future. We’re told that may be some studies and might get an ordinance like is in the Cupertino with the 22 Eichler zoning. So please support our overlay and for Greer Park North and thank you very much. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Thank you for your presentation. So seeing that we have no cards from the public we’re 25 going to close the public hearing on this item and we’re bringing back to Commission. So (interrupted) 26 27 Robin Ellner, Administrative Associate III: Excuse me, Chair? We do have one that was not brought up. 28 29 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Can the Vice-Chair please read it off? 30 31 Vice-Chair Fine: So sorry if I mispronounce this, Rhea Tahiliani. 32 33 Rhea Tahiliani: Everybody. So I live on 2767 Greer, which is on Greer and Van Auken. And I just got a 34 notice about a few days ago all these signatures that David was taking and the two homes on my street 35 that is 2779 that’s my next door neighbor’s two-story and on the same street of Greer and Van Auken 36 that’s 1098 Greer is also a two-story. And the one, and the one diagonal across which turns to be on the 37 Metro Circle that’s just diagonal across 1016 that was just shown in the picture a few minutes ago is also 38 a two-story. So my recommend, my ask is if there’s a flexibility or if there’s a possibility that we could 39 build our house for a two-story and I’m pretty new to the neighborhood, just three years ago. So if 40 there’s a flexibility to kind of build this as a two-story home I would, I would like that or that would be 41 my ask. 42 43 [Unintelligible-people talking off mike in background] 44 45 Robin Ellner, Administrative Associate III: Commissioners if you can please hit your microphone when 46 you speak. 47 48 Chair Tanaka: So we’re going to bring this back to Commission for questions. So maybe we could ask 49 questions of the staff, of the applicant, of the people here. So maybe let’s just get into that unless 50 there’s another card? No? Ok. So let’s close the public hearing and let’s bring it back to Commission to 51 ask questions. So kind of the format we’re going to do is we’re going to start with questions and then as 52 our, as Commissioners ask questions I’ll keep a list of different issues that we should discuss. We’ll go 53 through the issues one by one and then we’ll take a vote to see what we want to do. So if you have any 54 questions hit your lights. I see a light from Commissioner Alcheck. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Commissioner Alcheck: I just wanted to get some clarity. 2767 is there a suggestion that there’s a 1 missing two-story here on this thing or? You’re 2767, not currently a second story. 2 3 Mr. Lait: So I’m sorry. The public hearing’s closed so I want if you’re asking a question of staff 4 (interrupted) 5 6 Commissioner Alcheck: I guess is there another home here (interrupted) 7 8 Mr. Lait: Ok, so… 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: That is two-story that’s not (interrupted) 11 12 Mr. Lait: No. So what she, what I believe the speaker was saying is that they want to have the ability to 13 put a second story on the property. It is currently a one story. 14 15 Ms. French: Yes. And I believe this is the two-story house that she was referring to which is next door to 16 her home. She’s right here. 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. Well how can I ask questions of the speaker? I do, I have a question for 19 her. I want to just clarify. She made a suggestion that she only recently understood that this was 20 coming up before her. She is new to the neighborhood although I would suggest three years is not that 21 new. So I’m just trying to, I would like to get a little more clarity on why, how long she’s known… I want 22 to understand the notice issue that she sort of raised that I think… 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so let’s reopen the public hearing for the speaker, I forgot your name, to come up 25 again to answer questions. Rhea. 26 27 Chair Tanaka: If someone on the Commission wants to ask questions from you, yes. 28 29 Ms. Tahiliani: Yeah, my name is Rhea. 30 31 Commissioner Alcheck: Sorry Rhea. I just have a quick question. 32 33 Ms. Tahiliani: Yeah, sure. 34 35 Commissioner Alcheck: During your remarks you mentioned something about learning about this fairly 36 recently. Is there an issue that you weren’t notified? 37 38 Ms. Tahiliani: So I think so. David came for signatures like not long ago and lucky I happened to be at 39 home that day. And we all kind of busy with our work I’m sure and sometimes things get unnoticed. 40 And this was first brought to my attention and my husband who’s currently traveling so I think so emailed 41 you Amy asking for people who’ve actually given signatures who had double stories and what’s the 42 breakup of the count. So it’s not, we’re not saying that we want to build a second story, but because our 43 neighbor is right there and there are two homes on the same street and one diagonal across we want to 44 have the flexibility. 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: Just aside from the signatures that you were, aside from the time when he came 47 to get you did receive something in the mail I’m assuming that notified you that this discussion was going 48 to take place tonight? 49 50 Ms. Tahiliani: Yes I did get the flyer. Yes. 51 52 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I just wanted to make sure. 53 54 Ms. Tahiliani: Yes. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s all. 1 2 Ms. Tahiliani: Thank you. 3 4 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 5 6 Mr. Lait: So it’s the, it’s the Chair’s discretion. It’s a legislative matter. This isn’t a applicant/appellate 7 situation. It’s up to, up to the Commission. 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Yeah, so I think what we should do is if anyone on the Commission wants to ask questions 10 from members of the public they may. So Commissioner Rosenblum. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: My question is for staff. This seems fairly straightforward to me which is 13 there’s a standard. They’ve exceeded the standard by a fairly wide margin, by 13 percent. The 14 neighborhood itself is not an area sort of designated for higher density development i.e. with near transit 15 hub, near commercial center, etcetera. So there’s no like compelling public interest in preserving for 16 denser housing, etcetera. So it feels fairly straightforward. What are the findings that we could possibly 17 have against this? My current inclination is it’s a no brainer. We should, we should approve this and 18 move on albeit sympathetic to people who are in the neighborhood that might have other ideas, but this 19 they’ve already passed the burden. So what are the areas that we’re that we’re looking to understand in 20 addition? Notice period, what else? 21 22 Ms. French: Back on the slides here we have several threshold items that they have met again. 23 24 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yep. 25 26 Ms. French: So you check one of those. 27 28 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, they met all the thresholds. 29 30 Ms. French: So yeah, they met all the thresholds for initiation. And then the consideration about rezoning 31 has to do with, there are findings, I don’t know if I put the findings on the screen… well they’re in the, 32 they’re in the ordinance or the staff report I believe. 33 34 Commissioner Rosenblum: I guess what I’m looking for is guidance that when an applicant has passed all 35 thresholds what are the reasons that you have seen Planning Commissions or others oppose? What 36 could possibly be the reason to… it’s a coherent, it’s not a gerrymandered neighborhood. This is clearly a 37 tract. 38 39 Ms. French: Right, follows (interrupted) 40 41 Commissioner Rosenblum: It passed both the threshold for number of single story homes and the 42 threshold for neighborhood acceptance. So is there anything else to discuss? 43 44 Ms. French: There’s nothing else that staff has seen that would cause you to not initiate or continue the 45 hearing for additional information. I mean we believe we’ve met the notice, the notice requirements and 46 that would be the third thing that has to happen for due process. 47 48 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. Thank you. 49 50 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 51 52 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe there is a, there is a permit, there was permit 53 submittal for 1066 Metro, right? So if there, this could be even just going back to this, to this lady’s 54 comment I think that 1066 would have a little precedence if any over this claim. Is this right? And then 55 so let’s I think that this is from perspective of the sequence. And my second question is like this: is there 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 anything from the legal perspective, legal obligations that City may have because I think that this permit 1 was either submitted or was requested before this, this application took place. 2 3 Ms. French: Yes, there’s a building permit on file for 1066 Metro Circle. It has not been approved. It’s 4 not approved right now. There’s some problems with the projects plans. So it’s in kind of a holding 5 pattern right now so it’s not an entitlement request, it’s a building permit. 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: And will this if this modification to the zoning will it affect this, this project as it is 8 designed currently? 9 10 Ms. French: It may. If we have a plan to have it go to the Council, in November I believe. 11 12 Mr. Lait: I don’t know that we have enough information. It’s possible, but the course of this ordinance 13 after Planning Commission will go to Council and that’s the first reading and then you have to have a 14 second reading which is greater than 10 days after that and then the ordinance doesn’t take effect until 15 30 days thereafter. So we’re looking at this ordinance not being effective until next year and it’s quite 16 likely that the building permit application for 1066 would be approved before then. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: I see, ok. And as you know the project, I don’t know the project you said that it 19 may be affected. Will the height be affected? Is the height as it’s proposed currently it’s over 20 feet 20 limit? It is, right? 21 22 Ms. French: It is. 23 24 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. So eventually they are late because of some reasons then they would have 25 to modify or they would have to request exception? 26 27 Ms. French: If they build, if they receive a building permit prior to the adoption of the ordinance they 28 become a it’s a legal noncomplying facility then after. 29 30 Commissioner Gardias: But if it’s after, if it’s after they may request exemption from the, from the 31 zoning? 32 33 Mr. Lait: No, no. So again so there’s too many variables for us to be able to say whether that project 34 would be subject to the ordinance or not and again as Amy indicated that project is a ministerial permit 35 so it, the applicant’s been provided its comments. They, it’s in their court to make their changes and 36 resubmit to the City. Our turnaround time on plan checks is two weeks for resubmittal, so I don’t think 37 it’s unreasonable for the applicant team to complete the process before this moves forward, but you’re 38 right, it does require their due diligence and attention. 39 40 Commissioner Gardias: Sure, ok. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Downing. 43 44 Commissioner Downing: I was wondering if staff could give us a little bit more background on the 45 threshold levels that are picked. So my understanding is that the 60 percent threshold applies here 46 because of the initial restrictions that applied to the tract, but I wonder… I’m missing something because 47 they did build out second stories within this tract. So were those in opposition to those original 48 agreements or did those agreements get voided or what happened there? 49 50 Ms. French: Yeah, the CC&R that stated that one-story homes were what are allowed in this 51 neighborhood that’s a private matter that the City is not responsible for enforcing and so we’re not 52 overlooking neighborhoods that have these types of agreements. That’s their private matter and so 53 they’re not out of compliance with our zoning codes, but we do have the provision in our SSO regulations 54 that says if they have one of those original documents for the neighborhood that said one-story then the 55 City of Palo Alto Page 7 threshold to initiate a single story is lower. Of course they meet the threshold as if they didn’t have the, 1 those CC&R’s. 2 3 Commissioner Downing: Ok, thank you. 4 5 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Michael. 6 7 Commissioner Michael: So just to clarify it appears that in regard to this matter the role of the Planning 8 and Transportation Commission (PTC) is somewhat specific or may be limited to once all the threshold 9 conditions are met really we just verify the number of signatures and if it’s above the required amount 10 then that suggests we should approve the request. Is that, that’s correct? 11 12 Ms. French: Yeah. You’re recommending to the City Council and it’s their pleasure as to whether to 13 approve it. 14 15 Commissioner Michael: Ok. So, so what we have (interrupted) 16 17 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Excuse me, Chair or Commissioner Michael I just wanted to 18 clarify, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. So the thresholds that you were referring to apply to 19 the application process; so once those thresholds have been reached then the applicant can apply and 20 then you make a recommendation to the Council about whether you think it’s appropriate to rezone the 21 neighborhood and in that case you just apply your general, you put on your general legislative hat and 22 determine whether this is an appropriate area to have a SSO. 23 24 Commissioner Michael: Ok. Well, so I have some, some concerns that may be in the arena of public 25 policy as we pass this on to Council. So irrespective of the vote that we get on this matter tonight just 26 for the record what we have is a situation in which there’s only one resident who came here this evening, 27 Rhea, who appears to be potentially adversely affected and there’s signatures of 53 other residents in 28 favor of the application; so that’s worthy of noting. The homes are given the years when they were built 29 are 62 to 65 years old and many of them have been remodeled and I would imagine some others would 30 be candidates for remodeling in the future or maybe candidates to be torn down and replaced. It 31 appears that many of the applicants or the signatures in favor are original owners or long term owners. 32 And many of the owners just seeing the turnout of the public, by the way thank you for coming, appears 33 to be not a youthful crowd, but many of the owners may be elderly so thanks for your support of the 34 public process. So my question on the public policy area is what might happen in the future? Maybe this 35 is in the far future when these houses get older and even when residents move on. The, if there’s one or 36 more residents who are adversely affected in so far as their desire to remodel to have something with 37 two stories or above the 20 foot limit it seems their option is simply to sell their house and to attempt to 38 purchase a different house somewhere else that doesn’t have this restriction. So that seems relatively 39 clear. I’m not sure as a public policy matter that that’s a good situation to put the community in. 40 41 And I also have a question as to the if you have the threshold or a percentage of signatures needed to 42 establish the zoning. It seems logical to me that the percentage to change the zoning back to 43 unrestricted should be the reverse. So that if 60 percent are required or 70 percent are required in 44 different situations then to reverse that it should be 40 percent or 30 percent, whatever the reverse of 45 the approval requirement is because of the potentially significant adverse impact on the people who are 46 subject to a height and square footage restriction and that I think is a question for Council to think about. 47 48 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 49 50 Vice-Chair Fine: So thank you Amy for the presentation and thank you everyone for showing up. I 51 appreciate your comments. I think just two things; one, I do want to echo Commissioner Michael in that 52 there is a question about what should be a threshold to overturn. I’m not sure it’s the reverse, but 53 maybe that is something for Council to explore if it should be the same level or a different level of 54 support. I think we all would like to imagine that democracy is where we don’t trample the minority and 55 in the future this minority might change so it’s something worth exploring. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 The other thing I want to mention is it was helpful to see how many nonresidents are in this area and I 2 would encourage in future applicants maybe this is part of the process. it would be great if we could see 3 how many no’s, how many yeses, how many nonresidents, just kind of breaking down the numbers a 4 little bit more. That being said this does seem pretty clear cut. I look forward to supporting it. If there 5 are no other questions… we got one more. Ok. That’s all for me. 6 7 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so last time we went through this, so I feel differently about this SSO for two 10 reasons. The first is that I learned yesterday in the pre-Commission meeting that the 70 percent 11 threshold is a threshold that if reached permits the applicant and his community to have the discussion 12 about whether this is appropriate. It does not suggest in our code that they by right should receive this. 13 If Council for example next week wanted to eliminate SSOs from the zoning code the process would be 14 noticing all affected communities and then voting. There wouldn’t be any polling process. Council could 15 amend the code and immediately change that limitation. I don’t think I appreciated that the first time we 16 voted. I think the first time we voted on this a couple of weeks ago my understanding of the process 17 was that we had set up a rubric in our code that suggested that if a community achieved this sort of 18 consensus then the City should award them the designation which suggests that it’s not really a 19 discretionary item, but it or it shouldn’t be necessarily solely a discretionary item. That’s one reason why 20 I suggest we look at this one differently. 21 22 I think the second reason why this particular area should be considered differently is because it’s in a 23 flood zone. There’s a lot of new homes that are being built in Palo Alto that are one-story and those 24 homes you know the floor area, the amount of the size of your home is regardless of how many stories 25 the square footage of your home regardless of the amount of stories you have depends on the size of 26 your lot. And you don’t get more square footage if you build it up, but if you want a greater amount of 27 landscaped area in your home the preference is to go up. If you have a small lot and you want to 28 increase your backyard then you don’t want to use all the potential square footage that you could 29 theoretically use on one story because you’ll eat into your yard. The problem here is that there’s no way 30 to go down. So if you put individuals whereas in the last SSO area if somebody wanted to add some 31 space they could theoretically dig down and create some added floor area and increase their, the size of 32 their home, their useable area. And I think that’s important because we may get to a point where it 33 takes two families to afford a single family home in Palo Alto. I’m being slightly sarcastic, but my point is 34 is that 1,150 sf is not a lot of square footage and if for example you want to increase the size of your 35 home the fact that you have to now eat into what could be a very small backyard as well without having 36 the added benefit of potentially going down is I just think that sort of throws a wrench in here. 37 38 So I also want to raise another point, I’m sorry if I’m going a little long here, but I just read an article 39 about the fires in [Beau] and about an individual’s experience getting insurance money. And I guess the 40 insurance company was explaining to the individual that the only way that he could release, they could 41 release funds is if he proposed to build exactly what he had which didn’t quite make sense to me, but I 42 guess they don’t want you just to take the money and leave. But again I don’t know why the insurance 43 company cared, but the article I could hi, I could flag the article for you, but my point was if your home 44 burns down and it’s currently a two-story and it’s legal nonconforming I mean I there’s always a question 45 to me about what, what happens in that instance? 46 47 And I also think that at least from my perspective you’ve got an applicant that came in before this 48 process regardless of whether they get their ministerial approval before this ordinance would take effect 49 if it does take effect they’ve spent sums of money on their design and approval process and I wonder if 50 we can carve out an exception for the home that’s currently in review? Because that process could have 51 already of taken a year to hire their architects, to develop their plan, and then to submit. And so I think 52 we might want to consider what exception or carve out we would make for that individual. Ok. 53 54 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I did have one question for staff myself which is can you go back to the map? And 55 can staff please indicate with the mouse pointer which are the houses that said no? 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 Ms. French: I’m sorry I don’t have that on the map. 2 3 Chair Tanaka: Oh. 4 5 Ms. French: And I it would take me awhile to do that. Maybe the applicant is more familiar with that. 6 7 Chair Tanaka: Does the applicant know which houses said no? Can the applicant please indicate which 8 houses on the map said no? 9 10 Mr. Hammond: Alright starting here: no, no, no, no, and this one is up for sale, and no there. In our 11 circle: there, and there are no. This one is no, correct? And… you remember some of the others on the 12 circle? 13 14 Mr. Lait: So maybe just for the record the commenter did a couple of properties along Greer Road, 15 Amarillo, and a couple of properties within the circles. 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Thank you, I appreciate it. 18 19 Mr. Hammond: Yeah, I can do better. It would take more time, but in our submittal it does show all the 20 yeses, yeah? Right, ok. 21 22 Man: This page on the submittal has the yesses next to the houses that said yes. 23 24 Mr. Hammond: So obviously the other ones are no. It’s my… They probably don’t have that. 25 26 Vice-Chair Fine: Sorry were those if they don’t have a Y is that a no or is that a not answer? A 27 nonresponse? 28 29 Mr. Hammond: Good question. It’s a nonresponse. 30 31 Vice-Chair Fine: Were there any no’s? 32 33 Mr. Hammond: The ones I pointed out. 34 35 Vice-Chair Fine: Were specifically no’s? Ok. So these are no’s and nonresponses if they don’t have a Y. 36 Ok, thank you. 37 38 Mr. Hammond: And many of them are nonresident. 39 40 Commissioner Michael: I had a question. 41 42 Chair Tanaka: Actually Vice-Chair first and then Commissioner Michael. Ok, Commissioner Michael go 43 ahead. 44 45 Commissioner Michael: So I have a question and I’m not sure if the answer is worth coming from staff or 46 from Mr. Hammond and that is for the property owners who did not support the application were there 47 any reasons that they gave for not supporting the application? 48 49 Mr. Hammond: The most common reason was they wanted to keep their options open basically. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Let’s see, Commissioner Gardias. 52 53 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Chair. This is a quick question about the yeses. Do all, do all yeses 54 represent owners of the properties or there are any renters? 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Hammond: Yes, we went to the in some cases like the nonresidents we got mailed yeses, but the 1 answer is yes. But however there’s a slight thing that Amy pointed out in the report that one of the 2 answers was from the daughter of the owners. The owners were overseas and could not be contacted 3 and so in that one case. 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, and we know. We see it’s in the package. So the others were owners? Is 6 this right? 7 8 Mr. Hammond: Yes. Oh, yes. 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, thank you. 11 12 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 13 14 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, can I make a Motion? Or are we still on questions? 15 16 Mr. Lait: We’re in the public hearing. The public hearing is still open so if you want to close the public 17 hearing? 18 19 Chair Tanaka: Ok, let’s close the public hearing. 20 21 MOTION 22 23 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I’d like to make a Motion that we recommend to Council that they approve 24 the application for the SSO with a grandfather for the house that’s already under review. I think that 25 that it feels like they’ve that one would… well, actually I could speak to the Motion after. But I would 26 recommend that they consider the application with a carve out for the one house that is under, that is 27 under review. 28 29 Chair Tanaka: Does anyone want to? Commissioner Gardias. 30 31 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, just with slight modification. Within the, within the submitted height which 32 I believe is 23 which is 3 feet over limit. That would be my understanding of this, of this Motion that 33 they will not go higher than the project that they already submitted. 34 35 Commissioner Rosenblum: I’m speaking specifically of carving out for 1066 Metro with building permit is 36 not yet approved. 37 38 Mr. Lait: So I can probably help provide some guidance on that Chair? So if so we have the Motion, but 39 it’s not been seconded yet and I think the concern from Commissioner Gardias is that you would not 40 want to exempt that project if it resulted in a higher height than what is currently being proposed, the 23 41 feet, and I don’t believe that that would happen because they could only do a one-story home and that 42 finished floor elevation well, the finished floor elevation to the top of the roof couldn’t exceed 17 feet. So 43 I think there’s some embedded restrictions in the code. And isn’t there an overall 23 foot height limit for 44 a one-story? 45 46 Ms. French: In a SSO zone the maximum is 20 feet. So and in this case their finished floor is higher than 47 it has to be to meet the base flood elevation. If they bring it down a foot they’ll still be meeting the base 48 flood elevation, but they haven’t come back with revised plans. So they may end up coming back with 49 revised plans. We don’t have a submittal from them. They haven’t said they want to go higher than 23 50 feet. 51 52 Mr. Lait: So perhaps your concern is valid. 53 54 Commissioner Gardias: So yeah so I mean I can just make a Friendly Amendment that this would be as 55 Commissioner Rosenblum (interrupted) 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Chair Tanaka: Just point of order so first of all we’re going to need to either second it or not second it. 2 And then if you want to second it then you can also then (interrupted) 3 4 SECOND 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: I can second it. 7 8 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Does the maker of the Motion want to speak to the Motion? 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so first I think the applicants have clearly met the standard for the 11 application to go forward. I see no reason not to accept that. I do also feel though that anyone who is 12 working on a building permit that’s a long process at this point in the process to have the rules change 13 feels, feels like an undue burden, unfair, etcetera. I don’t think given they already have six homes in the 14 area that are noncomplying and this home is barely noncomplying does not feel like an undue burden to 15 what this group is trying to achieve. The final piece I’ll say the only kind of compelling interest to 16 respond to some of my colleagues around is this really wise for the future, etcetera. There’s certainly 17 many areas of the City that should support denser housing in the future, but in an area of historic one-18 story Eichlers far from transit centers, etcetera probably is not one of those. So I feel really good about 19 the location, the history, and the amount of public participation. So that’s why I’m making the Motion. 20 21 Chair Tanaka: Ok, Commissioner Alcheck. Oh, sorry. Does the seconder of the Motion want to say 22 anything? 23 24 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 25 26 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just from my side I totally agree with 27 Commissioner Rosenblum and in terms of 1066 they went through the process, they already invested 28 substantial amount of their time/money, and for this reason we need to respect their project, but I just 29 want to make this clear that this would be that their variance would be within the care and submittal 30 that’s on file which is to up to 23 feet. 31 32 Chair Tanaka: Does the maker of the Motion want to accept that Friendly Amendment? 33 34 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 ACCEPTED 35 36 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I accept that. 37 38 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Commissioner Alcheck. 39 40 FRIENLDY AMENDMENT #2 41 42 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok so I am curious if you… would like to know if you’d accept this as a Friendly 43 Amendment. You know we didn’t have anybody come and speak to us last time and we only had one 44 tonight, but I’m curious if you would make the same exception for Lot 2767? In support of that Friendly 45 Amendment I’ll suggest that I’m sympathetic to the notion of buying a home and then spending a few 46 years accumulating enough funds to rebuild that home. And we have a resident here that’s been here 47 three years and has expressed an interest in building a two-story home on a lot that previously she could 48 have built a two-story home on and she’s expressed an interest to continue to do that and her neighbor 49 has a two-story home. So I think there’s some I’m wondering if you would accept a Friendly Amendment 50 that also created an exception for that lot and pulled it out of this? 51 52 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 NOT ACCEPTED 53 54 Commissioner Rosenblum: No, I wouldn’t accept that because I think it’s antithetical to the spirit of what 55 this whole ordinance is about which is uniformity around a community that’s come together with the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 proper threshold. The only exception here is someone who’s already gone through the expense of 1 beginning the process which as we know in Palo Alto is very expensive and long of getting the building 2 permit through. So but I understand. I again, I understand that it’s an issue, but I think there’s a bright 3 line distinction between someone who has already begun that process and has already gone down that 4 road versus someone who might have in the future. 5 6 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think before we take this to the vote I want to just read out kind of like the five or 7 six issues that I’ve heard for us to think about and perhaps deliberate. First one was from Alcheck which 8 was about whether the fact that this is a flood zone this is a downzoning, right? So this is definitely 9 going to dramatically affect the property owners’ rights here. So flood zone does that, is that a 10 consideration? I think both Gardias and Alcheck both talked about the home already submitted, but it 11 sounds like under at least the Motion on the floor it’s to allow that to continue. There’s a larger issue of 12 carve outs for some homes, other homes. So for instance like the one from Rhea and the other people 13 that said no to this application. And then I think Alcheck also talked about two other ones. One is the 14 threshold and insurance. 15 16 And there’s one I was just thinking about too, myself which is I was looking at the map and five of the 17 people that said yes are basically five of the six two-story homes that said yes to this. Oh yeah, five of 18 those six homes said yes to the single story which is really ironic given that they have the two-story. So 19 it’s almost analogous to pulling up the draw bridge after you already have your second story house. And 20 the second thing that I was thinking about as I was looking at this map here and it’s hard to know 21 because it’s hard to know who said yes and who said no here on this map, but the perimeter of this 22 complex looks like they said no in general versus the inner part of it. So I think that’s something that we 23 should consider as well because the perimeter of these, of this tract look like they’re a lot smaller lots 24 than the ones in the center or in the circle. So there’s also a kind of question of fairness here as well and 25 which is maybe one of the reasons why the speaker came out tonight. 26 27 So there are these kind of five or six things listed here. I think before we take a vote I think it’s worth it 28 for us to talk about these issues and if there’s no other discussion on it we don’t have to talk about it. So 29 the first one I have listed here is the flood zone issue that Alcheck brought up, Commissioner Alcheck. I 30 don’t know Commissioner Alcheck if you feel strongly about this, if you think there’s enough to block it? 31 Otherwise we could just skip this topic. It’s up to you. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: My only comment, I can reiterate it, is that you’re eliminating essentially an 34 option. This Motion eliminates an option. You know real estate… when you own a piece of land it’s a 35 bundle of sticks it takes away one stick if you will, but these particular homes are already they’re not just 36 I mean they’re flood zone and they’re below the flood zone level significantly. I don’t blame the 37 individual who is trying to build their house higher than the bare minimum. They are probably assuming 38 that when it floods it’s going to really flood. And so in that respect I hope that the exception that’s made 39 for them accommodates that extra height, but my point is I just think in this particular area we’re making 40 these homes less appealing for new home buyers because there’s very limited options because they can’t 41 build down and now they can’t build up and so I think that’s a strong consideration. 42 43 Chair Tanaka: Does anyone else want to deliberate the topic of flood zone? If so hit your lights. 44 Commissioner Michael. 45 46 Commissioner Michael: So I think at the end of the day the logic laid out by Commissioner Rosenblum is 47 going to be persuasive, but I think that the question for Council from time to time is whether the 48 ordinance itself is in the public interest. And I think what is raised by Commissioner Alcheck although he 49 said that the eliminating option of in this case because it’s a flood zone of being able to build down 50 makes it less appealing I think that there’s going to be some people who discover down the road that not 51 only is it less appealing, but it’s less valuable. So by doing something now for which there’s a lot of 52 genuine enthusiasm and aesthetic approval then 10, 20, 30, sometime in the future there’s going to be a 53 sad moment when you discover that when you pass it on to a new buyer they’re not going to pay you as 54 much. They’ll pay something less, maybe half. Or when it’s passes to your heirs they may have the 55 same, same issue. So this is a situation where I think you have to be careful what you ask for. I think 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 you’re going to get what you asked for, but that’s what you get. And I think for Council is this issue is 1 front and center in the residentialist quality of life discussion in Palo Alto as they look at amendments to 2 the zoning code: is this the kind of ordinance that serves the public interest? 3 4 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 5 6 Vice-Chair Fine: So I just wanted to speak to I think the last issue you had on your list which was the 7 perimeter. I just had a (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Tanaka: Actually before, yeah. Maybe [does this] close on the flood zone. I don’t know if anyone 10 had any other comments on the flood zone? Ok. So the home that already submitted I think we might 11 have consensus here, but I don’t know if anyone disagrees with the Motion on the floor which is that the 12 home in progress should, should not, should not be excluded it should be still restricted even though they 13 spent maybe a lot of money on plans and whatnot hit your lights we can talk about that. Otherwise let’s 14 move on. Ok, let’s move on. 15 16 So this is the bigger issue which is ok, so we made one carve out so far one carve out. The question is 17 should there be other carve outs? Is the dark or the light green line, thick line going around here is this 18 the right, is this the right like right boundary of the as should be others? So Vice-Chair. 19 20 Vice-Chair Fine: Sure, so I’m just going to answer that straight. I think we should try to, we should try to 21 avoid changing these boundaries as proposed particularly when they’re pretty clear cut. This does seem 22 like two tracts. Two provisos there; one I do think we may want to consider when we get further 23 applications like this if there is a building permit I think it maybe is a good practice if the building permit 24 has already been submitted and in progress maybe we exempt it as long as there’s not dozens of them in 25 the area. And then I just did a quick count on those exterior lots so from 2889 to 2701 it’s all along 26 Greer and Amarillo there 16 of 25 houses in that area still supports this which is 64 percent. So it still 27 clears that threshold, just those perimeter ones. I don’t think we should be meddling with the 28 boundaries in this case. 29 30 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah I’ll just I mean look I think the last time we met the support in the 33 community was in the 80’s. Do you remember what it was for the last, the two week, the four weeks 34 ago we met? 35 36 Ms. French: Are you speaking of the Los Arboles? 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah. 39 40 Ms. French: Yeah, they needed 70 percent and they got 80, 80 something percent. 41 42 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I mean I think it was kind of remarkable that not a single person sort of 43 approached us suggesting they didn’t want it and the impression was that maybe those that didn’t 44 support it didn’t care or were nonresponsive for some various reason. I don’t know, 64 percent doesn’t 45 seem like a lot. It seems like I mean I’m talking about the street. Like his reference to Greer. I’m just 46 saying it’s the threshold is there to allow them to make this a discussion topic. It doesn’t entitle the 47 neighborhood to SSO. It entitles them to have a discussion about whether it’s appropriate. And in my 48 mind when there are individuals that come forward and suggest that they’re not interested in this 49 limitation and I guess I feel very sympathetic to Commissioner Michael’s comment about the value loss. I 50 mean if I was in their position I would be wondering if I’m if the dream I had about my purchase was 51 about to change dramatically. So I think you made a very valid point about the size of the lots and again 52 if I, when we vote on this I will consider that as well relevant to this discussion. 53 54 Chair Tanaka: So my comment on this is that I think for the last one, the last SSO was a lot easier 55 because there wasn’t really anyone that really opposed it. In this case there’s one, there’s a person who 56 City of Palo Alto Page 14 came out tonight to talk about it, felt strong enough to actually come and speak. There are if I look at 1 the density of yeses around Metro Circle or Moffett Circle it’s quite high. It’s not unanimous, but pretty 2 close. On the perimeter it’s not unanimous at all. And if you exclude I know the calculation the Vice-3 Chair did, which is I guess 62, 64 percent, if you throw out the last two second stories which in some 4 ways… oh, it’s 56 percent, thank you. If you excluded the two or the existing two stories and counted 5 the yeses that said yes excluding the two stories is 56 percent which is actually below the threshold. 6 7 So I’m leaning more towards having the boundary around the circles versus the perimeter for two 8 reasons. First reason is that there’s less, it’s less clear cut situation where everyone says yes versus the 9 circles. And I think the second thing is that the perimeter lots are a heck of a lot smaller than the center 10 lots. And so there’s a lot less flexibility for them. And that’s not to say that maybe the perimeter 11 shouldn’t also be included. I think perhaps the process can be done just for them or could be they’ve be 12 surveyed more thoroughly to really understand what’s going on here, but that’s what I’m leaning to right 13 now. I’m not sure if anyone else has comments or questions on that. Otherwise we’ll move on to the 14 next topic or the next issue listed. Ok, Commissioner Michael. 15 16 Commissioner Michael: So just as a question for Chair Tanaka. Since you are open to the possibility of 17 approving this with a change in the boundary are you proposing an amendment? 18 19 Chair Tanaka: Well I, I’m thinking about that, but I wanted to hear my colleague’s comments. I can be 20 dissuaded that maybe we should leave it exactly the way it is, but right now as it is I’m concerned that at 21 a 56 percent approval rate for the perimeter versus almost near unanimous approval for the centers, the 22 circles, to me means this is, these are different areas. And the lot sizes are dramatically different. So 23 that’s what’s making me think about that, but I do want to be informed about making this so I wanted to 24 get other people’s opinion. 25 26 Commissioner Michael: So it seemed initially that this was pretty straightforward, but I think 27 Commissioner Alcheck as always is very thoughtful and one of the things he’s moved into was the 28 process whereby getting a certain number of signatures is this the basis of approval or is this the 29 beginning of a discussion? Chair Tanaka has raised the question of given the disparity and relative lot 30 size of the lots fronting on Greer Road versus those within the circle or back up against the canal which 31 got an additional portion when the canal was filled in is this something which the Commission should take 32 into account and maybe considering the application as amended to have a different boundary. And I’m 33 not clear the latitude the Commission has to fine tune our vote, but if Chair Tanaka was to make a 34 Motion [Note-Friendly Amendment] to change the boundary to exclude the lots fronting on Greer Road I 35 would support that Amendment if the maker of the Motion and the seconder would accept it. 36 37 Chair Tanaka: Actually does staff have a comment on that? Is there, do we have the purview to actually 38 adjust a boundary? 39 40 Ms. French: Yes, if you are adjusting to make it larger we would have to re-notice it, but if you’re 41 adjusting to make it smaller we would not have to re-notice it. 42 43 Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. So I think the next person is Commissioner Downing. 44 45 Commissioner Downing: So I think one point that I find kind of salient about this is that it’s 46 overwhelmingly the people on the small lots who don’t want to join and yet one of the main purposes for 47 this application was people were very much concerned about their privacy. And yet the people with the 48 small lots you would think intuitively would have the biggest concern about their privacy because they 49 are closest to their neighbors, and yet those are the people who are saying no we don’t really think that’s 50 a good idea. So I just wanted to point that out as a consideration. And I think I would support where 51 you’re going with this to have a separate conversation for Greer Road. 52 53 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry I didn’t hear. Was this an amendment or 1 no, no? 2 3 Chair Tanaka: Not yet. 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Not yet. Ok. I just so couple of various issues. I mean first I think that we have 6 some procedural aspects here. We have a Motion on the floor, right? It should be taken. That’s my 7 perspective on this, right? In terms of the deliberations around Greer Road I’m just going to say this that 8 you can look at this from different perspectives and yes there is there are a number of yeses, but then 9 are also some no’s and there are some second story houses. When you look at this from the probability 10 perspective you don’t really know what those no represent so you may argue variety of ways and then it 11 just pretty much is stating that those people are yes are no’s which is which truly doesn’t it’s not 12 substantiated with true findings because it’s possible that they are renters and then the owner would 13 vote yes or would vote no, right? So I think that this that this discussion about this that those are no’s 14 it’s not truly reflecting the true state. 15 16 Then there is another side of the story on the other side of the street, of the Greer you have already 17 SSO. So you can look at this from the neighborhood perspective and you can say well yes, but then 18 southern, southwestern side of Greer is already SSO so if you want to just look at this from the street 19 perspective you should just take northern part and southern part and just pretty much put it together 20 and consider as one. That should give you the total perspective on this how the planning perspective 21 would look like. And then in terms of some other items we understand that there are some, some a two 22 stories and then some of the neighbors may want to vote truly no because if they are adjacent to the 23 second, to two-story building and on the other side they have one-story building they may want to 24 consider maybe two-story or maybe one and a half story, something like this. But then for this I think 25 that we have a variance process that would allow us to process applications like this in the future. Thank 26 you. 27 28 Chair Tanaka: Ok, I’m going to respond to that quickly then I’ll call a few other Commissioners who have 29 lights on. So I think that I think the first issue is that I’m a little bit more cautious about this because this 30 is affecting people’s property rights and of course for most people this is the most valuable property. We 31 are downzoning people’s property. People who spent tremendous amount of money on their property 32 and we heard from one speaker who apparently didn’t get the notice until a couple days ago, right? 33 Maybe she got it earlier, but whatever the case might be this could be very dramatic impact for some 34 homeowners. And so it’s not that they [unintelligible] they might be, but I think more diligence is worth 35 it at this point in time. Commissioner Rosenblum. 36 37 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah so I actually found the last few comments pretty persuasive. I think that 38 I would withdraw my Motion, but specifically I do think Council should consider separating this. it does 39 seem clear that they’re two cohorts, one that is on smaller lots in the periphery, one that are on larger 40 lots in the interior and that they seem to vote differently with respect to this, this [order] and so I’m glad 41 you asked that question. I’m glad for the clarification. And I agree it’s a pretty destructive, I mean it’s a 42 pretty dramatic thing that is being imposed upon people who object and so the burden of proof is very 43 high. 44 45 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 46 47 Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to as quickly as possible state that I would support a Friendly 48 Amendment to reduce the size of the area as you described or a Substitute, a Substitute Motion that did 49 that. 50 51 Chair Tanaka: Vice-Chair. 52 53 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Vice-Chair Fine: So I’ve also been somewhat persuaded and I’m just looking at the table here of the lot 1 sizes and it’s pretty clear those in the exterior are in the lower quintile versus those in the interior of the 2 circles. So if it’s ok by my fellow Commissioners I’m going to make a Substitute Motion that we 3 recommend to Council the adoption of this ordinance with an exception for the one parcel that sorry, 4 what was the… 1066 Metro within the current submittal height, but that the boundary for this SSO be 5 adjusted to exclude those properties along Amarillo and Greer. 6 7 Chair Tanaka: Does anyone want to second the Motion? Commissioner Michael. 8 9 SECOND 10 11 Commissioner Michael: I’ll second the Motion. 12 13 Chair Tanaka: Does the maker of the Motion want to say anything? 14 15 Vice-Chair Fine: No. No, not now. 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Seconder? 18 19 Commissioner Michael: So I think the Substitute Motion is a legitimate attempt to avoid unintended 20 adverse consequence on the holders of the smaller lots while allowing the residents who support the 21 application who have the larger lots on the interior to obtain a SSO and that’s the reason why I would 22 support the Motion. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so is there any other deliberations that the Commission wish to have? If so hit your 25 lights and we can talk about those issues otherwise we‘ll move this to a vote. Ok. Oh, Commissioner 26 Gardias. 27 28 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I think that there is a there is more than this because right now let’s 29 assume that we pass the Motion in this way, but now there is a question that will remain. If those, if 30 those owners along Greer or Amarillo Avenue would like to still sustain and I see that this is probably this 31 neighborhood, would like to sustain or pretty much would like to resubmit their proposal in a different 32 form we make it very hard for them because we had this understanding that we have, we have a 33 boundary of a neighborhood that becomes SSO. If we going to left out those folks we need to give 34 them, if we’re going to leave them out we going to, we need to give them some, some direction, some 35 guidance for the future because otherwise they will be stuck between the rock and the hard place, will 36 have no place to go because they will be between SSO and other SSO with no neighborhood boundary. 37 So from their perspective they will not, they may not have a case to resolve it in the legislative way and 38 that may create a problem for them. 39 40 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 41 42 Commissioner Alcheck: Well actually I think first of all any of those homes could continue to maintain 43 their one-story home and if they decide to rebuild they could build a one-story home. But if they decided 44 to build a two-story home this is just a clarification I guess from Planning, but if they decided to build a 45 two-story home they’d have to go through individual review (IR). And so if they built a two-story home 46 I’ll give you an example, if 2767 decided to build a two-story home and she was went through the IR 47 process they would have to help navigate the design in such a way that it didn’t overwhelm 2755 which is 48 single story and yet still relate to 2779, right? Do I have that right? That there would be an IR process 49 that would help these, these any future two-story homes in this on Greer relate to their neighbors. 50 51 Ms. French: Stylistically no, but as far as streetscape, privacy there are those provisions in the IR. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m sorry. Did you say stylistically? 54 55 Ms. French: Yeah. We don’t… 56 City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 Commissioner Alcheck: … but there’s this limitation doesn’t (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. French: The IR program is about privacy, mass, streetscape. 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: Right, but this SSO isn’t stylistic either. 6 7 Ms. French: Correct. 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: So the point I’m trying to make is, is that for any two-story home that would ever 10 take place on Greer or on the other street they would have to go through a process that meant that 11 privacy, mass, scale had to be relatable to their neighbors. And so I think to some extent for example if 12 2767 built a two-story home and 1012 had issues with the windows on the second floor overlooking their 13 backyard that would be something that they could discuss in an IR process and theoretically would be 14 addressed because that process is supposed to negotiate those sort of issues, right? 15 16 Ms. French: Yes, compatibility is questionable as far as the IR program. I would just say that there is a 17 tipping point if I can weigh in on those 25 homes on the perimeter if, if three more, if three or four more 18 homes were to go two-story then that would kill the eligibility for single story for that perimeter because 19 you have to have at least 80 percent single story. So I’m saying if it they didn’t go forward now with the 20 single story and they come back four years, five years from now and there’s been 3 more homes, 3 or 4 21 more homes then they don’t meet the eligibility. 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: No, I was just more addressing his concern that these homes will never relate to 24 anything, but if they ever went two-story they would still have to go through a process that required 25 them to consider the privacy needs of their neighbors, the massing of their neighbors, and relate 26 somehow. Stylistically it’s irrelevant because no home has to be stylistically relatable, but that doesn’t 27 matter for single story or two-story. 28 29 Commissioner Gardias: Right and I’m totally aware about this, right? This is the process as we know. So 30 that’s nothing new about this. and also there is a process for creating a variance so if we have a, if we 31 have some planning regulation or restriction an owner may argue that others enjoy benefits that he 32 doesn’t under current law and for this reason my apply for a variance. It’s a known architectural process. 33 34 Chair Tanaka: So Commissioner Gardias let’s I think let me call on the Vice-Chair first then I’ll call you on 35 your light if that’s ok. So Vice-Chair go ahead. 36 37 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Quick question to staff. Is there a minimum number of 38 homes to submit one of these applications? 39 40 Ms. French: No, just a minimum number or percentage of one stories. 41 42 Vice-Chair Fine: So you would need 80 percent not (interrupted) 43 44 Ms. French: 80 percent one-story. 45 46 Vice-Chair Fine: So I mean does that mean like five homes and four of them? Could you do a block face 47 for example? 48 49 Mr. Lait: I think what we’re when you consider an application such as this you want to see that the 50 boundary makes sense and so there that if somebody were proposing a few homes just randomly we 51 would probably say that doesn’t quite make sense, why would we do this? But this seems to follow a 52 pattern. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Vice-Chair Fine: Right, I totally agree. I’m just saying from my perspective if [we’re consider] a cohesive 1 logical boundary the block face along Amarillo for example would seem reasonable to me if it came 2 forward in a future application. 3 4 Mr. Lait: Yeah. I think that if the Commission’s Motion if adopted and supported by Council went forward 5 yeah, I mean we’ve got adjacent overlay zones. I would agree I think that that would make a reasonable 6 for a future application. 7 8 Vice-Chair Fine: For another application. Ok, yeah. 9 10 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Gardias. 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: So thank you. So I just wanted to clarify so Amarillo would be eligible for the 13 future application. Is this right? As a separate those houses along on side? 14 15 Mr. Lait: Yeah, I mean I think, I think you’ve got, yeah, I mean I don’t see anything based on what we 16 have here today that I think would preclude that. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Ok and so the same would be for Greer? 19 20 Mr. Lait: Greer, yes. 21 22 Commissioner Gardias: If it happens that we exclude Greer. 23 24 Mr. Lait: Well yeah, I mean especially for Greer because you’ve got the existing overlay across the street. 25 26 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. And they would have to have 60 percent margin. 27 28 Mr. Lait: Correct. 29 30 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, but they have 60 percent margin today? 31 32 Ms. French: Somebody did a calculation at 64 percent. That was… 33 34 Commissioner Gardias: I just don’t understand mathematical logic because we just (interrupted) 35 36 Ms. French: Yeah, it’s in the application. 37 38 Commissioner Gardias: and I understand that we would like to have a larger support. Just I will ask you 39 sir to speak about it sir, just let me finish this. The reason is that [would] like to mathematically resolve 40 it because if we are asking them, the community to support to provide 60 percent over 60 percent 41 support and but we don’t approve their application under current same, same result then if they come 42 back to us if they show the same letters why we would treat it differently than we do today? It just 43 logically doesn’t (interrupted) 44 45 Mr. Lait: Well, right. I think that’s a good question probably back to the, to the Commission. If you’re 46 contemplating that it would make sense to do in the future along Amarillo and around Greer if you want 47 to leave that opportunity open and you would consider that a viable option in the future why wouldn’t 48 you consider it today with the proposal where you have on that list all those Y’s that indicate that they’re 49 in support of the overlay? 50 51 Commissioner Gardias: Yes. 52 53 Mr. Lait: So I think as a Commission that’s a dialogue for the Commission as opposed for staff. 54 55 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, yes. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Alcheck. 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I’m confused. I thought that the you had mentioned earlier that 4 percentage could be lower if they had it in their CC&R’s? 5 6 Ms. French: 60 percent is what the minimum is needed to get the application going and before the 7 Planning Commission. 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: If your CC&R’s are effectively limiting it already? 10 11 Ms. French: Correct. 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I mean I guess to some extent I think, I think it’s worth noting that I don’t 14 think these CC&R’s are actually effectively limiting it. I don’t know if we can actually if we don’t have any 15 hard facts, but the point is there are already some two-story homes in there. So the CC&R’s have not 16 effectively limited the two-story. And I’m sure the CC&R’s have some requirements regarding what 17 makes them effective and so if they don’t for example have a board that reviews projects or something 18 like that, right, then I guess my response to you is the threshold is if the community can demonstrate 19 that sort of consensus then we can have a discussion about it. If they don’t, they can’t have that 20 consensus then they don’t carve out Planning Commission time to have this discussion. 21 22 I don’t, my understanding of this is not that if the community demonstrates 60 something percent 23 approval for SSO then by right our process is to grant them that SSO. And so I would sort of throw it 24 back to you and suggest 60 percent is not that much. And even 70 percent may not be significant 25 because this has such a dramatic effect on the options. And so I think to some extent unless there’s new 26 information I would be interested to know how this will vote because I think it’s not to suggest that we’re 27 not giving them the chance. We gave them a rubric and they met it and now we’re not honoring it. 28 That’s not accurate. There’s a rubric for what constitutes the opportunity to have this discussion. They 29 met that rubric, we’re having the discussion, we’ve heard from some individuals who are not interested in 30 it. I’m actually surprised that the applicant who has a permit in or an application and permit process 31 didn’t show up either. I consistently feel like for some reason we’re not getting the input from the 32 community that we should be, but I just I have a hard time accepting the premise that we’re not treating 33 this the way we should be because I think we are. 34 35 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so (interrupted) 36 37 Commissioner Gardias: May I respond to this? 38 39 Chair Tanaka: One second. So Commissioner Gardias I see that you have your light on and I do want to 40 give you a chance to speak. So do you have anything new you want to talk about or? 41 42 Commissioner Gardias: Yes. Yes, I think this is from the perspective of the community because if there is 43 a if we provide them with a guidance the guidance is in writing that’s a regulation and then they are 44 spend, they invest their time and then we send them home back packing that doesn’t look right from the 45 perspective of the citizens. So if there is a way of legal interpretation if we write the law and if the law is 46 not clear then pretty much we bear the burden of accepting other parties rights and I think that here the 47 citizens of this community they met the threshold they exceeded this and by just limiting their 48 expectation we are making process unclear. Thank you. 49 50 Chair Tanaka: Ok, so I think we’re going to bring this to a vote and the reason why is I think that I think 51 we’ve all said what we could say on it. I think for me this is the more cautious route in terms of because 52 down zoning someone’s property is dramatic and so the standard to do that should be really high. And I 53 think Metro and Moffett Circles have met that. I don’t believe the perimeter has, but it could later on. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 20 So with that said I would like to take this to a vote. So everyone in favor of the Motion on the floor 1 (interrupted) 2 3 VOTE 4 5 Chair Tanaka: So members of the public you can only speak when you’re called on. So I’d like to take a 6 vote from the Commission to vote on the Motion on the floor which is what the Vice-Chair proposed and 7 seconded by Commissioner Michael. So everyone in favor please raise your hand. Everyone not in favor 8 raise your hand. Those abstaining raise your hand. Ok. So we have six in favor one abstaining. So this 9 item is closed. So it’s now 7:30. Let’s take a 10 minute break and come back at 7:40. Thank you. 10 11 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Commissioner Gardias abstained) 12 13 Commission Action: Motion recommending staff approval, with a change to the boundary to exclude properties 14 along Amarillo and Greer, and to grandfather 1066 Metro within its current submittal height. Motion passed 6-0-1 15 with Commissioner Gardias abstaining 16 E m b a r c a d e r o El C a min o R eal University Oregon Page Mill Alma 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) Proposed Single Story Combining District (Royal Manor Tract # 1556 Tract (Torraya Ct.) Adjacent to Proposed Single Story Combining District 0'2500' Existing and ProposedSingle Story Combining 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, 2015-11-03 17:33:16SingleStoryOverlayExisting ProposedSSO (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT G From: AV <avainshtein@gmail.com<mailto:avainshtein@gmail.com>> Date: November 17, 2015 at 6:12:29 PM PST To: <amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org<mailto:amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org>> Subject: Proposed Greer Park Single Story Overlay Rezoning Dear Amy French, I am contacting you because of the public meeting and a pending decision by the city to re-zone the Greer Park neighborhood as a single story overlay. I was opposed to the original SSO petition initiated by David J Hammond, and I know of several residents in the area who believe that rezoning is unnecessary and restrictive, and will have negative effect on their lives. It is a concern of many people that rezoning will unfairly and dis-proportionally depress the real estate value of our aging houses especially those properties that are sitting on the smaller lots. However I am not writing this email on behalf of this group. I have recently reviewed the online documents and the voting records, which are posted on the Palo Alto city website. I've come to two conclusions. First, I want to bring to your attention that the original petition and a voting cannot be considered valid because they were conducted under the premise that all Greer Park North will become a unified single story area. The SSO border has been recently redrafted by the Transportation Commission who recommended to exclude Amarillo and Greer facing houses. This makes a huge difference. For example, my house property line faces two neighbors on the Metro Circle and three neighbors on the back who live on Amarillo Ave. Similar situation exists for many other residents of the Metro and Moffett Circles. Rightly or wrongly but residents of two circles voted on the original petition to have all their neighbors to share the same house height restrictions. The same people would have voted differently if they knew that their back side neighbor can one day build a two-story house. The second problem is a bias in voting. The SSO petition states that 74% of the owners on my street voted in favor of rezoning. However the only reason the percentage is greater than 70% is because of three owners of two-story houses who voted to prohibit everybody else from having the same option. Looking at the numbers, there are 23 houses on Metro Circle. Seventeen (17) households voted yes on the SSO petition, of which three (3) votes came from the owners of 2-story houses. One of these 2-story residents even became a member of a so- ATTACHMENT H called core group who submitted the SSO petition to the city. The owners of the two-story houses will not be negatively affected by the SSO rezoning decision. Their house values will likely benefit from a perpetual right to rebuild their two-story houses in a single story neighborhood. If the City of Palo Alto is acting in the spirit of fairness and equality to all its residents, it must not allow a situation where a handful of two-story house owners become a deciding factor in the SSO rezoning decisions. I am not asking the city to ignore the votes of two-story house owners in all matters but in this particular borderline case their biased position need to be taken into account. Without the two-story house votes, the percentage in favor of SSO would have fallen to 61%, far from overwhelming support. In conclusion, I am asking the city of Palo Alto to reject the SSO petition in its current form and to review its statutes and SSO eligibility criteria and to develop a fair mechanism correcting for the bias. Decisions like these have a profound effect on people’s lives and property values and must not be made hastily. Please contact me at 650-279-8541<tel:650-279-8541> if you need additional information. Please forward this email to the members of the Planning commission. Regards, Andrew Vainshtein 1082 Metro Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303