Enforcement of Contractor's express warranties and guarantees to re pair contained in the Contract Documents shall be in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies City may have under the Contract Documents or at law or in equity for Defective Work. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to establish a period of limitation with respect to other obligations of Contractor under the Contract Documents, which may be longer specified periods. Establishment of the Guarantee To Repair Period relates only to the specific obligation of Contractor to correct the Work and in no way limits either Contractor's liability for Defective Work or the time within which proceedings may be commenced to enforce Contractor's obligations under the Contract Documents.
12.3 ACCEPTANCE OF DEFECTIVE WORK
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.2 of these General Conditions, City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and by notice to Contractor, to accept Defective Work instead of requiring its removal or correction, in which case the Contract Sum shall be reduced by an amount equal to the difference between the value to City the Work would have had were it complete, correct and in conformity with the Contract Documents and the value to City of such Defective Work. Such option shall be exercised solely by notice to Contractor and shall not be implied from any act or omission by City or Construction Manager. If there are no remaining payments of the Contract Sum to be made to Contractor, or if the remaining payments and retention are insufficien t to cover the amount of the reduction of the Contract Sum, Contractor shall promptly pay to City the amount of any such deficiency.
ARTICLE 13 – STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
13.1 STATE LABOR LAW
Contractor, its agents, and employees shall be bound by and comply with all applicable provisions of the Labor Code and such federal, state and local laws which affect the conduct of the Work. If prevailing wages are required for this Project, copies of t he prevailing rate of per diem wages may be obtained at the Department of Industrial Relations’ website: http://www.dir.ca.gov/
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
97 Packet Pg. 299 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 93 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 5 – GENERAL CONDITIONS
13.2 WORK DAY
Eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. Contractor shall not permit any worker to labor more than eight (8) hours during any one (1) Day or more than forty (40) hours during any one (1) calendar week, unless overtime is paid pursuant to Labor Code Section 18 15 or except as otherwise permitted by law.
Contractor shall forfeit to City, as a penalty, twenty -five dollars ($25.00) for each worker employed in the execution of this Construction Contract by Contractor, or any Subcontractor, for each Day during which such worker is required or permitted to Work more than eight (8) hours in any one (1) Day and forty (40) hours in any one (1) calendar week in violation of the terms of this Paragraph or in violation of the provisions of any law of the St ate of California, including but not limited to Labor Code Sections 1810 through 1815 .
Such forfeiture amounts may be deducted from the Contract Sum. Contractor and each Subcontractor shall keep, or cause to be kept, an accurate record showing the actual hours worked each Day and each calendar week by each worker employed on the Project, which record shall be kept open at all reasonable hours to the inspection of City, its officers and agents, and to the inspection of the appropriate enforcement agency or representative and the State of California.
ARTICLE 14- JOB SITE NOTICES AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING
14.1 LABOR PROVISIONS
As required by California Labor Code section 1771.4(a)(1) and (a)(2), the City provides notice to all contractors and subcontractors that the Project that is the subject of this IFB and the Construction Contract, is a public works project, the contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation, and the contractor is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
98 Packet Pg. 300 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 94 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 6 – FIELD ORDER, CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, CHANGE ORDER
FIELD ORDER
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DEPARTMENT OF
_____________________________ Project
This Field Order, issued pursuant to Article 7 of the Contract General Conditions directs and authorizes Contractor to procee d with the Work described below. Upon receipt of this Field Order, Contractor shall execute the Field Order to acknowledge receipt and, within a reasonable time, proceed with the Work described in the Field Order. Contractor’s acknowledgment of the Field Order will not operate to impair its rights to dispute the Field Order as specified in the General Conditions. Unless otherwise stated below, this Field Order shall not be construed as an acknowledgment by City that the Work described constitutes a Change or Extra Work. If Contractor disputes the proposed basis or amount of adjustment to the Contract Sum or Contract Time, it may request to change the disputed portions of this Field Order by submitting a Change Order Request within ten (10) Days following issuance of this Field Order. Failure by Contractor to submit a timely Change Order Request seeking modification of the terms of this Field Order shall be deemed full acceptance of and agreement to all of the terms herein, and a release and waiver of any right to subsequently dispute any or all of the terms of this Field Order.
Project Number: Field Order Number: XXX
Contract Number: Issuance Date: __/__/____
Contractor's Name: Prepared by:
Description of Work:
Title: __________ Ref:
1. City has determined that the above Work:
___ is Extra Work
___ is not Extra Work
City has determined that Contractor is:
__not entitled to an extension of time
__ entitled to an extension of ___ days
Basis of Extra Work Cost:
Unit Cost*
Lump Sum: $_______________
Time and Materials*
Other*
*The Contract Sum will be [increased][decreased] by an amount not to exceed: $____________________________
1. Consultant shall sign prior to Contractor and return to City. Indicate N/A if not applicable.
Consultant Approval:
Title: Senior Project Manager
Date:
2. Project Manager signature required for Field Orders.
City Approval:
Title: Project Manager
3. Division Manager signature required for Field Orders exceeding $5,000. Indicate N/A if not applicable.
City Approval:________________________
Title: Engineering Manager of Department/Division
Date: ________________________________
Date:________________________________
4. Division Head signature required for Field Orders exceeding $15,000.
City Approval:
Title: Assistant Director of Department/Division
5. Department Head signature required for Field Orders exceeding $25,000.
City Approval
Title: Director of Department
Date:________________________________
Date:_______________________________
6. Contractor acknowledges receipt of FO.
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
99 Packet Pg. 301 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 95 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 6 – FIELD ORDER, CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, CHANGE ORDER
Contractor Signature:
Title: Project Manager
Date:
Distribution: [] Contractor [] Division Head [] File
[] Consultant [] Project Manager
[] Inspector
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
100
Packet Pg. 302 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 96 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 6 – FIELD ORDER, CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER REQUEST
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DEPARTMENT OF
________________Project
Contract Change Order Request
Project Title: Project No.:
Contract Number: Date:
Contractor: Change Order Request No.:
Description of Change Order Request (Attach additional sheets as needed) Reason for Change Order Request:
Description of Work to be Performed:
Requested Change to Contract Sum:
❑ No cost change: N/A
❑ Increase cost by $ __________
❑ Decrease cost by $ __________
Request for Extension of Contract Time (check
one):
❑ No Change to Contract Time
❑ Time Extension Requested for ____ days*
o ___ days Excusable Delay
o ___ days Compensable Delay
❑ Decrease time by ____ days
* Include all information and documentation required by Section
8.5 of the Contract General Conditions.
Basis for requested change in cost:
❑ Unit pricing
❑ Lump sum: $_____________________________
❑ Time and Materials not to exceed: * $_________
❑ Compensable Delay Costs: $________________
❑ Other:__________________________________
* Final value shall not exceed amount shown without additional written CO authorization. Complete Time and Materials Breakdown on following page.
Reference Documents:*
RFI:
ASI:
Field Order:
Specifications:
Plans:
Other: (specify):
* Provide specific number/section/sheet references as
applicable
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
101
Packet Pg. 303 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 97 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 6 – FIELD ORDER, CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, CHANGE ORDER Contract Change Order Request – continued
Line
Time and Materials Breakdown
(Reference General Conditions, e.g. Sections 1 and 7.2, for Allowable Costs and markup)
Added Credit
All lines shall be filled in (zero values acceptable)
CONTRACTOR’S WORK
1. Material (attach itemized quantity and unit cost)
2. Labor (attached itemized hours and rates)
3. Equipment (attach invoices)
4. Royalties and Permits
5. Additional insurance and bond costs, not to exceed two percent (2%) of lines 1-4
6. Subtotal (sum of lines 1 through 5)
7. Contractor Markup (Section 1.1.31 of the General Conditions) by Contractor on Extra Work performed by Contactor’s forces, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of line 6
8. Subtotal for Contractor’s Work (sum of lines 6 and 7) SUBCONTRACTED WORK (Provide separate breakdown for each subcontract)1
9. Material (attach itemized quantity and unit cost)
10. Labor (attach itemized hours and rates)
11. Equipment (attach invoices)
12. Royalties and Permits
13. Additional insurance and bond costs, not to exceed two percent (2%) of lines 9-12
14. Subtotal (sum of lines 9 through 13)
15. Contractor Markup (Section 1.1.31 of the General Conditions) by Subcontractor on Extra Work performed by Subcontractor’s forces, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of line 14
16. Subcontractor Markup (Section 1.1.65 of General Conditions) by Contractor on Subcontractor’s Allowable Costs, not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of line 14
17. Subtotal for Subcontracted Work (sum of lines 14, 15 and 16)
18. TOTAL (sum of lines 8 and 17)
1 Attach additional copies of this page as required to summarize additional subcontracts.
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
102
Packet Pg. 304 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 98 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 6 – FIELD ORDER, CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, CHANGE ORDER Contract Change Order Request – continued
CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION: By signing below, the undersigned Contractor certifies under penalty of perjury that its statements and representations in this Change Order Request are true and correct.
Contractor warrants that this Change Order Request is comprehensive and complete w ith respect to the Change in the Work described herein, and agrees that any costs, expenses, or time extension request, including, but not limited to, compensation for delay, lost productivity, inefficiency, or disruption, which is not included with this Change Order Request, shall be deemed waived. Contractor understands that submission of claims which have no basis in fact or which Contractor knows to be false may violate the False Claims Act, as set forth in Government Code Sections 12650 et seq.
Submitted by Contractor:
Signature:
By:
Title:
Date:
Construction Manager Recommendation
By:
Title:
Date:
Recommendation:
City Approval – Division Head – Signature required on all Change Order Requests By:
Title:
Date:
Design Consultant Recommendation
By:
Title:
Date:
Recommendation:
City Approval – Department Head – Signature required when any individual Change Order Request exceeds $10,000.
By:
Title:
Date:
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
103
Packet Pg. 305 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 99 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 6 – FIELD ORDER, CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, CHANGE ORDER
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CITY OF PALO ALTO
DEPARTMENT OF
_____________________________ Project
Contract Change Order #
Project Title: Project No.:
Contract Number: Date:
Contractor: Change Order No.:
Description of Change Order
Background Information:
Change Order Justification:
Description of Work to be Performed:
Incorporates Field Order Number(s):
Cost Time
This Change Order will:
❑ No cost change: N/A
❑ Increase cost by $ 0.00
❑ Decrease cost by $ N/A
This Change Order will:
❑ Not change time
❑ Increase time by ____ days
o ___ days Excusable Delay
o ___ days Compensable Delay
❑ Decrease time by ____ days
The date of completion as of this Change Order is:
______________________________________________
G/L account number (s):
Basis for change in cost:
❑ Unit price(s)
❑ Lump sum
Time and Materials
❑ Compensation for Compensable Delay
❑ Other:
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
104
Packet Pg. 306 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 100 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 6 – FIELD ORDER, CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, CHANGE ORDER
Contract Change Order – continued
CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION: By signing below, Contractor agrees that this Change Order constitutes full resolution, settlement, accord and satisfaction with respect to any and all pending or future Claims for cost and extensions of time that were asserted, or that could have been asserted, in connection with the Work covered by this Change Order, as more fully set forth in Article 7 of the Contract General Conditions.
FAILURE TO EXECUTE: If Contractor fails to execute this Change Order within ten (10) days after it has been submitted for Contractor’s signature or refuses, in writing, to execute the Change Order , the City may unilaterally approve this Change Order as set forth in Article 7 of the Contract General Conditions. Contractor may dispute the terms of a unilaterally -approved Change Order, in whole or in part, by submitting a Claim in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth herein within fourt een (14) days after the Change Order is approved by the City. If Contractor fails to submit a Claim within that 14-day period, with respect to all or part of the unilaterally-approved Change Order, those portions of the Change Order which have not been disputed by timely submission of a Claim shall be deemed to have the same effect as if the Change Order was fully executed by both parties as set forth above.
Accepted for Contractor: Accepted for City of Palo Alto:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
PCO No.
ASI
FO
COR
CO
Description Amount Reason for Change
Total for this Change Order $ 0.00
Scope of Work
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
105
Packet Pg. 307 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 101 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 6 – FIELD ORDER, CHANGE ORDER REQUEST, CHANGE ORDER
Document Preparation
By:
Title:
Date:
City Approval – Division Head
Signature required on all Change Orders
By :
Title :
Date:
City Approval – Department Head
Signature required when any individual Change Order exceeds $10,000.
By:
Title:
Date:
Contract Change Order – continued
Summary of Amounts Payable Under Contract (For Internal Purposes Only) Original Contract Sum: $ 0.00
Previous Change Orders $ 0.00
This Change Order $ 0.00
Revised Contract Sum: $ 0.00
Compare to:
Original Contract
Authorization: $ 0.00 Contingency: 0.00
Contract Amendment
Authorizations $ 0.00 Contingency added: 0.00
Contingency Authorizations: $ 0.00 Used to date (0.00) Total Authorized Funding: $ 0.00 Balance remaining 0.00 Change Orders shall not be initiated for Council-approved contracts if the revised Contract Sum exceeds the total authorized funding amount.
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
106
Packet Pg. 308 of 613
Invitation for Bids (IFB) Package 102 Rev. June 24, 2025 PART 7 – SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
C26196846
El Camino Turf Replacement Project
These Special Provisions apply to this Project in addition to the General Conditions as indicated below. Terms used in these Special Provisions which are defined in the General Conditions have the meanings assigned to them in the General Conditions.
SECTION 1: See Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C
Exhibit A:
Co-Op Pricing
Exhibit B:
Project Drawings
Project Specifications/Technical Specifications
Product Technical Specifications
Exhibit C:
Payment and Performance Bonds
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SCHEDULE
Contractor shall provide biweekly look-ahead schedules that are tied to the Construction Schedule for review by the Construction Manager.
SECTION 3 – STAGING AREA
Contractor shall protect all existing site amenities within the staging area and the project site footprint.
Contract shall also keep all equipment within the staging area or within the construction zone.
END OF SECTION
Item 5
Attachment A - C26196846 -
FieldTurf USA - El Camino
Park Turf Replacement -
FINAL
Item 5: Staff Report
Pg.
107
Packet Pg. 309 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2601-5871
TITLE
Approval of General Services Contract No. C26194173 with Duke’s Root Control for a Total Not- to-Exceed Amount of $279,098 and a Three-Year Term and for Root Foaming Treatment Services; and Finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15301, Maintenance of Existing Facilities
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Contract No. C26194173 (Attachment A), with Duke’s Root Control, to provide root treatment services for wastewater facilities for a term of 3 years and a total amount not-to-exceed $279,098.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Department is responsible for the maintenance, repair, replacement, and construction of the City’s wastewater collection system, which consists of approximately 216 miles of wastewater mainlines and 18,000 laterals. This contract provides services to control root intrusion in predesignated areas of the City’s wastewater collection system where mechanical rodding is not feasible due to rough terrain or limited accessibility.
The vendor applies a chemical root control agent specifically designed to eliminate existing root growth within the lines and inhibit future regrowth and sewer line intrusion, without permanently damaging the vegetation producing the roots or disrupting wastewater treatment processes.
The City previously awarded a contract to Duke’s Root Control on April 28, 2022, for root treatment services. The contract term was three years with a not-to-exceed amount of $210,000. Staff is requesting Council approval of a new contract to continue these services. The increased contract amount for this period is due to rising costs and the inclusion of additional wastewater segments beyond those previously treated. These additional locations have been Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 310 of 613
identified as requiring treatment because they are difficult to access and cannot be serviced using the City’s flushing trucks.
ANALYSIS
Solicitation Process
The 2025 solicitation was issued as a Request for Quotation (RFQ) 194173. This RFQ was for the treatment of 163 wastewater main segments. The City of Palo Alto received only one bid, from Duke’s Root Control, totaling $301,072 for a three-year term.
Table 1: Summary of Request for Quotation
Proposal Description Sewer Main Root Foaming Project for a 3 year Period
Proposed Length of Project 3 years
Number of Vendors Notified 3529
Number of Proposal Packages Downloaded 18
Total Days to Respond to Proposal 27
Pre-Proposal Meeting No
Pre-Proposal Meeting Date NA
Number of Proposals Received 1
Proposal Price Range $301,072
Public Link to Solicitation https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/pa lo-alto-ca/projects/173844
During further review of the original project scope—root treatment for 163 wastewater main segments—the City identified an additional 13 segments that would benefit from root treatment based on ongoing maintenance efforts. This increased the total number of segments to 176. In subsequent discussions, Duke’s Root Control informed the City that it is part of a cooperative agreement through HGACBuy, a nationwide government procurement service that streamlines public purchasing. The City is a member of HGACBuy. Through HGACBuy, Duke’s Root Control was able to offer more competitive pricing, resulting in a revised total cost of $279,098, which includes the additional segments. The City has decided to proceed with awarding the contract through the COOP agreement rather than through the formal RFQ solicitation process. This approach allows the City to take advantage of pre-negotiated and competitively established pricing. Table 2 below reflects the pricing for all three years of the contract term.
Prior to making this determination, the City conducted due diligence on Duke’s Root Control, including a review of qualifications, past performance, and overall reliability. Based on this evaluation, as well as the City’s direct experience working with the company under a previous Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 311 of 613
contract, the City has determined that the bidder is responsible and capable of successfully fulfilling the requirements of the contract.
Table 2: Cost Breakdown of Proposed Work per Year (Year 1 to 3*) Item Description Quantity Price Total
4.9, 5.4, 6” Pipe Sewer Root Control 18,364 ft $2.02 $37,095.28 8” Pipe Sewer Root Control 8,035 ft $2.02 $16,230.70
10” Pipe Sewer Root Control 2,737 ft $2.43 $6,650.91
12” Pipe Sewer Root Control 2,777 ft $2.43 $6,748.11
15” Pipe Sewer Root Control 4,839 ft $4.61 $22,307.79
Traffic Control 1 $4,000 $4,000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT $93,032.79
*Quote reflects no cost increases over the three years of the contract term. Above price is annual cost.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the first year of the contract is available in the FY 2026 Utilities Operating Budgets.
Funding for subsequent years is contingent upon annual appropriation and approval of funds.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder engagement consisted of the request for quotation and bidding process described above. A pre-bid meeting was not conducted because of the limited number of vendors qualified to provide these services. Bidders were also invited to submit any questions to the OpenGov portal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because the application of a root control agent in existing sewer main lines constitutes routine maintenance of an existing public utility infrastructure and involves no expansion of existing use.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: General Services Contract C26194173 with Duke's Root Control for Root Foaming Treatment Services
APPROVED BY:
Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities
Staff: Amanda Tse, Utilities Project Coordinator
Item 6
Item 6 Staff Report
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 312 of 613
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C26194173
GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 6th day of April, 2026, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered m unicipal corporation (“ CITY”), and DUKE’S ROOT CONTROL INC ., a New York corporation, located at 1020 Hiawatha Blvd W., Syracuse, NY 13204, Telephone Number: (315) 472 -4781, DIR number 1000003539 (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services ( the “Services”) described in the Scope of Services, attached at Exhibit A.
2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement:
“A” - Scope of Services
“B” - Schedule of Performance
“C” – Schedule of Fees
“D” - Insurance Requirements
“E” – Payment and Performance Bonds
CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL INDICATED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED.
3 . TERM.
The term of this Agreement is from full execution to April 5, 2029, subject to the provisions of Sections R and W of the General Terms and Conditions.
4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached at Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any:
The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR
The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 313 of 613
maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed the total maximum compensation amount of Two Hundred Seventy Ninety Thousand Ninety Eight dollars and Thirty Seven cents ($279,098.37).
CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of c ompensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY.
CITY has set aside the sum of dollars ($ ) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee.
CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS.
CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR
CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco -Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 314 of 613
during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement.
7. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS”. For purposes of this Section 7, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. Public Contract Code Section 9204 mandates certain claims procedures for Public Works Projects, which are set forth in “Appendix __ Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”.
This project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with the claims procedures set forth in Appendix __, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
OR
This project is not a 9204 Public Works Project.
8. INVOICING. Send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is : Venessa Fujii, Dept.: Utilities Department, Email:
[email protected], Telephone: (650)496 -6994. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CI TY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 8 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits.
B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications.
CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 315 of 613
business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations.
C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement.
D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors.
E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business.
F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders.
G. PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at leas t two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONTRACTOR shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONTRACTOR shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060.
H. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance o f the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 316 of 613
I. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warrantie s set forth in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement.
J. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement.
K. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager.
L. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agre ement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement.
M. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
N. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described at Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key Rating of A- :VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to CITY’s Risk Manager. The Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self- insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 317 of 613
endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to the Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorseme nts to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement.
O. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section N relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. CO NTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of CITY, except that CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification.
The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement.
P. NON-DISCRIMINATION. 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, mar ital 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 agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 318 of 613
Q. WORKERS' COMPENSATION . CON TRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of Califor- nia 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 certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services.
R. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination.
Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination is for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR’s failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in conn ection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY.
S. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of CITY.
T. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR 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 this Agreement. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreemen t, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no C ITY officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Agreement . CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises.
U. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 319 of 613
V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written.
W. NON-APPROPRIATION. 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 prece dence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
X. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CON TRACTOR shall comply with CITY ’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Division, which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time.
CONTRACTOR 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, CONTRACTOR shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:
• All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR 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 otherwi se approved by CITY ’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post -consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.
• Goods purchased by Contractor 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 CONTRCATOR , at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 320 of 613
Y. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
Z. 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 Agreement is not a public works contract, if Agreement does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the Agreement does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000.
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 Agreement 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.
AA. DIR REGISTRATION. In regard to any public work construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement 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.
City requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854.
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 Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 321 of 613
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 contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the Agreement is awarded.”
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.
CITY requires C ONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including:
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.
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.
At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, C ONTRACTOR 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.
[For state- and federally-funded projects] CITY requests CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project.
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 C ITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONTRACTOR.
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.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 322 of 613
BB. CONTRACT TERMS. All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. In the case of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONTRACTOR’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONTRACTOR’s proposal, the exhibits shall control.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 323 of 613
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 DUKE’S ROOT CONTROL INC.
_________________________ By________________________________ City Manager or Designee
Name _____________________________
Title_______________________________
Approved as to form:
By________________________________
__________________________
City Attorney or Designee Name _____________________________
Title_______________________________
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 324 of 613
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONTRACTOR shall perform root foaming application in accordance with the Schedule set forth in Exhibit B and the following conditions:
1) Chemical Application
a) Application of the chemical root control agent shall be by foaming in accordance with the best- recommended practice for conditions present in the line under treatment. All foaming procedures will be in strict accordance with the instructions on the container label.
b) A foam discharge hose shall be inserted throughout the entire length of the sewer section to be treated. Acceptable methods of conveying the foam discharge hose through the sewer section are: 1) manually or mechanically inserting or shoving the foam discharge hose through the section, or 2) floating a rope through the sewer section and using the rope to pull the foam discharge hose into the section.
c) The foam will be pumped under sufficient pressure to assure that the entire sewer section is completely filled with foam, and to assure that the foam passes into each lateral pipe to a distance of 5 feet from the main line. Sewer service to homeowners will not be interrupted nor will chemical agents reach the home or business. The Contractor must beware that excessive discharge pressure, and/or excessive quantities of material may cause foam to enter houses or travel up forward clean-outs onto lawns.
d) Hose retrieval rates must be timed to evenly distribute the full quantity of foam throughout the entire area of treatment.
e) When required to enter or work within a manhole, the Contractor’s employees and subcontractors will in addition to abiding by the confined space regulations/requirements of OSHA will also abide by any requirements spelled out by either the container label or the specimen/chemical control root agent’s manufacturers requirements. This would include meeting the minimum protective clothing requirements and/or wearing supplied air breathing apparatus.
2) Notification
a) The Contractor will provide 48-hour notices to the City’s wastewater collection system supervisor/project coordinator prior to starting work on any portion of the contract. In the event that a problem arises with the root foaming Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 325 of 613
operations, or there is a problem with any of the existing sewer lines, the Contractor will notify the City immediately and report the problem.
3) Wastewater Treatment Plant Protection
a) The Contractor will take all steps necessary and appropriate to prevent adverse effects on the Palo Alto Regional Water Pollution Control Plant (RWPCP).
Introduction of any materials into the RWPCP must be with the approval of the RWPCP operator. The Contractor will provide the date and time of all intended work, and the name and telephone number of the Contractor’s onsite supervisor. The Contractor will maintain daily communication with the City’s wastewater collection system supervisor/project coordinator and the RWPCP operator to ensure that no adverse effects on RWPCP operations results from Contractor’s work.
b) The Contractor will be financially responsible for any adverse effect on RWPCP processes directly or indirectly caused by chemical application, including but not limited to damages to plant processes or equipment, clean-up and restoration costs, fines imposed by State or Federal agencies, pollution of receiving waters, and civil suits. The Contractor will further indemnify and hold harmless the City, and the operator of the wastewater treatment plant, against all costs, including legal expenses, relating to treatment plant failure or other damage or pollution caused, directly or indirectly, by the applications of chemicals by the Contractor.
4) Requirements for Surcharging Sewer Lines
a) Sewer pipes cannot be treated effectively when surcharging flow conditions exist. If a surcharging condition exists on a sewer to be treated (i.e., flow rate is greater than 30% of the pipe diameter), the Contractor will return to treat that portion of the sewer line when the flow is normalized.
b) The Contractor is responsible for monitoring weather to ensure that lines are not treated when the possibility of surcharging due to inflow and infiltration exist. If a sewer surcharges within a 12-hour period after a treatment has been made, the Contractor is required to retreat that section of sewer at the Contractor's expense if the surcharge is a result of Contractor activities or inflow and infiltration resulting from wet weather.
5) Contractor Safety Responsibilities
a) Contractor must provide proof of CERTIFICATION and TRAINING by the herbicide manufacturer.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 326 of 613
b) Only CERTIFIED CREWS will be used for application of the herbicide systems of control herein described.
c) Contractor must possess a valid Qualified Applicator Certificate (QAC) to apply "RESTRICTED USE" chemicals in sewer lines as described under Title 3 of California Code of Regulations (3 CCR), Code section 6000.
d) Contractor will submit illustrative brochures or technical data, including a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), and a specimen label of the product to be used for sewer root control.
e) Contractor will execute all work in a manner to avoid injury or damage to any person, animal, structure, service, property, crop or vegetation.
f) Contractor will avoid using compounds containing copper and/or other known priority pollutants, as defined by the Federal EPA. Any products containing the active ingredient(s) metam-sodium or copper sulfate will not be allowed.
g) Contractor will provide all necessary equipment and barricades to prevent pets, children, and unauthorized people from gaining access to the site of the work.
Contractor will provide adequate protection for his/her employees engaged in the handling, mixing, and distribution of the chemicals and ensure all the employees correctly wear such protection.
h) Should any chemical root control agent spill on the ground, Contractor will remove and safely dispose of the chemical and affected soil in accordance with the State and Federal regulations pertaining thereto. The Contractor will handle all spills in accordance with the appropriate MSDS and will have on site materials and equipment to contain and handle spills. The area will be restored to a condition equal to or better than before the spill.
i) Contractor will prevent all chemical agents from reaching homes and businesses along the sewers cleaning route. The Contractor will also be accountable for any damage or death to trees, shrubs, lawns, crops and gardens that is attributable to the chemicals used in the process. Should the Contractor, or his employees or agents cause any damage to public or private property, the Contractor will be required to make repairs immediately.
j) Contractor will respect the rights of property owners and inform the private property owner before entering the property.
k) Contractor will place proper traffic warning devices to protect the specific job site, and to prevent accidents or personal injury to the public.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 327 of 613
l) Contractor will ensure that chemicals are handled in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations, standard practices and appropriate statutory requirements, and that all precautions are then taken to avoid spillages.
m) Contractor will comply with all guidelines for working within Open Space land per the procedures that have been provided with this contract.
6) Access to Manholes
a) Some of the manholes to be used on this project may not be directly accessible by trucks or other vehicles. The Contractor will be responsible for determining which manholes are not accessible to their vehicular equipment and will plan their root foaming operations accordingly. No additional compensation will be allowed for pipe sections without direct vehicular access. In the event a specific pipe section is inaccessible to the extent beyond specified hose lengths for root foaming, the City will consider deleting this pipe section from the contract.
7) Recordkeeping and Project Documentation Requirements
a) Contractor will keep complete, accurate records of each day's operation.
Records will show date of treatment, sections of line treated, pipe size and distance, amounts of chemicals placed in the lines, and any other pertinent information. Log sheets must be available to the City staff upon their request, and a copy will be submitted with the invoice.
b) Upon completion of the project and accompanying the final invoice, or whenever requested by the City, the Contractor will submit log sheets and reports which show, as a minimum, the following information:
i) The report date
ii) The date each given sewer line was treated
iii) Street name for each given sewer line
iv) A description (manhole numbers, house numbers, cross streets, etc.), which will enable the City Engineer to accurately identify the exact location of each sewer line
v) The pipe size for each given sewer line
vi) The length (manhole to manhole) for each given sewer line vii) Quantity of chemicals used on each sewer line
viii) Special conditions found by the Contractor's crew; and ix) The date for each sewer line when the guarantee expires.
c) At the completion of the job the Contractor will submit a complete set of reports sorted by location based on Location Tables per the Project Location Map.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 328 of 613
8) Treatment Guarantee:
For each sewer section (manhole-to-manhole) that is treated under the Contract, the Contractor guarantees the work as follows.
a) At the option of the City, the Contractor will, at his own expense, re-treat a sewer section, or refund 100% of the payment received to treat that section, in the event that:
i) live roots are found in the section within six months after the application; or, ii) the section plugs up and floods due to tree root obstructions within a period of two years, beginning on the date of treatment, and ending two years after the date of treatment.
b) Re-treatments, performed at no charge in honor of the guarantee, do not extend the expiration date of the guarantee.
This guarantee applies to sewer stoppages caused by live tree roots. It does not apply to stoppages caused by grease or other foreign matters; flat, collapsed or deformed pipes; or flooding caused by a surcharged or plugged sewer section downstream from a guaranteed sewer section. This guarantee applies to main line sewers only.
9) Required Ingredients
a) Inert Ingredients: The root control material will be formulated with foaming agents and surfactants sufficient to produce a stable, small bubble, dense foam capable of sustaining its shape and thus remaining on the treated roots. The foaming surfactants will strip grease that typically clings to sewer root masses.
b) Root Killing Agent: The active component for destroying intruding roots in sanitary sewer lines will be a potent, non-systemic toxin which kills contacted roots at low concentrations, but which will not permanently affect parts of the plant distant from the treated roots. The active ingredient must be spontaneously detoxified by a natural chemical or biochemical process in a relatively short interval following its use.
c) Root Re-Growth Inhibitor: The active ingredient for inhibiting re-growth of root intrusions in sanitary sewer lines will inhibit root cell growth on contact but will not be transported so as to damage other portions of the parent plant. The material will bind firmly to the soil in the vicinity of openings in pipe joints so as to form a persistent chemical barrier suppressing the growth of root tips. The material will be sufficiently stable under the conditions of use to provide protection for twelve months or longer but will be subject to decomposition in wastewater treatment plants without disturbing the treatment plant processes.
A specimen product label(s) and Material Safety Data Sheets will be submitted.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 329 of 613
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONTRACTOR will perform the Services to all routes listed on the Project Location Map.
Work will begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and will be completed within 30 Working Days.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 330 of 613
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE OF FEES
CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule . The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY.
RATE SCHEDULE YEAR 1
Line
Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total A01 Apply chemical root
control foam designed to
kill root growth in 4.9, 5.4,
6” Pipe Sewer Mains
18,364 Linear Feet $2.02 $37,095.28
A02 Apply chemical root
control foam designed to
kill
root growth in 8” Pipe
Sewer sanitary sewer
mains.
8,035 Linear Feet $2.02 $16,230.70
A03 Apply chemical root
control foam designed to
kill
root growth in 10” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
2,737 Linear Feet $2.42 $6,650.91
A04 Apply chemical root
control foam designed to
kill
root growth in 12” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
2,777 Linear Feet $2.42 $6,748.11
A05 Apply chemical root
control foam designed to
kill
root growth in 15” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
4.839 Linear Feet $4.61 $22,307.79
A06 Traffic Control 1 EA $4,000 $4,000.00
Total Year 1
$93,032.79
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 331 of 613
RATE SCHEDULE
YEAR 2
Line Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total A01 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill root
growth in 4.9, 5.4, 6” Pipe
Sewer Mains
18,364 Linear Feet $2.02 $37,095.28
A02 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill
root growth in 8” Pipe
Sewer sanitary sewer mains.
8,035 Linear Feet $2.02 $16,230.70
A03 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill
root growth in 10” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
2,737 Linear Feet $2.42 $6,650.91
A04 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill
root growth in 12” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
2,777 Linear Feet $2.42 $6,748.11
A05 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill
root growth in 15” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
4.839 Linear Feet $4.61 $22,307.79
A06 Traffic Control 1 EA $4,000 $4,000.00
Total Year 2 $93,032.79
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 332 of 613
RATE SCHEDULE YEAR 3
Line Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total A01 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill root
growth in 4.9, 5.4, 6” Pipe
Sewer Mains
18,364 Linear Feet $2.02 $37,095.28
A02 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill
root growth in 8” Pipe
Sewer sanitary sewer mains.
8,035 Linear Feet $2.02 $16,230.70
A03 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill
root growth in 10” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
2,737 Linear Feet $2.42 $6,650.91
A04 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill
root growth in 12” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
2,777 Linear Feet $2.42 $6,748.11
A05 Apply chemical root control
foam designed to kill
root growth in 15” Pipe
sanitary sewer mains.
4.839 Linear Feet $4.61 $22,307.79
A06 Traffic Control 1 EA $4,000 $4,000.00
Total Year 3 $93,032.79
RATE SCHEDULE YEAR 1 $ 93,032.79
RATE SCHEDULE YEAR 2 $ 93,032.79
RATE SCHEDULE YEAR 3 $ 93,032.79
TOTAL FOR YEAR 1, 2 AND 3 $279,098.37
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 333 of 613
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
NO
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 CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 334 of 613
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 EMAILED TO: [email protected]
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 335 of 613
EXHIBIT E
PAYMENT SURETY BOND AND PERFORMANCE SURETY BOND
Item 6
Attachment A - General
Services Contract
C26194173 with Duke's
Root Control for Root
Foaming Treatment Services
Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 336 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2510-5343
TITLE
Approval of a Final Map for the Properties Located at 4335 and 4345 El Camino Real to Allow for a Condominium Subdivision to Create Eight Units on a 17,406-Square-Foot Parcel and to Create 21 Units on a 41,370-Square-Foot Parcel and the Naming of Three Private Streets Associated With the Development (25PLN-00160). CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the City Council take the following actions:
1. Consider the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15532 (in-fill) as documented in Attachment C;
2. Approve the final subdivision map, which follows the approved Vesting Tentative Map, for the previously approved residential project at 4345 El Camino Real, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.16 and the Subdivision Map Act; and
3. Approve the street names Fiesta Court, Maria Court, and Antonia Court as recommended by the Palo Alto Historical Association for the three new private streets as reflected in the Final Map.
BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2024, SummerHill Homes, on behalf of Cesano Inc. (the applicant), filed a Vesting Tentative Map application [24PLN-00153] to allow eight residential condominium units on the existing, 17,406-square-foot parcel located at 4335 El Camino Real, and 21 residential condominium units on the existing, 41,370-square-foot parcel located at 4345 El Camino Real, for a total of 29 condominium units. This was filed concurrently with a Streamlined Housing Development review application [23PLN-00152] for construction of a 29-unit residential townhome project. Four units of which would be provided at below market rate and made affordable to moderate income households (80-120% of Area Median Income). In accordance with the Vesting Tentative Map section of the PAMC (Section 21.13), the map application was Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 337 of 613
deferred until all other entitlements were approved. The Director of Planning and Development Services approved the associated entitlement for the site improvements on February 19, 2025, following a public hearing with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on September 19, 2024.1 Subsequently, Council approved the Vesting Tentative Map on March 17, 20252 following a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on February 26, 2025.3
Project Description
On July 3, 2025, the applicant filed a Final Map application [25PLN-00160]. The Final Map application is the second of a two-phased process to subdivide the eight residential condominium units on the existing, 17,406-square-foot parcel located at 4335 El Camino Real, and 21 residential condominium units on the existing, 41,370-square-foot parcel located at 4345 El Camino Real, for a total of 29 condominium units, and create three associated private streets. A location map is included in Attachment A.
The Final Map is the official, legal document that is recorded with the County that establishes the property lines, streets, and easements within the subdivision. The Final Map must be prepared under the direction of a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and be based on a survey. Approval of a Final Map is ministerial if the Final Map is in substantive compliance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map and the subdivider has satisfied the conditions of approval attached to the tentative map. While many cities delegate approval of the Final Map to the City Engineer, under PAMC Section 21.16.240, the City Council is responsible for the approval. To finalize the subdivision of the condominium units, the Applicant must also apply to the California Bureau of Real Estate. The condominium units would be accessed from three new private streets off of Cesano Court.
ANALYSIS
The Final Map is the document containing the statements, acknowledgements, and agreements from the property owner, surveyor, City officials and beneficiaries that the Final Map is in conformance with all applicable regulations and the approved Vesting Tentative Map. There are no policy implications related to the approval of the Final Map, since the map is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Map.
1 September 19, 2024 ARB Staff Report, item 2:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=458&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 March 17, 2025 Council Staff Report, item 9:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5829&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 3 February 26, 2025 PTC Staff Report, item 2:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=7629&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 338 of 613
The proposed condominium subdivision also includes private streets for vehicular access to the units. In accordance with City’s Street Naming policy (Resolution 57397), the Palo Alto Historical Association selected proposed street names for the new private streets, for Council consideration and approval. The Palo Alto Historical Association’s proposed street names for the three streets are Fiesta Lane (or Fiesta Court), Maria Court, and Antonia Court. Fiesta Lane is a reference to the former Fiesta Lanes bowling alley, which was built in 1954 and located nearby at 4329 El Camino Real. However, Fiesta Court better fits the City’s naming policy for the hierarchy of street types, as this is a dead-end street, and is therefore staff’s recommendation.
Maria and Antonia Court are references to Maria Antonia Garcia Robles. The land these streets are on were previously a part of the Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, which was purchased by the Robles family in 1847. Maria and her husband Secundino Robles had 29 children and five of her daughters were also named Maria.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the processing of this application as all fees are paid by the developer in accordance with the City’s fee schedule for processing of a final map.
Development impacts fees associated with the proposed improvement are estimated at $2,118,286, in addition to the public art in-lieu fees. Although fees are allowed to be deferred in accordance with state and local regulations. The applicant has expressed an intent to pay these fees prior to building permit issuance for each of the buildings. Therefore, these fees are anticipated to be realized in this fiscal year.
The project, as proposed, would impact local tax revenues due to the removal of the existing commercial uses at the site. The loss of these uses would result in an nominal annual loss of revenue when compared to the total sales tax revenue for the City in fiscal year (FY) 2022.
Offsetting the loss is the expectation that new development will result in increased property tax assessed valuation (AV) though the magnitude of this increase is unknown. The added AV will have a one percent additional property tax assessment. The City would receive approximately
9.4% of that additional property tax.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Although not required, notice of this meeting was published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a meeting for this project was published in the Daily Post on March 27, 2026, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 26, 2026, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting.
7 Resolution 5739: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=55538&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 339 of 613
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action is ministerial and CEQA does not apply. The housing development project was previously evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and found to be exempt in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Record of Land Use Action Vesting Tentative Map Attachment C: Project Plans & Environmental Documents
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 7
Item 7 Staff Report
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 340 of 613
43.5'
159.7'
29.6'
122.7'
124.3'
58.4'
124.3'
90.0'
134.8'
8.9'
68.5'
2.5'
134.8'
66.2'
4.8'
135.0'
42.9'
100.5'
26.2'
45.5'
16.7'
55.0'
55.7'
4.8'
100.5'
60.5'
100.5'
42.3'
55.0'
16.7'
45.5'
25.7'
100.5' 31.7'
103.0'
20.2'
28.3'
45.5'
16.7'
55.0'
61.0'
180.5'
1.0'
105.4'
103.0'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
103.5'
116.0'
150.0'
31.4'
70.0'
172.0'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
31.1'
104.9'
32.5'
123.9'
39.3'
103.3'
36.8'
61.9'
105.8'
45.3'
116.0'
278.4'
72.3'
20.0'
45.8'
161.5'
56.6'
172.5'
141.2'
101.6'
20.0'
103.5'
49.2'
205.8'
17.3'19.1'.3'.1'16.2'
172.5'
.1'.0'
11.4'
19.6'
17.4'
4.6'
205.8'
122.7'
142.8'
53.8'
142.8'
105.2'
120.5'
12 120.5'
50.0'
120.0'
29.9'
165.3'
30.6'
161.8'
50.0'
0.0'
37.0'118.4'
139.8' 122.7'
15.3'
40.3'
135.0'
98.6'
5.4'
145.9'
37.0'
145.9'
86.3'
115.1'
118.4'
59.7'
101.9'
42.8'
31.1'
131.0' 32.0'
55.0'
16.7'
45.5'
38.3'
10.5'
101.9'
11 98.0'
110.8
70.7'
60.2'
20.0'
79.6'
60.2'
137.6 6'
145.5'37.0'
122.7'
137.
141.2'
234.5'
267.7'
402.3'
168.4'
314.4'
4380
43824339
4341
4343
440
4333
4335
4345
4329
124
120
118
116
116A
114
112
4337
4368
43 4378
4366
411
413
417
419
410
412
416
418
411
413
417
419
410
412
416
418
411
420
421
4372
4374
4376
4335
43334331
494
4350
4328
410
412
416
418
413
417
419
CESANO COURT
EL CAMINO REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
MILLER COUR
T
CESANO COURT
RYAN LANE
COLE COURT
BRASSINGA COURT
GENE COURT
PC-3036
CS
CS
RM-20
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' 112'
Attachment A:
Location Map
4333/4335 El Camino
Real and
4345 El Camino Real
CITY OF PALO ALTO
I
N
C
O R P O R A
T
E
D
CAL I FORN IA
P a l o A l t o
T h e C i t y o f
A
P
R
I L 1 6 1
8 9
4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2022-08-23 11:11:48
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb)
Item 7
Attachment A - Location
Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 341 of 613
ACTION NO. 2025-02
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4335 and 4345 EL CAMINO REAL: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, 24PLN-00153
At its meeting on March 17, 2025, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved the Vesting Tentative Map for the development of a one-lot subdivision to create 8 residential condominium units, and a one-lot subdivision to create 21 residential condominium units making the following findings, determinations and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
A. On May 23, 2024, SummerHill Homes applied for a Vesting Tentative Map for the development of a one (1) parcel, 8-unit condominium subdivision project for 4335 El Camino Real and a one (1) parcel, 21-unit condominium subdivision project for 4345 El Camino Real (“The Project”).
The project site is comprised of two existing lots. APN No. 148-09-010, approximately 17,406 square feet, contains a commercial retail building. APN No. 148-09-011, approximately 41,370 square feet, contains a motel. Uses abutting the site include a five-story apartment building located within the City of Mountain View to the south, a four-story hotel to the north, and a condominium building and several single-family homes to the east. Across El Camino Real is a three-story hotel and a gas station.
A. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on February 26, 2024, subject to conditions of approval.
B. On March 17, 2025 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was considered and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the City Council’s policies and procedures.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15332, which provides an exemption for infill development projects. Documentation to support the exemption is available as part of the public record on file with the Planning and Development Services Division.
SECTION 3. Vesting Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474). The City Council cannot make these findings for the following reasons:
Docusign Envelope ID: C8416892-F797-44E4-A9C0-2807746833D5 Item 7
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action Vesting
Tentative Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 342 of 613
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans:
There is no adopted specific plan for this project site. The proposed vesting tentative map and related improvements is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it facilitates housing development on a site designated for multi-family use within the urban services area, consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element and Goal L1.2 of the Land Use Element. The project does not replace existing housing. The project includes four units that will be offered at a rate affordable to moderate income, three at 80%-100% AMI and one unit at 100%-120% AMI. The project improves the city’s jobs housing imbalance consistent with the Transportation Element’s goals and policies.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
The Project site is suitable for multi-family residential development in that it’s identified as a Housing Inventory Site in the Housing Element. The existing parcel meets the minimum code requirements for the CS zone district with respect to lot area, width and depth. The parcel would not change with approval of this condominium subdivision. The proposed number of condominium units complies with the applicable densities set forth in the land use element and zoning code.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development:
The project would create a total of 29 multi-family residential units and varies from 20-22 dwelling units (DU) per acre across the two lots. This density is lower than the anticipated density for these sites in the Housing Element, therefore it is physically suitable.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat:
The project is located within the built environment that does not contain quality habitat for fish or other wildlife on the site or within the vicinity of the site. The nearest stream is a portion of Adobe Creek approximately 700 feet northwest from the project site. The adopted Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes Map N-1, which identified sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto quadrangle, a large geographic area that includes the urban portions along the bay and within the foothills, based on information in the California natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on this map, and the urban nature of the site, the subject property Docusign Envelope ID: C8416892-F797-44E4-A9C0-2807746833D5 Item 7
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action Vesting
Tentative Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 343 of 613
does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and has not historically supported any of these species.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
The subdivision of this parcel and associated improvements would not have the potential to result in serious health problems. The proposed multi-family use would not include use or storage of hazardous materials and the use is located within the urban environment adjacent to other residential uses. The site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to government code 65962.5.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
There are no public access easements over the property currently. Therefore, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public easements for access through, or use of, the property. New public utility easements will be provided to existing and proposed electrical utilities as part of this subdivision map as required in accordance with City of Palo Alto Utilities standards. New public access easements will be provided to provide access to the new units.
SECTION 4. Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted. Vesting Tentative Map Approval is filed and processed in accordance to PAMC Section 21.13.020 and granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action.
SECTION 5. Final Map. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by CBG titled “TM.1 - VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES” consisting of 12 pages, dated December 10, 2024 and submitted December 19, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of the Vesting Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Development Services, Current Planning Division. Prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map approval, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]).
Docusign Envelope ID: C8416892-F797-44E4-A9C0-2807746833D5 Item 7
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action Vesting
Tentative Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 344 of 613
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Planning
1. PROJECT PLANS. The Vesting Tentative Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map titled “Vesting Tentative Map 739 Sutter Avenue For Condominium Purposes”, prepared by CBG and submitted December 19, 2024, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of this approval.
2. FINAL MAP COVER PAGE. At such time as the Final Map is filed, the cover page shall include the name and title of the Director of Planning and Development Services.
3. STANDARD CC&R REQUIREMENTS. Section 16.38 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code provides that all condominium and other “community housing projects” shall submit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to the City Attorney for approval before issuance of the Final Map. The City Attorney has developed the following standard covenants which shall be included in all CC&R’s.
a. PROPERTY SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES. The property, including all common areas, private streets and, parks within the property, shall at all times comply with the City’s Zoning Code and shall not be used for any purpose other than as permitted in the City Zoning Code.
b. MODIFICATIONS TO PROPERTY. Any alterations, modifications, or other improvements to the property shall comply with all applicable City Codes.
c. MAINTENANACE AND LANDSCAPING OF COMMON AREAS. The Association is responsible for maintenance and landscaping of all parts of the community housing project which are held in common and such maintenance shall be performed to the standard of maintenance prevalent in the neighborhood. (See PAMC Section 16.38.030(a)).
d. TERMINATION OF MANAGER OR MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS. The association may terminate the contract of any person or organization engaged by the developer to perform management or maintenance duties three months after the association assumes control of the community housing project or any time thereafter. (See PAMC Section 16.38.030(b).)
e. PROTECTION OF STORM WATER FACILITIES. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall alter or modify any storm water facilities in any way including but not limited to placing, maintaining, constructing, or planting any improvements, landscaping or other items, including without Docusign Envelope ID: C8416892-F797-44E4-A9C0-2807746833D5 Item 7
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action Vesting
Tentative Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 345 of 613
limitation decks, stairs, walls, irrigation systems, trees, or any vegetation on any storm water facilities.
f. TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING AREAS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES. All trash disposal and recycling areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances.
g. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIR AND WATER POLLUTION. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall use the property in any way which emits pollution into the atmosphere in excess of environmental standards set forth by City, State, and Federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. Neither the association, its residents, nor their agents, employees, representatives, invitees, licensees, customers, or contractors shall discharge garbage, trash, waste, or any other substance or materials of any kind into any private or public sewer or waterway on the property in violation of any regulations of any private or public body having jurisdiction over such matters.
h. AMENDMENTS TO ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS REQUIRE CITY APPROVAL.
Any amendments or modifications to the organizational documents shall be submitted to the city attorney for approval. No amendment or modification to the organizational documents shall be effective without prior written consent of the city attorney.
i. CITY’S RIGHT TO ENFORCE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS. The City is hereby granted the right, but in no event the duty, to enforce the covenants and restrictions set forth in this section of the organizational documents. The association shall recognize that it has the primary responsibility for enforcement of the organizational documents and unequivocally guarantees to institute and expeditiously prosecute any required legal action to obtain compliance with all provisions set forth in the organizational documents.
j. NO WAIVER OF CITY’S RIGHTS. No failure of the City to enforce any of the covenants or restrictions contained in the organizational documents will in any event render them ineffective.
k. CITY’S REMEDIES TO CURE A BREACH OR VIOLATION. Remedies available to the City to cure any breach or violation of the organizational documents shall be cumulative to any other provisions of law. The City’s failure to exercise any remedy provided for in the organizational documents shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as a waiver of the remedy.
Docusign Envelope ID: C8416892-F797-44E4-A9C0-2807746833D5 Item 7
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action Vesting
Tentative Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 346 of 613
l. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any one of the City’s required covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
4. ADDITIONAL CC&R REQUIREMENT. The CC&Rs shall also include a provision that dictates the responsibilities of tenants for the trash pickup for the townhomes as shown in the approved plan set.
5. PRIVATE STREET NAMING. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the private streets shall receive Palo Alto Historical Association recommendation and Council approval, per PAMC 21.20.140.
6. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The Property Owner or their designee shall pay all applicable development impact fees associated with the proposed development and subdivision prior to issuance of the building permit(s), as detailed in the Streamlined Housing Development Review Approval.
7. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
Public Works Engineering
8. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering- Services/Forms-and-Permits
9. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The applicant shall execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provide improvement securities (Bonds) for all proposed public improvements. THE AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXECUTED PRIOR TO MAP
RECORDATION OR ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION, ONSITE AND OFFSITE. ADVISORY -- The applicant shall provide a detailed itemized stamped and signed engineer's estimate for all off-site public improvements which will be reviewed to determine the security amount.
10. FINAL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval and recordation of a Final Map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in Docusign Envelope ID: C8416892-F797-44E4-A9C0-2807746833D5 Item 7
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action Vesting
Tentative Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 347 of 613
accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the map are subject to the City’s technical review and approval prior to issuance of any construction permits.
11. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW: The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map.
SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]).
Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting Tentative Map approval, the Vesting Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. An extension of time may be granted by the city council after recommendation of the planning commission, upon the written application of the subdivider, prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map approval, or any previous extension granted. Such extension(s) shall be subject to the maximum limitations set forth in the Subdivision Map Act.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Docusign Envelope ID: C8416892-F797-44E4-A9C0-2807746833D5 Item 7
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action Vesting
Tentative Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 348 of 613
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: March 17, 2025
AYES: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by CBG titled “TM.1 - VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES” consisting of 12 pages, dated December 10, 2024 and submitted December 19, 2024.
Docusign Envelope ID: C8416892-F797-44E4-A9C0-2807746833D5
Item 7
Attachment B - Record of
Land Use Action Vesting
Tentative Map
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 349 of 613
If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email [email protected]
Project Plans
In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Council members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources.
Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “4345 El Camino” and click the address link
3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/43334335-and-4345-El-Camino-Real
Item 7
Attachment C - Project
Plans & Environmental
Documents
Item 7: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 350 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Library
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2601-5832
TITLE
Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C21177635B with Ingram Library Services in the amount of $664,000 for Print Materials and Services for a new not-to- exceed (NTE) of $1,119,000 and to extend the contract term to June 30, 2028, Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C21177635C with Midwest Tape in the amount of $360,000 for Media and Digital Materials and Services for a new NTE of $1,113,000 and to extend the contract term to June 30, 2028, and Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C25190507 with OverDrive in the amount of $200,000 for Digital Materials and Services for a new NTE of $400,000 and to extend the contract term to June 30, 2028; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute:
1. Amendment No. 2 to Contract C21177635B with Ingram Library Services (Attachment A), extending the contract term to June 30, 2028 and increasing NTE amount by $664,000, for a new total NTE of $1,119,000, to support the acquisition of print materials and services
2. Amendment No. 2 to Contract C21177635C with Midwest Tape (Attachment B), extending the contract term to June 30, 2028 and increasing the NTE amount by $360,000, for a new total NTE of $1,113,000, to support the acquisition of media and digital materials and services
3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract C25190507 with OverDrive (Attachment C), extending the contract term to June 30, 2028 and increasing the NTE amount by $200,000, for a new total NTE of $400,000, to support the acquisition of digital materials and services
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 351 of 613
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In September 2025, Council approved staff recommendations to amend the City’s contracts with Ingram Library Services and Midwest Tape.1 These amendments reallocated funds from Baker & Taylor – formerly the Library’s primary print materials provider – to Ingram and Midwest Tape, because of significant and ongoing performance issues with Baker & Taylor. In October 2025, Baker & Taylor announced that it would cease operations. A market analysis found that issuing an RFP for print, media and digital material at this time is unlikely to yield a successful result because of the disruption caused by the sudden closure of Baker & Taylor.
Staff recommends extending the contracts with Ingram, Midwest Tape and OverDrive (digital materials provider) for two years. This adjustment ensures the community’s continued access to print, media, and digital materials.
BACKGROUND
In 2020, the Library issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify qualified providers for the acquisition and delivery of print, media, and digital library materials and related services. The RFP resulted in three six-year contracts, approved by City Council on June 22, 2020.2 All three contracts have a six-year term of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2026. Contract C21177635A – Baker and Taylor
Total NTE for six years = $2,000,000
Contract C21177635B – Ingram Library Services
Total NTE for six years = $200,000
Contract C21177635C – Midwest Tape
Total NTE for six years = $700,000
Following the RFP process, Baker & Taylor was selected as the primary provider for print, media and digital materials and services, with Ingram and Midwest Tape designated as secondary providers.
In 2024, the Library issued an RFP to identify qualified providers for the acquisition and delivery of digital library materials and streaming media and related services. Following the RFP process, OverDrive was selected as the primary provider digital library materials, streaming media and related services. This RFP resulted in Contract C25190507 – OverDrive for the time period of 1 City Council, September 15, 2025, agenda item 5; staff report # 2506-4846, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83590&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d088b46 7-da7d-4a1c-979f-e8a360db790f
2 City Council, June 22, 2020, agenda item 26, staff report # 11398, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=80844&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d088b46 7-da7d-4a1c-979f-e8a360db790f
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 352 of 613
July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2026. The total NTE is $200,000. This contract was approved by Council on June 18, 2024.5
The intent of the digital library materials RFP was to align the end date of contract with the selected provider with the end date of the Ingram, Midwest Tape and Baker & Taylor contracts.
This would make it possible for the Library to issue a single RFP in late winter/early spring 2026 to identify qualified providers for the acquisition and delivery of print materials, physical media, digital materials, streaming media and related services.
Over the course of FY25, Baker & Taylor’s performance declined significantly, with numerous orders delayed or unfulfilled. In March 2025, the provider abruptly canceled over 1,000 back- ordered items without notice, depriving timely access to new and popular materials. In response, staff worked with Ingram and Midwest Tape to replace the canceled items. Both providers fulfilled the replacement orders promptly and reliably.
In September 2025, staff recommended reallocating $308,000 in funds from Baker & Taylor’s contract C21177635A as follows:
• $255,000 to Contract C21177635B – Ingram Library Services • $53,000 to Contract C21177635C – Midwest Tape
Council approved this recommendation.6
In October 2025, Baker & Taylor announced its imminent closure. Staff dramatically accelerated the development of the updated technical services processes and procedures necessary to navigate the complete and sudden elimination rather than the gradual transition that had been planned.
Staff were planning to issue an RFP to identify qualified providers for library materials as the current contracts are set to expire on June 30, 2026. However, a recent analysis of the current public library materials market revealed that an RFP is unlikely to be successful at this time. The remaining providers have taken on thousands of new customers since Baker & Taylor’s closure and are struggling to expand infrastructure and increase staffing to meet demand. Some providers are currently not responding at all to RFPs. This market analysis indicates that the community will be best served by extending the existing print, media, and digital library materials contracts for two years while market conditions stabilize. 5 City Council, June 18, 2024, agenda item 6; staff report # 2405-3034, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82940&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=7fd7725f- 59e0-467f-855e-4a17dfff0de9
6 City Council, September 15, 2025, agenda item 5; staff report # 2506-4846, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83590&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=d088b46 7-da7d-4a1c-979f-e8a360db790f
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 353 of 613
ANALYSIS
To ensure uninterrupted service to the community and continued access to new and high- demand books and media, staff recommends extending the following contracts for two years with an updated expiration date of June 30, 2028:
• Contract C21177635B – Ingram Library Services
• Contract C21177635C – Midwest Tape
• Contract C25190507 – OverDrive
Additionally, staff recommends reallocating $50,000 in funds allocated to Baker & Taylor’s contract C21177635A in FY26 as follows:
• $41,000 to Contract C21177635B – Ingram Library Services • $9,000 to Contract C21177635C – Midwest Tape
This reallocation and extension ensure continued access to high-demand materials, reflects provider performance and maintains service quality. Staff will initiate a new RFP process in advance of the amended end date of June 30, 2028.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for these contract amendments is available in the Library’s Fiscal Year 2026 Operating Budget and does not require additional appropriations. Future years of the contracts are subject to the annual appropriation of funds. The proposed increase to the NTE amounts for Ingram Library Services and Midwest Tape for FY 2026 represents a reallocation of the $50,000 NTE that was allocated to Baker & Taylor in FY 2026. Contract values reflect a maximum spend; utilization can be adjusted in alignment with available funding levels at any time.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Library staff worked closely with Ingram, Midwest Tape, and OverDrive as well as the Purchasing Division of Administrative Services Department during the development of this contract amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because approval of this contract amendment—related to the procurement of library materials—is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5)).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract with Ingram Library Services, C21177635B, Contract Amendment No. 2 Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 354 of 613
Attachment B: Contract with Midwest Tape, C21177635C, Contract Amendment No. 2 Attachment C: Contract with OverDrive, C25190507, Contract Amendment No. 1 APPROVED BY:
Gayathri Kanth, Library Director
Item 8
Item 8 Staff Report
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 355 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C21177635B
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES, LLC
This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C21177635B (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of March 16, 2026 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ( “CITY”), and INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES, LLC , a Tennessee corporation, located at One Ingram Blvd., La Verne, TN 37086 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of provision of print materials, as detailed therein.
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term by two years, from June 30, 2026, to June 30, 2028, and increase compensation an additional Six Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars ($664,000) for a new not to exceed total of One Million, One Hundred and Nineteen Thousand Dollars ($1,119,000)
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean C ontract No. 21177635B between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated July 1, 2020, as amended by:
Amendment No.1, dated September 8, 2025
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2028, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8D04D650-3BB0-471C-8F7C-1892AA54FD34 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
with Ingram Library
Services, C21177635B,
Contract Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 356 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
SECTION 3. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Million, One Hundred and Nineteen Thousand Dollars ($1,119,000).
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Annual Not-to-Exceed amounts are:
$20,000.00 in year 1 (July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021) $36,000.00 in year 2 (July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022) $36,000.00 in year 3 (July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023) $36,000.00 in year 4 (July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024) $36,000.00 in year 5 (July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025) $291,000.00 in year 6 (July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026) $332,000.00 in year 7 (July 1, 2026 though June 30, 2027) $332,000.00 in year 8 (July 1, 2027 through June 30, 2028)
The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES,” which is attached to and made a part of 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.
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 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “C” entitled “ COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2 ”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8D04D650-3BB0-471C-8F7C-1892AA54FD34 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
with Ingram Library
Services, C21177635B,
Contract Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 357 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
SECTION 6 . Incorporation of Recitals . The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
Docusign Envelope ID: 8D04D650-3BB0-471C-8F7C-1892AA54FD34 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
with Ingram Library
Services, C21177635B,
Contract Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 358 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or designee
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES, LLC
Officer 1
By:
Name:
Title:
Officer 2
By:
Name:
Title:
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2” (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
Docusign Envelope ID: 8D04D650-3BB0-471C-8F7C-1892AA54FD34 VP Ingram Library Services
Carolyn Morris
Brian Dauphin
CFO
Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
with Ingram Library
Services, C21177635B,
Contract Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 359 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
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.
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 the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Year 1 $20,000.00
(July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021)
Year 2 $36,000.00
(July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022)
Year 3 $36,000.00
(July 1,2022 through June 30, 2023)
Task 4 $36,000.00
(July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024)
Task 5 $36,000.00
(July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025)
Task 6 $291,000.00
(July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026)
Task 7 $332,000.00
(July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027
Task 8 $332,000.00
(July 1, 2027 through June20, 2028
Sub-total Basic Services $1,119,000.00
Reimbursable Expenses $ 0.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $1,119,000.00
Maximum Total Compensation $1,119,000.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 8D04D650-3BB0-471C-8F7C-1892AA54FD34 Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
with Ingram Library
Services, C21177635B,
Contract Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 360 of 613
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 8D04D650-3BB0-471C-8F7C-1892AA54FD34
Status: Completed
Subject: Complete with Docusign: C21177635B Amend 2 Ingram.vendorsign.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 5
Signatures: 2
Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2
Initials: 0
Lujan, Albert
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
[email protected]
IP Address: 165.225.242.124
Record Tracking
Status: Original
2/17/2026 9:04:49 AM
Holder: Lujan, Albert
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: City of Palo Alto
Location: Docusign
Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Carolyn Morris
[email protected]
VP Ingram Library Services
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 104.129.207.23
Sent: 2/17/2026 9:06:20 AM
Resent: 2/18/2026 12:26:35 PM
Resent: 2/20/2026 10:20:29 AM
Resent: 2/23/2026 1:08:06 PM
Resent: 2/26/2026 9:08:29 AM
Viewed: 2/27/2026 5:18:20 AM
Signed: 3/3/2026 8:20:29 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Brian Dauphin
[email protected]
CFO
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 136.226.3.1
Sent: 3/3/2026 8:20:30 AM
Viewed: 3/3/2026 9:24:38 AM
Signed: 3/3/2026 9:24:51 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Celeste Wong
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 3/3/2026 9:24:53 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
with Ingram Library
Services, C21177635B,
Contract Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 361 of 613
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Julie Finklang
[email protected]
Division Head Library Services
Copa
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 3/3/2026 9:24:54 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Witness Events
Signature
Timestamp
Notary Events
Signature
Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Envelope Sent
Hashed/Encrypted
2/17/2026 9:06:20 AM
Certified Delivered
Security Checked
3/3/2026 9:24:38 AM
Signing Complete
Security Checked
3/3/2026 9:24:51 AM
Completed
Security Checked
3/3/2026 9:24:54 AM
Payment Events
Status
Timestamps
Item 8
Attachment A - Contract
with Ingram Library
Services, C21177635B,
Contract Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 362 of 613
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C21177635C
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
MIDWEST TAPE, LLC
This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C21177635C (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of March 16, 2026 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MIDWEST TAPE, LLC, an Ohio corporation, located at 1417 Timberwolf Drive, Holland, Ohio 43528(“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of
media and digital materials and services, as detailed therein.
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term by two years, from June 30, 2026, to June 30, 2028, and increase not-to-exceed compensation by Three Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($ 360,000) for a new not to exceed total of One Million, One Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($1,113,000)
.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean C ontract No. 21177635C between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated July 1, 2020, as amended by:
Amendment No.1, dated July 29, 2025
b. Other Terms. Capitalized t erms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2028, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION”.
“ of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed of One Million, One Hundred Docusign Envelope ID: B40A169A-0289-41B3-9824-7D79CFDB9285 Item 8
Attachment B - Contract
with Midwest Tape,
C21177635C, Contract
Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 363 of 613
and Thirteen Thousand Dollars (1,113,000.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Annual Not-to-Exceed amounts are:
$110,000.00 in year 1 (July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021) $118,000.00 in year 2 (July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022) $118,000.00 in year 3 (July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023) $118,000.00 in year 4 (July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024) $118,000.00 in year 5 (July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025) $171,000.00 in year 6 (July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026) $180,000.00 in year 7 (July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027) $180,000.00 in year 8 (July 1, 2027 through June 30, 2028)
The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C -1”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES,” which is attached to and made a part of 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.
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 Se rvices 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 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/ are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “ C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2 ”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
Docusign Envelope ID: B40A169A-0289-41B3-9824-7D79CFDB9285 Item 8
Attachment B - Contract
with Midwest Tape,
C21177635C, Contract
Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 364 of 613
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the P arties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or designee
MIDWEST TAPE, LLC
Officer 1
By:
Name:
Title:
Officer 2
By:
Name:
Title:
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2” (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
Docusign Envelope ID: B40A169A-0289-41B3-9824-7D79CFDB9285 Jeff Jankowski
Vice President
Vice President
Sue Bascuk
Item 8
Attachment B - Contract
with Midwest Tape,
C21177635C, Contract
Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 365 of 613
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
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.
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 the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Year 1 $110,000.00
(July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021)
Year 2 $118,000.00
(July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022)
Year 3 $118,000.00
(July 1,2022 through June 30, 2023)
Task 4 $118,000.00
(July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024)
Task 5 $118,000.00
(July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025)
Task 6 $171,000.00
(July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026)
Task 7 $180,000.00
(July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027)
Task 8 $180,000.00
(July 1, 2027 through June 30, 2028)
Sub-total Basic Services $1,113,000.00
Reimbursable Expenses $ 0.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $1,113,000.00
Maximum Total Compensation $1,113,000.00
Docusign Envelope ID: B40A169A-0289-41B3-9824-7D79CFDB9285 Item 8
Attachment B - Contract
with Midwest Tape,
C21177635C, Contract
Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 366 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
Professional Services Rev. April 23, 2020
17 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 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 expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for additional services is subject to all
requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: B40A169A-0289-41B3-9824-7D79CFDB9285 Item 8
Attachment B - Contract
with Midwest Tape,
C21177635C, Contract
Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 367 of 613
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: B40A169A-0289-41B3-9824-7D79CFDB9285
Status: Completed
Subject: Complete with Docusign: C21177635C Amend 2 MidWest_VendorSign.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 5
Signatures: 2
Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2
Initials: 0
Lujan, Albert
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
[email protected]
IP Address: 2600:1700:6971:
Record Tracking
Status: Original
2/12/2026 12:46:52 PM
Holder: Lujan, Albert
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: City of Palo Alto
Location: Docusign
Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Jeff Jankowski
[email protected]
Vice President
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 24.52.124.254
Sent: 2/12/2026 12:48:37 PM
Viewed: 2/12/2026 12:59:24 PM
Signed: 2/12/2026 12:59:54 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Sue Bascuk
[email protected]
Vice President
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 24.52.124.254
Sent: 2/12/2026 12:59:56 PM
Viewed: 2/18/2026 9:42:39 AM
Signed: 2/18/2026 9:43:58 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Celeste Wong
[email protected]
Administrative Assistant
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 2/18/2026 9:43:59 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Item 8
Attachment B - Contract
with Midwest Tape,
C21177635C, Contract
Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 368 of 613
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Julie Finklang
[email protected]
Division Head Library Services
Copa
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 2/18/2026 9:44:00 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Witness Events
Signature
Timestamp
Notary Events
Signature
Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Envelope Sent
Hashed/Encrypted
2/12/2026 12:48:37 PM
Certified Delivered
Security Checked
2/18/2026 9:42:39 AM
Signing Complete
Security Checked
2/18/2026 9:43:58 AM
Completed
Security Checked
2/18/2026 9:44:00 AM
Payment Events
Status
Timestamps
Item 8
Attachment B - Contract
with Midwest Tape,
C21177635C, Contract
Amendment No. 2
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 369 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C25190507
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
OVERDRIVE INC.
This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C25190507 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of March 23, 2026, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and OVERDRIVE INC., a Delaware corporation, located at One Overdrive Way, Cleveland, Ohio 44125 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of provision of print materials, as detailed therein.
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term by two years, from Ju ly 1 , 2026, to Ju ne 30 , 2028, and increase compensation by an additional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for a new not to exceed total of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. 25190507 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated July 1, 2024.
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
The term of this Agreement is from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2028, inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections R and W of the
General Terms and Conditions.
SECTION 3. Section 5 “COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees Docusign Envelope ID: C5FA4EB9-D038-412C-99CA-5ACAF768F965 Item 8
Attachment C - Contract
with OverDrive, C25190507,
Contract Amendment No. 1
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 370 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any:
A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Four Hundred Thousand dollars ($400,000.00).
CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the
Services shall be at no cost to CITY.
SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 1”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
b. Exhibit “C” entitled “SCHEDULE OF FEES, AMENDMENT NO.1”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6 . Incorporation of Recitals . The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
Docusign Envelope ID: C5FA4EB9-D038-412C-99CA-5ACAF768F965 Item 8
Attachment C - Contract
with OverDrive, C25190507,
Contract Amendment No. 1
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 371 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or designee
OVERDRIVE, INC.
Officer 1
By:
Name:
Title:
Officer 2
By:
Name:
Title:
Attachments:
EXHIBIT B: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 1 (AMENDED, REPLACES
PREVIOUS)
EXHIBIT C: SCHEDULE OF FEES, AMENDMENT NO.1 (AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
Docusign Envelope ID: C5FA4EB9-D038-412C-99CA-5ACAF768F965 Erica Lazzaro
General Counsel
Chief Financial Officer
Greg Farmer
Item 8
Attachment C - Contract
with OverDrive, C25190507,
Contract Amendment No. 1
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 372 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 1
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CHOOSE ONE OF THESE ALTERNATIVES TO DESCRIBE SCHEDULE:
Alternative 1.
CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services according to the following schedule:
Year One Services: July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025
Year Two Services: July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026
Year Three Services: July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027
Year Four Services: July 1, 2027 – June 30, 2028
Docusign Envelope ID: C5FA4EB9-D038-412C-99CA-5ACAF768F965 Item 8
Attachment C - Contract
with OverDrive, C25190507,
Contract Amendment No. 1
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 373 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE OF FEES, AMENDMENT NO. 1
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF STANDARD
COMPENSATION LANGUAGE AND MODIFY AS NECESSARY
ALTERNATIVE 1. Compensation based upon deliverables
CITY shall compensate CONTRACTOR for performance of the Services according to the following schedule, with the maximum amount of compensation not to exceed the amount stated in Sections 5 and 6 of this Agreement:
YEAR ONE July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025 $100,000.00
YEAR TWO July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026 $100,000.00
YEAR THREE July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027 $100,000.00 YEAR FOUR July 1, 2027 – June 30, 2028 $100,000.00
FOUR YEAR TOTAL
$400,000.00
All Payments are based upon CITY’s acceptance of CONTRACTOR’s performance of the phase as evidenced by successful completion of the Deliverable for that Phase. CITY shall have no obligation to pay unless CONTRACTOR has successfully completed and CITY has approved the Project Phase for which payment is due.
The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed the amounts stated in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation
Docusign Envelope ID: C5FA4EB9-D038-412C-99CA-5ACAF768F965 Item 8
Attachment C - Contract
with OverDrive, C25190507,
Contract Amendment No. 1
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 374 of 613
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: C5FA4EB9-D038-412C-99CA-5ACAF768F965
Status: Completed
Subject: Complete with Docusign: C25190507 Amend 1 OverDrive_02.17.26.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 5
Signatures: 2
Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2
Initials: 0
Lujan, Albert
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
[email protected]
IP Address: 165.225.242.124
Record Tracking
Status: Original
2/17/2026 9:11:25 AM
Holder: Lujan, Albert
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: StateLocal
Storage Appliance Status: Connected
Pool: City of Palo Alto
Location: Docusign
Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Erica Lazzaro
[email protected]
General Counsel
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 107.10.227.234
Signed using mobile
Sent: 2/17/2026 9:13:26 AM
Resent: 2/18/2026 12:26:38 PM
Resent: 2/20/2026 10:20:25 AM
Viewed: 2/20/2026 10:21:09 AM
Signed: 2/20/2026 3:46:26 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Greg Farmer
[email protected]
Chief Financial Officer
OverDrive
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 4.17.64.130
Sent: 2/20/2026 3:46:28 PM
Resent: 2/23/2026 1:08:04 PM
Viewed: 2/23/2026 7:03:13 PM
Signed: 2/24/2026 7:42:32 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events
Signature
Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events
Status
Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Celeste Wong
[email protected]
Administrative Assistant
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 2/24/2026 7:42:34 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Item 8
Attachment C - Contract
with OverDrive, C25190507,
Contract Amendment No. 1
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 375 of 613
Carbon Copy Events
Status
Timestamp
Julie Finklang
[email protected]
Division Head Library Services
Copa
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 2/24/2026 7:42:34 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Witness Events
Signature
Timestamp
Notary Events
Signature
Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events
Status
Timestamps
Envelope Sent
Hashed/Encrypted
2/17/2026 9:13:26 AM
Certified Delivered
Security Checked
2/23/2026 7:03:13 PM
Signing Complete
Security Checked
2/24/2026 7:42:32 AM
Completed
Security Checked
2/24/2026 7:42:34 AM
Payment Events
Status
Timestamps
Item 8
Attachment C - Contract
with OverDrive, C25190507,
Contract Amendment No. 1
Item 8: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 376 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Community Services
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2602-5909
TITLE
Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number S20178516 with Hohbach-Lewin Inc. to Increase Compensation by $10,000, Revising the Amount Not-to-Exceed to $70,000 and Extend the Contract Term Through March 30, 2029, for On-Call Structural Engineering Services for Public Art Installations; CEQA Status – exempt under regulation 15061(b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. S20178516 with Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. (Attachment A) to approve additional funds in the amount of $10,000, and extend the contract term through March 30, 2029 to provide on-call structural engineering services for various public art installations. This amendment results in a revised total not-to-exceed $70,000.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s Public Art Program manages the public art in municipal project funds transferred annually as part of the budget cycle in accordance with Municipal Code section
2.26.070 (Public Art for Municipal Projects). The Public Art Program oversees the implementation of expanded public art programming, including permanent projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), temporary public art installations, Cubberley Artist Studio Program, and the Code:ART interactive media festival. Engineered stamped drawings and calculations are required for many temporary and all permanent public art installations. Costs associated with structural engineering services are often prohibitive for artists creating temporary public art installations as their overall budgets are limited.
Therefore, an informal solicitation took place inviting five vendors to apply and Hohbach-Lewin Inc. was the only firm to submit a proposal. In April 2020 the Public Art Program entered into the initial professional services agreement S20178516 with Hohbach-Lewin Inc. to provide on- call structural engineering services for various public art projects, in the amount of $50,000 Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 377 of 613
with a term through April 30, 20231. In May 2023, Amendment No. 1 to extend the term through April 30, 2026, and add funds in the amount of $10,000 to account for higher hourly wages and various project costs was approved by City Council2.
ANALYSIS
Per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC § 2.30.2503), although the Professional Services Agreement No. S20178516 with Hohbach-Lewin Inc. is within the City Manager’s signature authority approval level, it requires City Council approval due to the overall duration of the agreement. Under this agreement, the consultant has been providing a range of structural engineering services that has been instrumental in implementing temporary public art installations for a variety of projects, including King Artist-in-Residence program, Code:ART festival, as well as integration of a permanent mounting support system to display rotating large-scale temporary murals on a façade wall of the new Sherman Avenue public parking garage.
Public Art Program staff rely on the services provided by Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. to create impactful installations of high artistic value designed and fabricated to provide the safety and protection of the project, the public, City staff, surrounding structures and elements due to wind, seismic, or other typical potential hazards.
In FY2027-28, Public Art program staff anticipate completing a number of temporary public art installations and special projects, including temporary public art installations for the King Artist- in-Residence Program, the Code:ART 2027 interactive media festival, and installation of large- scale digitally printed temporary murals for the Sherman Ave parking garage. Due to the scale, complexity, and public-facing nature of these installations, the projects are not feasible to complete without professional structural engineering support.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
1 Professional Services Agreement No. S20178516 with Hohbach-Lewin Inc for On-Call Structural Engineering Services for Public Art; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/community-services/public-art- program/staff-reports-and-docs-for-pac/s20178516-psa-with-hohbach-lewin-for-on-call-s.e.-services-for-public- art-projects.pdf
2 City Council, May 22, 2023; Agenda Item # 7; SR # 2304-1318, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82391&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 3 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 2.30, Contracts and Purchasing Procedures, https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-61721 Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 378 of 613
Sufficient funds to support the contract amendment recommended in this report are available in the Art in Public Spaces CIP Project (AC-86017) associated with the Public Art for Municipal Projects Ordinance. The Ordinance Number 5301, Municipal Code 2.26.070 (Public Art for Municipal Projects) requires that 1% of the CIP budget for municipal projects is allocated for the commission of public art. Funding for future years is subject to City Council approval through the annual budget process.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Feedback collected from public artists commissioned by the City’s Public Art Program between 2020 and 2026 indicates that structural engineering support has been instrumental to the successful realization of their temporary installations. The Public Art Commission approved the allocation of funds for the original agreement on February 20, 20207 as well as for the subsequent amendments April 20, 20238, and December 18, 20259.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
City Council approval of the attached agreement amendment described in this staff report is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulation 15061(b)(3), because it is not an activity that will have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment No. 2 to agreement S20178516 with Hohbach-Lewin Inc.
APPROVED BY:
Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director
7 Public Art Commission, February 20, 2020; Agenda Item #1, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=34960&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 8 Public Art Commission, April 20, 2023; Agenda Item #2, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=35058&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 9 Public Art Commission, December 18, 2025; Agenda Item #5, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=84096&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 9
Item 9 Staff Report
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 379 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. S20178516
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
HOHBACH-LEWIN, INC.
This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. S20178516 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of March 23,2026, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ( “CITY”), and HOHBACH- LEWIN, INC., a California corporation, located at 260 Sheridan Avenue, Suite 105, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (“CONSULTANT”).
CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment.
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of providing On -Call Structural Engineering Services for various Public Art Installations (“Project”), as detailed therein.
B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the contract term for three years through March 30, 202 9, increase total Not- to-Exceed Compensation by Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) from Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) to Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000), and update the Schedule of Rates, as detailed herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment:
a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean C ontract No. S20178516 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated April 23, 2020, as amended by:
• Amendment No.1, dated May 22, 2023.
b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract.
SECTION 2. Section 2 “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The term of this Agreement shall be from April 1, 2020 through March 30, 202 9 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.”
SECTION 3. Section 4 “ NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION ” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
Docusign Envelope ID: 89A4E847-D5F3-4276-89E5-8B0D1257D13F Item 9
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to agreement
S20178516 with Hohbach-
Lewin Inc.
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 380 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed S eventy Thousand Dollars ($ 70,000). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Seventy thousand Dollars ($70,000). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C -1”, entitled “SCHEDULE OR RATES,” which is attached to and made a part of 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.
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 Se rvices 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 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/ are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference:
a. Exhibit “C -1” entitled “ SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 2 ”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS.
SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals . The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
Docusign Envelope ID: 89A4E847-D5F3-4276-89E5-8B0D1257D13F Item 9
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to agreement
S20178516 with Hohbach-
Lewin Inc.
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 381 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the P arties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
______________________________
Purchasing Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney or Designee
HOHBACH-LEWIN, INC.
Officer 1
By:___________________________
Name:________________________
Title:_________________________
Officer 2
By:___________________________
Name:________________________
Title:__________________________
Attachments:
Exhibit “C-1” entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 2” (AMENDED, REPLACES
PREVIOUS)
Docusign Envelope ID: 89A4E847-D5F3-4276-89E5-8B0D1257D13F Douglas Hohbach
Principal
Joaquim Roberts
Principal
Item 9
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to agreement
S20178516 with Hohbach-
Lewin Inc.
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 382 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
EXHIBIT “C-1”
SCHEDULE OF RATES, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS)
Standard Structural Engineering Billing Rates:
Docusign Envelope ID: 89A4E847-D5F3-4276-89E5-8B0D1257D13F Item 9
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to agreement
S20178516 with Hohbach-
Lewin Inc.
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 383 of 613
Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019
2026 Billing Rates
Title Hourly Rate
Principal $260.00 - $280.00
Associate Principal $255.00 - $260.00
Senior Associate $220.00 - $255.00
Associate $210.00 - $220.00
Senior Structural Engineer $190.00 - $210.00
Project Structural Engineer $180.00 - $190.00
Project Engineer $145.00 - $190.00
Design Engineer $120.00 - $145.00
Staff Engineer $110.00 - $120.00
Revit Technician $120.00 - $145.00
Senior CAD Technician $125.00 - $145.00
CAD Technician $100.00 - $120.00
Engineer in Training $100.00
Clerical $100.00
Plots $5.00 per sheet
Automobile $ 0.68 per mile (federal
rate)
Docusign Envelope ID: 89A4E847-D5F3-4276-89E5-8B0D1257D13F Item 9
Attachment A - Amendment
No. 2 to agreement
S20178516 with Hohbach-
Lewin Inc.
Item 9: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 384 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2602-5987
TITLE
QUASI-JUDICIAL. 530 Barron Avenue [25PLN-00021]: Appeal of Director’s Decision to Deny an Individual Review Application to Allow Partial Deconstruction of an Existing 924-Square-Foot Single-Story Residence and to Allow the Construction of a New 2,528-Square-Foot Two Story Single-Family Residence with Attached One-Car Garage, 303-Square-Foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and 497-Square-Foot of Existing House Converted to Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council take the following action:
1. Adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s denial.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 26, 2026, the Director of Planning and Development Services denied the proposed Individual Review application for demolition of an existing home and construction of a new 2,528-square-foot two-story residence with an attached Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposed project includes removal of a 107- inch redwood tree, for which a protected tree removal permit would be required under Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The Director found insufficient evidence in the record to support the removal of the protected tree. Because the protected tree removal permit required to allow the project could not be issued, the project application was denied.
On March 4, 2026, the property owner filed a timely request to appeal the Director’s tentative decision to Council in accordance with the process set forth in the municipal code. The applicant’s reasoning for the request is included in Attachment G.
Adoption of the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B would deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision to deny the project. Three members of the Council must vote to pull this item from the consent agenda in order to hold a hearing to discuss the project.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 385 of 613
BACKGROUND
The subject property owner seeks to redevelop a single-family zoned parcel that contains an existing one story 924 square foot home built in 1925. The applicant proposes a new two-story structure that would include an accessory dwelling unit and junior ADU. The accessory dwelling units are permitted by state law and not the basis of the appeal. The new home is subject to the city’s individual review application process – a discretionary action, subject to requests for a director’s hearing and appeal to the City Council. The project also requires a Tree Removal Permit under PAMC Chapter 8.10. Tree Removal Permits are also subject to appeal to the Planning Director and City Council.1 A property location map is provided in Attachment A. The project plans are included in Attachment J.
Located on the parcel are two redwood trees that are defined as protected trees and subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10, which was amended in 2022 to strengthen tree protection standards. The application includes a request to remove one of the protected trees, identified as Tree #1 in the application material.
An applicant prepared arborist report has been reviewed by the city’s urban forester and is included on the project plans (Attachment E). Tree 1, located near the midpoint of the lot has been referred to as redwood fairy ring by some neighbors and appears to be a collection of five clustered trees likely originating from a previous tree that is no longer present. However, for the purpose of the urban forester’s evaluation, Tree 1 is considered a single tree with multiple trunks and its total circumference evaluated accordingly. Tree 2 is a single redwood that is also located near the midpoint of the property but adjacent to a side property line.
A protected tree may be removed if its retention, along with any other trees whose protection zones impact the buildable area, would reduce the otherwise permissible buildable area of the lot by more than 25% and no financially feasible design alternative exists. A financially feasible alternative is one where the cost of preserving the tree does not exceed twice its reproduction cost or ten percent of the total project valuation, whichever is greater. Buildable area is the portion of a parcel on which a structure may be built by right, without a variance or exception.
The protected trees on the subject property, including the tree canopies, occupy 99% of the buildable area and meet this threshold for removal; Tree 1 alone occupies approximately 48%.
The reproduction cost of Tree 1 is $94,300, as calculated by the project arborist and approved by the City’s urban forester. Twice that amount is $188,600. The applicant has not provided a total project valuation but noted it could cost upwards of one million dollars. Ten percent of that figure represents $100,000. Accordingly, if the cost to retain the protected tree exceeds $188,600, the tree may be removed.
1 In this case, staff followed the process for appeal of an IR application, as that is the primary application, though the primary issue revolves around proposed removal of a protected tree. The two appeal processes are similar.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 386 of 613
The Individual Review application was filed on January 23, 2025. Staff reviewed the project, determined that the project complied with the municipal code, and issued a tentative decision letter on August 28, 2025 (Attachment D). This decision was based in part on the urban forester’s determination that there were no feasible design alternatives that would preserve the protected Coastal Redwood tree and, therefore, removal was consistent with PAMC Section
8.10.050 (b)(2).3 This decision was based on the location of the protected tree and amount of obstructed buildable area, though no financial analysis was requested of the applicant.
Following the tentative decision, two qualifying requests for a director’s hearing were received.
The reasons cited include that the applicant never provided the construction cost estimates required by the municipal code to justify removing the protected Coastal Redwood (Tree 1), meaning the legal threshold for tree removal was never met. And, a viable alternative design that preserves the tree exists, but was rejected without explanation (Attachment F).
A director’s hearing was held on October 15, 2025.4 In addition to the hearing requester’s comments, community members cited concerns about the impacts to neighborhood character, ecological value, and the possibility of creative architectural solutions as reasons to support retention of the tree.
The Director found that the absence of a financial analysis, as required by the municipal code, prevented a determination on the project, and continued the matter to allow the applicant time to prepare the required analysis.
A second Director's hearing was held on January 12, 2026. The applicant submitted a refined alternative design and additional documentation in support of its request to remove Tree #1 (Attachment E). The documentation identified the following concerns with the alternative design:
1. It reduces the total square footage of the home by 775 square feet of usable living area.5
3 PAMC Section 8.10.050 (b)(2): Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise- permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (a)(2), a financially feasible design alternative means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. All tree protection zones impacting buildable area are included in the reduction of buildable area calculation.
4 The municipal code sets forth the process for director hearings. To ensure the director is not both making a tentative decision on the project and then adjudicating on it at the hearing, the director is not involved in the review or decision making of any single family individual review application. Decision on these applications are made by supervising managers in consultation with the assistant director. The director’s only involvement begins when after a staff report is published and the hearing conducted. 5 This is the property owner’s assessment of the lost useable area due to the revised configuration. The actual gross floor area reduction based on the zoning code definition is 519 square feet.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 387 of 613
2. The layout would fragment living spaces, resulting in an awkward floor plan with a long connecting hallway and reduced room sizes.
3. Situating the residence beneath a tree canopy would likely pose challenges in securing homeowner's insurance.
4. The consulting arborist cautioned that building in close proximity to the trees increases the risk of future foundation damage from root growth.
5. While the alternative design would cost less to construct due to its smaller floor area, it would negatively impact the estimated resale value of the home by an amount exceeding twice the reproduction value of the tree, surpassing the applicable financial threshold.
Based on the evidence presented in the record, the Director concluded that the requirements of PAMC 8.10.050(b)(2) were not met. Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate that the alternative design would increase project costs as set forth in the code. While the applicant argued that preserving the redwood trees was impractical and inconsistent with the project objectives, and that the alternative design would reduce the resale value of the home, neither project objectives nor resale value are express criteria under the municipal code. The Director also noted that the proposed design and the alternative include the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and therefore do not differ significantly in overall programming, though the alternative design results in smaller bedroom sizes.
Based on the above evidence, the Director denied the project on January 26, 2026 (Attachment C). The applicant appealed this decision on February 4, 2026 based on similar grounds previously stated. The appeal statement is provided in Attachment H.
ANALYSIS
The subject Individual Review application has been evaluated by staff and determined to meet the IR program's guidelines. The Individual Review program aims to ensure that new residential construction is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of architectural character, scale, massing, and streetscape appearance, while also being sensitive to neighbors' concerns regarding privacy.
Notwithstanding compliance with the IR guidelines, the project has not, based on the information included in the administrative record, demonstrated compliance with the City’s regulations related to tree preservation.
The regulations regarding whether the protected tree can be lawfully removed are set forth in Chapter 8.10 of the municipal code. A protected tree may not be removed unless it is determined by the urban forester (or Planning Director and City Council on appeal), based on an arborist report and other relevant information, that the tree(s) would either:
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 388 of 613
1. Die as a result of its proximity of a proposed development, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree.
2. reduce the otherwise permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s).
Criterion 2 applies to the subject appeal, and the project clearly qualifies under the first prong.
Tree 1, occupies 48% of the otherwise-permissible buildable area. The second prong addresses financial feasibility and is satisfied if the cost to preserve the tree exceeds twice the reproduction cost of the tree, which in this case amounts to approximately $188,600.
Staff requested information from the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. In response, the applicant indicated that designing around and protecting the tree would actually cost less, as the resulting home would be smaller in square footage. The appellant continues to argue that the revised home design, however, is not aligned with project objectives, including a preference for a certain sized home and floor plan layout reflected in the original application. As noted previously, project objectives are not an evaluation criterion under the municipal code.
Based on the foregoing, the Director determined that the only available action was to deny the application.
Although staff encouraged the applicant to engage a contractor or other expert to provide cost estimates for the overall home construction or provide information on how designing around the tree would impact costs in order to demonstrate compliance with the code, the applicant has not done so. It is staff’s opinion that the costs to protect the tree could exceed twice the reproduction cost of the tree when factoring in increased complexity for construction design and methods, such as hand trowel excavation to protect the roots, specialized foundation treatment, on-site arborist monitoring, suspended utility routing, staging and anti-compaction efforts and potentially other considerations to protect the tree. However, the applicant has not provided the information to support this conclusion.
In addition, staff has some reservations as to whether the revised alternative design protects the subject tree. While the redesign protects the roots from impacts, there would still be a fair amount of canopy trimming, which may undermine the trees’ health. This aspect of the redesign has not been fully analyzed.
Community members may reference or advocate for a previously designed home for this property (under different ownership). That design relies on variances or discretionary relief from the code, which the property owner has indicated an unwillingness to request. Moreover, there is nothing in the municipal code that would compel the owner to redesign the project, unless it was found to be financially feasible to do so while preserving the protected tree.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 389 of 613
In this case, the applicant’s statements lead to a conclusion that it is financially feasible to redesign the home around the tree; however, as noted above, the applicant’s information may be incomplete, as it relies solely on the reduction in square footage without accounting for other relevant factors such as specialized construction methodologies, and related considerations. Nonetheless, given the absence of information sufficient to support removal of the protected tree under the municipal code, the Director denied the project.
Next Steps
The City Council has two options on how it can proceed with this appeal.
1. Uphold the Director's decision and deny the appeal. This would require the applicant to refile the application to move forward, including payment of applicable application fees.
The applicant would need to modify the design or submit additional information demonstrating that the cost to preserve the tree exceeds twice its reproduction cost.
Any action on a future application would likely be appealed by neighbors if the tree were found eligible for removal. Resolution through a subsequent Council appeal would likely take approximately six months from the date a new application is filed.
2. The Council could schedule this appeal for a full hearing, which requires three members to pull the item from the consent calendar. This would allow the applicant to present additional cost information to the City Council that was not part of the administrative record. The Council's decision would be final and would likely be reached in late summer.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
A request for appeal requires a $618 fee from an appellant, which has been paid. In accordance with the fee schedule, if the Council chooses not to hold a public hearing to discuss the appeal, these fees would be returned to the appellant.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 150 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on March 27, 2026, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 25, 2026, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
Staff received several comments throughout the review process from neighbors encouraging the applicant to preserve the tree and a letter of support for the project from two neighbors. All written comments on the project, including the timely requests for hearing from the neighboring properties, are provided in Attachment I.
Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 390 of 613
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303 (New Construction).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action
Attachment C: Director’s Decision Letter
Attachment D: Staff’s Tentative Decision Letter
Attachment E: Arborist Report
Attachment F: Requests for Director’s Hearing
Attachment G: Applicant’s Justification for Removal of Protected Tree #1 Attachment H: Applicant’s Request for Appeal
Attachment I: Public Comments
Attachment J: Tentatively Denied Plans
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 10
Item 10 Staff Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 391 of 613
Court_ Apartments
562 - Bldg 1
24.4'
41.0'
79.7'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
41.0'
24.4'
20.3'
65.0'
65.0'
65.0'
65.0'
65.0'
65.0'
65.0' 65.0'
65.0'
65.0'
0'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
50.0'
113.3'
8.2'
42.5'
120.4'
26.7'
24.4'
113.3'45.0'
153.9'
42.1'
19.3'
7.9'
151.4'
7.9'
50.1 107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
62.6'
88.2'
62.6'
88.2'
50.0'
113.6'
53.9'
94.6'
50.0'
176.0'
113.6'
18.0'
37.0'
30.7'
6 100.0'
70.0'
71.7'
27.1'
49.6'
62.6'
19.0'
47.2' 71.7'
65.0'
106.0'150.0'
90.0'
9.7' 2.0'22.0'
126.2'
50.0'
114.7'
32.6'
20.9'
95.8'
50.0'
95.8'
12.2'
40.6'
79.6'
50.0'
79.6'
21.0'
46.2'
47.6'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
107.9'
55.0'
107.9'
55.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
45.0'
107.9'
45.0'
107.9'
50.0'
107.9'
50.0'
10.0'
94.0'
107.9'
106.0'
87.9'
15.7'
2.0'
120.1'
104.3'
110.2'
15.7'
94.0'
50 50.0'
106.0'
50.0'
120.4'
50.5'
114.7'
127.4'
49.9'
44.5'
108.0'
93.8'
15.7'
98.0'
103.6'
103.6'
167.5'
119.8'
89.0'
55.0'
8'
111.8'
136.5'
136.7'
65.0'
148.8'
148.8'
153.9'
150.4'
150.4'
76.7'
37.7'
37.6'
100.0'
100.0'
50.0'
50.0'
50.0'
50.0'
119.8'
119
.8'
101.6'
93.6'
66.0'
53.4'
5.9'
45.0'
118.0'
106.0'
161.2'
13.9'
101.2'
38.9'
18.9'
102.7'
175.8'
175.8'
175.8'
161.2'
161.2'
109.4'
109.4'
50.0'
80.6'
150.0'
161.8' 7.5'
101.2'
19.2'
50.0'
50.0'
50.0'
50.0'
110.0'110.0'
110.0'110.0'
110.0'
100.0'
89.0'
92.4'
7.9'
17.4'
524
528 530
562
3666
3748
3626-
3632
8 453- 467
3606
3516
547
3685
3643
567 538
530
520
516
510
506
3705
3740
3775
568
580
5 575
548
560
3785
3795
3730
3760
3770
3780
3790
559
5 3691
480
3 3636
535
543
531
505
3700
3765
3745
3725
3748A
BARRON AVENUE
BARRON AVEN
UE
KENDALL AVENUE
O REAL
EL CAMINO REAL
LANE 66
S
RM-40
CN
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
Project Site
0' 90'
Attachment A:
Location Map
CITY OF PALO ALTO
I
N
C
O R P O R A
T
E
D
CAL I FORN IA
P a l o A l t o
T h e C i t y o f
A
P
R
I L 1 6 1
8 9
4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2025-10-07 22:03:47
(\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb)
Item 10
Attachment A - Location
Map
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 392 of 613
0160185_20260318_ay16
1 3
2 6
2 ACTION NO. 2026-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 530 BARRON AVENUE: INDIVIDUAL REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT [25PLN-00021] At its meeting on _________, 2026, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) upheld the Director’s decision denying the request for Individual Review for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new 2,530-square-foot two-story single-family residence, which included removal of a 107-inch coastal redwood tree making the following findings, determinations, and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
A. On January 23, 2025, Thomas Sullivan applied for an Individual Review application to allow demolition of a 924-square-foot one-story residence and construction of a new 2,530-square-foot residence (“The Project”). A planned attached 303 square-foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and 497-square-foot Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit are shown for reference but are not subject to Individual Review. The project also requires the issuance of a Protected Tree Removal Permit, as the proposed structure requires removal of a 107-inch coastal redwood tree (“Tree #1”).
B. The project site is comprised of one existing lot (APN No. 137-08-040) of approximately 5,932 square feet. The site contains a single-story, single-family development in a single-family residential (R-1) zoned neighborhood.
C. Following staff review, on August 28, 2025, staff, on behalf of the Director of Planning and Development Services, tentatively approved the project, including removal of the protected tree, with conditions.
D. On August 29, 2025, the City received two timely requests for a Director’s hearing from neighboring property owners at 3730 La Selva Drive and 538 Barron Avenue.
E. On October 15, 2025, the Director held a duly noticed public hearing at which members of the public were provided an opportunity to comment. The Director determined that sufficient evidence had not been provided to demonstrate that a protected tree removal permit could be issued under PAMC Section 8.10.050(b)(2) for removal of Tree #1.
The Director continued the hearing to allow the applicant to provide more information to support the proposed removal of Tree #1.
F. On November 25, 2025, the applicant submitted supplemental information, which is reflected in the January 12, 2026, Director’s Hearing staff report. The supplemental information provides an alternative to the proposed project, an arborist report that concludes that the alternative would preserve the protected tree, and states that the cost to construct the project alternative would cost less than the proposed project.
Item 10
Attachment B - Draft Record
of Land Use Action 530
Barron 2026-0306
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 393 of 613
0160185_20260318_ay16
2 3
2 6
2 G. On January 12, 2026, the Director held a duly noticed public hearing at which members of the public were provided an opportunity to speak and considered the supplemental information submitted as part of the public record.
H. On January 26, 2026, the Director denied the application, finding that although the project meets the Individual Review Design Guidelines (for two-story development) as well as the development standards set forth for the R-1 Zone District, the applicant has not submitted information to show compliance with the findings for removal of a protected tree, as set forth in 8.10.050 of the municipal code. Because the tree removal permit could not be issued, and removal of the tree is necessary for the proposed project, the project application was denied.
A. On February 4, 2026, Thomas Sullivan appealed the Director’s decision in accordance with the appeal process set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.075.
B. On April 6, 2026, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.77.075, the appeal was placed on the City Council’s consent calendar. Based upon a review of the evidence in the record, and after all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the City Council’s policies and procedures, the City Council upheld the Director’s decision denying the application.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, acting as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15301, which provides an exemption for small structures.
SECTION 3. Findings for Project Application Denial. The proposed improvements require the issuance of a Protected Tree Removal Permit pursuant to PAMC Chapter 8.10. Specifically, for removal of a protected tree when associated with a proposed development in the single-family (R-1) zone, PAMC Section 8.10.050(b)(2) requires a finding that:
1. There is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (b)(2), a financially feasible design alternative means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater.
The valuation of the tree is estimated at $94,300. The construction cost for the design alternative was not provided though information from the applicant states that the alternative would decrease the cost of construction compared to the proposed project. Although the applicant asserts that the design alternative would reduce the total value of the project, PAMC Section 8.10.050 speaks only to the project cost. The applicant’s arborist stated that the alternative design would not adversely impact the tree in certain conditions. Therefore, the Item 10
Attachment B - Draft Record
of Land Use Action 530
Barron 2026-0306
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 394 of 613
0160185_20260318_ay16
3 3
2 6
2 evidence in the record establishes that the design alternative would allow for preservation of the tree and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of the project valuation. Accordingly, the required finding cannot be made.
Because a Protected Tree Removal Permit cannot be issued, pursuant to PAMC Section
8.10.050(b)(2), and the proposed project requires removal of Tree #1, the project application must be denied.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and
Development Services
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by Chris Spaulding titled “Proposed New 2-Story Home For the Sullivan Family 530 Barron Avenue Palo Alto, California” consisting of 16 pages, dated and submitted July 6, 2025.
Item 10
Attachment B - Draft Record
of Land Use Action 530
Barron 2026-0306
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 395 of 613
January 26, 2026
Tom Sullivan
530 Barron Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
SUBJECT: 530 Barron Avenue : Denial of Individual Review Application 25PLN-00021
On August 28, 2025, staff, on behalf of the Director of Planning and Development Services, conditionally approved Single Family Individual Review application 25PLN-00102 for a new two-story residence at 530 Barron Avenue. This approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 18.12.110 and 18.77.075 based on the finding that the conditionally approved project plan set received July 8, 2025, met the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines , and complies with the R-1 zone district regulations and other applicable City regulations for development as conditioned.
Prior to the approval becoming effective, the City received two timely requests for a Director’s Hearing. A Director’s Hearing was held on October 15, 2025, and continued to January 12, 2026. After consideration of all the evidence in the record, the Director of Planning and Development Services denies the proposed project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is a request by Tom Sullivan, for Single Family Individual Review to allow deconstruction of an existing 924-square-foot one-story residence, and construction of a new 2,528-square-foot, two-story single -family residence with an attached one-car garage in the R -1 zoning district, as shown on the plans received on July 8, 2025. A Junior Accessory Dwelling unit and conversion of a portion of the existing residence into a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit are shown for reference but are not subject to Individual Review.
DIRECTOR’S HEARING
Vicki Young, residing at 3730 La Selva Drive , and Kerri Jung, residing at 538 Barron Avenue, each requested a hearing within the 14-day hearing request period. Ms. Young expressed concern regarding removal of the protected redwood tree and stated disagreement that the findings set forth in Title 8 of the municipal code for removal of the tree had been met . Ms. Jung expressed that she believed that there were viable alternatives to save the protected redwood tree and requested a hearing to allow for further discussion.
On October 15, 2025, the Director held a public hearing at which members of the public were provided the opportunity to comment. The applicant and those who requested the hearing were provided an opportunity to speak to their proposal and concerns, respectively. The Director determined that sufficient evidence had not been provided to comply with PAMC Section Docusign Envelope ID: F1890A66-0164-4CEB-BCF2-A8A1C2C24004 Item 10
Attachment C - Director's
Decision Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 396 of 613
530 Barron Avenue Denial
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
8.10.050(b)(2) for removal of Tree #1, a protected 107 -inch diameter redwood tree, and hence continued the hearing, requesting more information be provided to support protected tree removal consistent with PAMC Section 8.10.050(b)(2).
On November 25, 2025, the applicant provided supplemental information, which is reflected in the January 12, 2026, staff report. The documentation provides an alternative to the proposed project that includes a 1,783 square foot residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit and conversion of a portion of the existing residence into an accessory dwelling unit is also shown on the plans, similar to the proposed project, though accessory dwelling units are not subject to discretionary review. The documentation states that the cost to construct the proposed alternative would be less than the cost of construction of the proposed project because the floor area is smaller, but that this smaller floor area would impact the resale value by more than the threshold of twice the reproduction value of the tree. In addition, the documentation includes a statement by the applicant’s arborist that the alternative project would not adversely affect the tree “as long as the foundations were designed to bridge over the larger ro ots and compaction within the TPZ was kept to a minimum.” Prior to the January 12, 2026 hearing, staff suggested that the applicant provide additional information relating to PAMC 8.10.050(b)(2), such as the cost and feasibility of bridging the foundation for the alternative design and the extent to which compaction could realistically be avoided within the tree protection zone; the applicant chose not to do so.
DECISION AND FINDINGS
Although the project is found to meet the Individual Review Design Guidelines as well as the development standards set forth for the R-1 Zone District, the applicant has not submitted information to show compliance with the findings for removal of a protected tree, as set forth in 8,10.050 of the municipal code. For removal of a protected tree when associated with a proposed development, PAMC Section 8.10.050(b)(2) requires that, “there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (a)(2), a financially feasible design alternative means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater.”
The valuation of the tree is estimated at $94,300. The construction cost for the alternative project was not provided. As noted above, information from the applicant states that it would be less than the cost of construction of the proposed project and the applicant’s arborist stated that the alternative design would not adversely impact the tree in certain conditions. On this record, the Director of Planning and Development Services finds that the applicant has not met the standard in PAMC 8.10.050(b)(2) for removal of a protected tree. Accordingly, this application for a two-story, single-family home project is denied.
This denial will become effective 14 calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed, as provided by Chapter 18.77.075 of the PAMC. An appeal may be filed by written request with the City Clerk before the date the Director’s decision be comes final. The written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Only an Docusign Envelope ID: F1890A66-0164-4CEB-BCF2-A8A1C2C24004 Item 10
Attachment C - Director's
Decision Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 397 of 613
530 Barron Avenue Denial
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may appeal. As the plans may have been revised since the original submittal, interested parties may wish to review the tentatively denied plans online at the City’s Planning webpage https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/530-Barron-Ave. If you need assistance reviewing the plans, you may visit the City’s Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue.
Should you have any questions regarding this denial, please feel free to contact Claire Raybould at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jonathan Lait
Director of Planning and Development Services
Attachment A : Conditions of Approval
cc: Vickie Young, 3730 La Selva Drive , Palo Alto, CA 94306 Kerri Young, 538 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Docusign Envelope ID: F1890A66-0164-4CEB-BCF2-A8A1C2C24004 Item 10
Attachment C - Director's
Decision Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 398 of 613
cc: Neighbor notification list (adjacent neighbors) Attachment: Conditions of Approval Property Owner
August 28, 2025
Thomas Sullivan
530 Barron Avenue,
Palo Alto, CA 94306
SUBJECT: 530 Barron Avenue (25PLN-00021) Individual Review
The Director of Planning and Development Services has conditionally approved your Single-Family Individual Review to allow deconstruction of an existing 924 square foot one-story residence, and to allow the construction of a new 2,528 square foot two story single-family residence with attached one car garage in the R-1 zoning district. A 303 square foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and 497 square foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit is also shown on the plans and subject to building permit review. This approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections
18.12.110 and 18.77.075. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). As conditioned, the project meets all five of the Palo Alto Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines and complies with the R-1 Zone District development regulations.
This approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter, unless the Planning Department receives a written request for a Director’s Hearing prior to the end of the business day 14 calendar-days after the postmark date. Only an applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may request a hearing. As the plans may have been revised since the original submittal, interested parties may wish to review the tentatively approved plans online at the City’s Planning webpage bit.ly/PABuildingEye.
This letter and attached conditions and findings shall be printed onto building permit plans relating to this approval. If the building permit has not been issued and construction commenced within two years from the effective approval date, this approval will expire. A written request for an extension may be submitted prior to the expiration date. The Director may grant a one-year extension of this approval.
Should you have any questions regarding this approval or need help reviewing the plan set, please contact Bhavani Potharaju, Project Planner, at (408) 819-0452 or e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Claire Raybould, AICP
Manager, Current Planning
Item 10
Attachment D - Staff's
Tentative Approval Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 399 of 613
530 Barron Avenue approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS:
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, " Proposed New 2-Story Home for the SULLIVAN FAMILY, 530 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on June 07, 2025, as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes:
a. Privacy trees as described in COA #12, shall be revised from 15-gallon plantings to a minimum 24-inch box trees as detailed further in COA #12.
4. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. The proposed ADU and Junior ADU are subject to ministerial review and therefore only shown for informational purposes as part of this plan set. However, as a courtesy the following comment will be required to be addressed as part of any building permit review.
a. In accordance with Housing and Community Development Department guidance and the City’s municipal code, the proposed attached JADU must be revised to show a 6- foot setback from the side yard property line.
5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention.
6. OBSCURED/TRANSLUCENT GLAZING. All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public right-of-way.
7. PRIVACY SCREENING. All screening, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Screening shall be a maximum of 15 percent open.
Screening shall not be altered and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged.
Item 10
Attachment D - Staff's
Tentative Approval Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 400 of 613
530 Barron Avenue approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
8. REQUIRED PARKING. All single-family homes shall be provided with a minimum of one covered parking space (10-foot by 20-foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet).
9. UTILITY LOCATIONS. In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain.
10. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.
11. DAYLIGHT PLANE. The daylight plane must clear the point where the wall plane intersects the top of the roof material.
12. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A minimum of 60 % of the required front yard shall have a permeable surface that permits water absorption directly into the soil (Section 18.12.040 (h)). The building permit plan set shall include a diagram demonstrating compliance.
13. REQUIRED IR LANDSCAPING/CANOPY REPLACEMENT TREES. The following landscaping is required to ensure the project’s conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines and/or the City’s tree canopy replacement requirements and therefore must remain for the life of the structure. The required screening trees and shrubs shall be a minimum size of 24-inch box, measure at least eight (8) feet tall at planting, and shall be capable of growing up to 15 feet in height. a. Six 24-inch box trees shown on sheet A5, shall be planted and maintained along rear property line.
b. Seven 24-inch box trees shown on sheet A5, shall be planted and maintained at the left side yard of the property.
c. A total of eight 24-inch box replacement trees are required for removal of tree #2 on the site plan (Tree #1 in the arborist report). Replacement trees shall be planted and maintained on the property to meet City’s no net loss of canopy requirement. Privacy trees in COA #12a and #12b can be counted towards no net loss of canopy requirements. See comment #23 for further details.
14. LANDSCAPING. All existing landscaping shall remain unless approved for removal in the approved plan set. Show tree protection fencing to all trees and shrubs intended to remain on site and for the street trees. The tree protection shall be shown in the plans submitted for building permit, as shown on Sheet A1.4 and shall be installed at the beginning of construction. Landscape planting shall be installed as shown in the approved plans. Modifications to the landscaping plan shall be approved by Planning and Urban Forestry.
Item 10
Attachment D - Staff's
Tentative Approval Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 401 of 613
530 Barron Avenue approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
15. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans.
a. Where an existing fence is non-compliant, a new Code compliant fence shall be constructed in its place.
16. JADU DEED RESTRICTION. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall complete the “OCCUPANCY, LAND USE, AND DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION AGREEMENT FOR JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT” (i.e. JADU Deed Restriction Agreement) for review and approval by the Director of Planning & Development Services.
17. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final.
Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact the planning department at 650- 617-3117 or email [email protected] to schedule this inspection.
18. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration, by emailing the Planning department at [email protected]. If a timely extension is not received, or the project has already received an extension and the applicant still wishes to pursue this project, they must first file for a new Planning application and pay the associated fees. This new application will be reviewed for conformance with the regulations in place at that time.
19. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
URBAN FORESTRY
20. The applicant's project to develop the site with the proposed removal of tree #1 is approvable by Urban Forestry under 8.10.050 B (2). Documents submitted during C3 demonstrate that there are no feasible design alternatives that would preserve tree #1.
21. The replacement value of tree #2 is eight new 24" box trees (two-thirds of the canopy loss) as defined by the Tree Technical Manual in section 3.20 C. table 3.1 of native and drought tolerant species and one-third of the appraised value of the tree as defined by the Tree Technical Manual in section 3.25 in the amount of $31,433 paid via in-lieu fee to the Palo Alto Urban Forestry Fund. (Note the appraised value of tree #1 is $94,300.)
Item 10
Attachment D - Staff's
Tentative Approval Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 402 of 613
530 Barron Avenue approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
22. URBAN FORESTRY GENERAL: The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. No waste material or construction byproducts are allowed within the TPZ. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated, and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
23. TREE DAMAGE: Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to the Contractor.
Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule apply pursuant to TLTM Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, Section 3.02.
24. TPZ EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY - TLTM, Sec. 3.03.6 - B5,6: Any approved grading, digging, potholing, or trenching within the TPZ of a protected tree shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. (TPZ= 10x the tree diameter at 54" above grade) For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with a diameter of 2 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then CPA Standard Detail #504 shall be printed on the final plans and the buffer distances in TLTM Table 3-4, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be implemented by Contractor. Contractor must notify the Urban Forestry Section at (650) 496-5953 in advance of conducting any approved excavation within 10-feet of any street trees (or for any protected tree on EVSE projects). Urban Forestry may choose to monitor or review the work for compliance with the City’s Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) excavation standards.
25. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the Tree Preservation Report and/or Sheet T-1 and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping or Urban Forestry inspection of the project is completed.
26. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY: In order to comply with the City’s no net loss of canopy policy (PAMC
8.10.055; Urban Forest Master Plan Goals 6.A, 6.B, & 6.C; Comprehensive Plan, Natural Environment Chapter Goal N-2) all trees 4 inches DBH and larger are subject to replacement to avoid a loss of canopy at the neighborhood level. Replacement ratios are determined by table 3-1 in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, Section 3.02. New landscape tree plantings (24 inch box or larger) count towards the replacement total. Screening trees may also count toward the total depending on size and species selected. If unable to plant the required number of trees on site (our preferred solution) there is the option of paying in-lieu fees per each 24 inch box tree into the forestry fund. [Note: A replacement at ratio of 1:1 for trees listed as exempt species under PAMC 8.10.020 is recommended. Exempt trees may require full replacement on parcels zoned other than R1, RE, R-2, or RMD].
27. PLAN CHANGES: Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written Item 10
Attachment D - Staff's
Tentative Approval Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 403 of 613
530 Barron Avenue approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to Planning and Development Services Department for review by Planning, Public Works, or Urban Forestry.
28. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS: The final Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the location, DBH, canopy drip-line, and TPZ of all trees 4 inches DBH or greater as well as the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets:
a. T-1 SHEET SET, The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, T-1 Sheet Set (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website. A certified arborist shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement. b. TREE PRESERVATION REPORT (TPR), if indicated by Tree Disclosure Statement, All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered T-1 Sheets (T-3, T-4, etc.) and added to the sheet index.
c. TREE PROTECTION FENCING, The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Protected Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (CPA Standard Detail #605)
ZERO WASTE
29. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed. Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction.
30. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail [email protected]. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit.
31. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com.
For more information, refer to www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction
Item 10
Attachment D - Staff's
Tentative Approval Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 404 of 613
530 Barron Avenue approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITION OF APPROVAL
The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and/or Encroachment Permit.
32. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS SHEET: The Department of Public Work’s full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet shall be included in the improvement plans and the applicant shall comply with all conditions listed in the sheet. The sheet can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/pw-conditions-sheet-alternative-update-8.7.18.pdf
33. SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY, CURB & GUTTER: The applicant shall meet with a Public Works inspector by calling 650-496-6929 to determine portions of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway approaches that shall be replaced along the project frontage. These portions shall be indicated on the site improvement plans. In addition, a Site Inspection Directive sheet shall be completed, signed by the inspector, and scanned onto the plan set. The sheet can be obtained from a staff member of Public Works Engineering Services or at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/other-guidelines/pwe-site-inspection-directive_rev- 2021.pdf
34. DRIVEWAY APPROACHES: The applicant shall comply with all regulations in PAMC Chapter 12.08 for driveway approaches. A summary of those regulations can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=69580.09&BlobID=66035
35. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHEET: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet shall be included in the improvement plans. The sheet can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/publicworks/engineering- Services/webpages/forms-and-permits/rwq_stormwater_plansheet_final_bw.pdf
36. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WORKSHEET: The applicant shall fill out the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments at the link below. The sheet shall be both emailed to [email protected] and included with the building permit submittal:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/impervious-area-worksheet-fillable.pdf
37. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The improvement plans shall be compliant with the “Grading & Drainage Guidelines for Residential Developments”. The sheet can be obtained at the following:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/grading-drainage-residential-guidelines.pdf
Item 10
Attachment D - Staff's
Tentative Approval Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 405 of 613
530 Barron Avenue approval
Individual Review 25PLN-00021
38. C.3 STORMWATER REGULATIONS: This project creates or replaces over 2,500 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant shall implement one or more of the following site design measures on improvement plans:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. f. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.
39. STREETWORK PERMIT: All improvement plans shall include the following note adjacent to proposed work in the public right-of-way. “Any construction within the public right-of-way requires an approved Street work Permit from Public Works Engineering”.
40. DEMOLITION PLAN: The following note shall be placed adjacent to all affected trees on the Demolition Plan: “Excavation and trenching is restricted within the Tree Protection Zone (refer to T-1 Tree Protection Sheet) or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division at 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”.
41. CONSTRUCTION STAGING: All improvement plans shall include the following note on the Site Plan and the Grading & Drainage Plan. “All construction materials and equipment shall be staged, stored, and stockpiled onsite and not on any public street”.
42. BARRON PARK: This project is located in Barron Park and shall comply with regulations for unimproved street areas. The guidelines can be obtained from the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/other-guidelines/paving-of-parking-areas-adjacent-to- the-edge-of-the-pavement-in-unimproved-street-areas-2021.pdf
GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS:
43. The proposed project shall conform with PAMC Section 16.14 (Green Building code) Information, ordinances and applications can be found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements, please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179 or send an email to [email protected].
Item 10
Attachment D - Staff's
Tentative Approval Letter
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 406 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 1 | Page
Tom Sullivan
530 Barron Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Site: 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
Dear Tom,
At your request I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the regulated trees around the property. A new home is planned and a porti on of the existing home will be converted into an ADU, prompting the need for this tree protection report.
Method:
Palo Alto regulates the following trees:
Locally Native Protected Species Trees
Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) 11.5" or more DBH
California Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) 11.5" or more DBH Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 11.5" or more DBH
Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii) 11.5" or more DBH
California Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii) 11.5" or more DBH Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 11.5" or more DBH
Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 18" or more DBH
Protected Mature Trees
Any mature tree measuring 15" or more DBH
Invasive species trees and high water use trees are excluded.
Designated Trees
Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of a development project.
Public Trees / Street Trees
"Public trees" include any tree, in any street, park, or public place in the city of Palo Alto. "Street Tree" refers to the Public Trees located in the city road right of way.
Palo Alto requests that all trees with a trunk diameter greater than 6 inches at standard height be included in the report including all street trees and trees on neighboring properties that might be impacted.
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 407 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 2 | Page
The location of the regulated trees on this site can be found on the plan provided by you. Each tree is given an identification number. The trees are measured at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or Diameter at Breast Height). A condition rating of 1 to 100 is assigned to each tree representing form and vitality on the following scale:
1 to 29 Very Poor
30 to 49 Poor
50 to 69 Fair
70 to 89 Good
90 to 100 Excellent
The height and spread of each tree is estimated. A Comments section is provided for any significant observations affecting the condition rating of the tree.
A Summary and Tree Protection Plan are at the end of the survey providing recommendations for maintaining the health and condition of the trees during and after construction.
Photos of the trees can be found in the Appendix at the end of the report.
Appraised values and their calculations can be found in the Appendix at the end of the report.
Alternative design approaches can be found in the Appendix at the of this report.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call.
Sincerely
Robert Weatherill
Certified Arborist WE 1936A
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 408 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 3 | Page
Tree Survey
Tree# Species DBH Ht/Sp Con Rating Comments
1 Coastal redwood 107.2”@2’ 90/40 65 Good health, fair condition, Sequoia sempervirens codominant at 2’, Regulated
2 Coastal redwood 51.0” 90/20 70 Good health and condition Sequoia sempervirens Regulated
3 Coastal redwood 36”est 80/30 65 Good health and condition, neighbor’s Sequoia sempervirens t r e e , Regulated
Summary:
Tree # 1 is a coastal redwood in the middle of the property. The tree is a Locally Native Protected Species. The tree is co-dominant at approximately 4 feet above grade. The tree splits into 5 large trunks. The size and location of this tree prohibits any type of development on this property and the tree has been requested for removal.
Tree # 2 is a coastal redwood at the side of the property. The tree is a Locally Native Protected Species. The tree is in good health and condition and should be protected during construction.
Tree # 3 is a coastal redwood on the rear neighbor’s property. The tree is a Locally Native Protected Species. The tree is in good health and condition and should be protected during construction.
Tree Protection Plan
1. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) should be defined with protective fencing. This should be cyclone or chain link fencing on 11/2” or 2” posts driven at least 2 feet in to the ground standing at least 6 feet tall. Normally a TPZ is defined by the dripline of the tree. I recommend the TPZ’s as follows:-
Tree # 2: TPZ should be at 42 feet from the trunk of the tree, closing on the property line. This is shown as a thin red line.
The TPZ can be reduced to accommodate the new construction allowing for safe access to the construction.
Any work within the TPZ should be done with hand tools only.
Any roots greater than 2” in diameter should be worked around rather than cut.
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 409 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 4 | Page
Tree # 3: TPZ should be at 30 feet from the trunk of the tree, closing on the property line. This is shown as a thin red line.
The TPZ can be reduced to accommodate the new construction allowing for safe access to the construction.
Any work within the TPZ should be done with hand tools only.
Any roots greater than 2” in diameter should be worked around rather than cut.
2. Any pruning and maintenance of the trees shall be carried out before construction begins. This should allow for any clearance requirements for both the new structure and any construction machinery. This will eliminat e the possibility of damage during construction. The pruning should be carried out by an arborist, not by construction personnel. No limbs greater than 4” in diameter shall be removed.
3. Any excavation in ground where there is a potential to damage roots of 1” or more in diameter should be carefully hand dug. Where possible, roots should be dug around rather than cut.(2) Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 410 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 5 | Page
4. If roots are broken, every effort should be made to remove the damaged area and cut it back to its closest lateral root. A clean cut should be made with a saw or pruners. This will prevent any infection from damaged roots spreading throughout the root system and into the tree.(2)
5. Do Not:.(4)
a. Allow run off or spillage of damaging materials into the area below any tree canopy. b. Store materials, stockpile soil, park or dr ive vehicles within the TPZ of the tree. c. Cut, break, skin or bruise roots, branches or trunk without first obtaining permission from the city arborist.
d. Allow fires under any adjacent trees.
e. Discharge exhaust into foliage.
f. Secure cable, chain or r ope to trees or shrubs.
g. Apply soil sterilants under pa vement near existing trees.
6. Where roots are exposed, they should be kept covered with the native soil or four layers of wetted, untreated burlap. Roots will dry out and die if left exposed to the air for too long.(4)
7. Route pipes into alternate locations to avoid conflict with roots.(4)
8. Where it is not possible to reroute pipes or trenches, the contractor is to bore beneath the dripline of the tree. The boring shall take place no less than 3 feet below the surface of the soil in order to avoid encountering “feeder” roots.(4)
9. Compaction of the soil within the dripline shall be kept to a minimum. (2) If access is required to go
through the TPZ of a protected tree, the area within the TPZ should be protected from compaction either with steel plates or with 4” of wood chip overlaid with plywood.
10. Any damage due to construction activities shall be reported to the project arborist or city arborist within 6 hours so that remedial action can be taken.
11. Ensure upon completion of the project that the original ground level is restored
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 411 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 6 | Page
Location of proposed home, ADU, tree requested for removal, protected trees and their Tree Protection Zones
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 412 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 7 | Page
Glossary
Canopy The part of the crown composed of leaves and small twigs.(2) Cavities An open wound, characterized by the presence of extensive decay and resulting in a hollow.(1)
Decay Process of degradation of woody tissues by fungi and bacteria through the decomposition of cellulose and lignin(1)
Dripline The width of the crown as measured by the lateral extent of the foliage.(1) Genus A classification of plants showing similar characteristics.
Root plate The point at which the trunk flares out at the base of the tree to become the root system.
Species A Classification that identifies a particular plant.
Standard Height at which the girth of the tree is measured. Typically 4 1/2 feet above height ground level
References
(1) Matheny, N.P., and Clark, J.P. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas.
International Society of Arboriculture,1994.
(2) Harris, R.W., Matheny, N.P. and Clark, J.R.. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Vines. Prentice Hall, 1999. (3) Carlson, Russell E. Paulownia on The Green: An Assessment of Tree Health and Structural Condition. Tree Tech Consulting, 1998.
(4) Extracted from a copy of Tree Protection guide lines. Anon (5) T. D. Sydnor, Arboricultural Glossary. School of Natural Resources, 2000 (6) D Dockter, Tree Technical Manual. City of Palo Alto, June, 2001
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 413 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 8 | Page
Certification of Performance(3)
I, Robert Weatherill certify:
* That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and appraisal is stated in the attached report and the Terms and Conditions;
* That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
* That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own, and are based on current scientific procedures and facts;
* That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events;
* That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices;
* That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report.
I further certify that I am a member of the International Society of Arboriculture and a Certified Arborist. I have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the care and study of trees for over 20 years.
Signed
Robert Weatherill
Certified Arborist WE 1936a
Date: 6/23/25
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 414 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 9 | Page
Terms and Conditions(3)
The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence pertaining to consultations, inspections and activities of Advanced Tree Care :
1. All property lines and ownership of property, trees, and landscape plants and fixtures are assumed to be accurate and reliable as presented and described to the consultant, either verbally or in writing. The consultant assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information.
2. It is assumed that any property referred to in any report or in conjunction with any services performed by Advanced Tree Care, is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations, and that any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. Any existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded.
3. All reports and other correspondence are confidential, and are the property of Advanced Tree Care and it’s named clients and their assignees or agents. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply any right of publication or use for any purpose, without the express permission of the consultant and the client to whom the report was issued. Loss, removal or alteration of any part of a report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
4. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions specifically mentioned in those reports and correspondence. Advanced Tree Care and the consultant assume no liability for the failure of trees or parts of trees, either inspected or otherwise. The consultant assumes no responsibility to report on the condition of any tree or landscape feature not specifically requested by the named client.
5. All inspections are limited to visual examination of accessible parts, without dissection, excavation, probing, boring or other invasive procedures, unless otherwise noted in the report. No warrantee or guarantee is made, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or the property will not occur in the future, from any cause. The consultant shall not be responsible for damages caused by any tree defects, and assumes no responsibility for the correction of defects or tree related problems.
6. The consultant shall not be required to provide further documentation, give testimony, be deposed, or attend court by reason of this appraisal/report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for such services as described by the consultant or in the fee schedules or contract.
7. Advanced Tree Care has no warrantee, either expressed or implied, as to the suitability of the information contained in the reports for any purpose. It remains the responsibility of the client to determine applicability to his/her particular case.
8. Any report and the values, observations, and recommendations expressed therein represent the professional opinion of the consultants, and the fee for services is in no manner contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any particular finding to be reported.
9. Any photographs, diagrams, graphs, sketches, or other graphic material included in any report, being intended solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys, unless otherwise noted in the report. Any reproductions of graphs material or the work product of any other persons is intended solely for the purpose of clarification and ease of reference.
Inclusion of said information does not constitute a representation by Advanced Tree Care or the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of that information.
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 415 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 10 | Page
Appendix
Photos of trees
Tree # 1
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 416 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 11 | Page
Tree # 2
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 417 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 12 | Page
Tree # 3
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 418 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 13 | Page
Addendum
Appraised Value of Tree # 1 using Trunk Formula Method
Tree# Species DBH Ht/Sp Con Rating Comments
1 Coastal redwood 107.2”@2’ 90/40 65 Good health, fair condition, Sequoia sempervirens 32.2”, 30.5”, 28.1”, 41.3”, 46.2” at 6 feet above grade Codominant at 2’, Regulated
Tree # 1 is a large redwood with a trunk diameter of 107.2” at 2 feet above grade. The tree starts to develop co-dominant stems at 3 feet and has ultimately 5 co-dominant stems at around 6 feet above grade. Appraising the value of the tree using the diameter at 2 feet above grade does not give a fair and realistic value of the tree, because the appraisal assumes that the trunk is a single trunk of 107” which it most definitely is not. I have remeasured the tree at 6 feet above grade and used these values to determine the appraised value of the tree.
Diameter of trunks at 6 feet above grade: 32.2”, 30.5”, 28.1”, 41.3”, 46.2”.
To determine the cross-sectional area of the entire tree I have added the cross-sectional areas of each trunk.
Cross Sectional Area of entire tree = 814 + 730 + 620 + 1339 + 1676 = 5179 square inches
The resulting value of the tree is $94,300.00. See attached table of calculations.
Appraised Value of Tree # 1 using Cost of Reproduction, Cost Compounding Technique
Tree# Species DBH Ht/Sp Con Rating Comments
1 Coastal redwood 107.2”@2’ 90/40 65 Good health, fair condition, Sequoia sempervirens 32.2”, 30.5”, 28.1”, 41.3”, 46.2” at 6 feet above grade Codominant at 2’, Regulated
Using the same figures adopted in the Trunk Formula Method for Health, Structure, Form, Functional and External Conditions.
Years to parity in this location with ideal irrigation and growing conditions would be approximately 75 years.
Interest rate as of today current mortgage rate, 30yr fixed, 6.87%
Removal of existing tree and clean up cost $15,000.00
The resulting value of the tree is $41,300.00. See attached table of calculations.
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 419 of 613
Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025
___________________________________________________________________________ 14 | Page
Alternative design approach around Tree # 1
I took a look at the plans dated 6/17/25 and it would certainly be possible to build the house as shown in the attached drawings. I do not think the tree would be adversely impacted as long as the foundations were designed to bridge over larger roots and compaction within the TPZ was kept to a minimum.
Redwoods are quite tolerant to construction impacts and can easily live through heavy canopy pruning without any problems. However, reducing this canopy to meet insurance requirements and balancing the canopy throughout would require removal of over 50% of the entire canopy and would leave an un sightly and poorly proportioned redwood.
A very recent consideration is house insurance. Many Cities are struggling to deal with protected trees that need to be removed due to cancellation of home insurance because the canopies of trees are growing over a home. I am encouraging homeowners and architects to not try to build a home beneath the canopy of the tree, because I do not think the issues with insurance in California are going away soon. This can be very challenging as housing density increases.
Redwoods have a high-water requirement to keep healthy. The proposed landscape may not be able to fulfill the requirements of this tree, and the tree may start to decline unless you provide annual supplemental irrigation. Redwoods are certainly not suited to this local climate as has been demonstrated by the decline of El Palo Alto.
Redwood roots will follow paths of moisture and a tree that is healthy like this, may impact the foundations of your new home if the roots find themselves in a water course beneath the new home.
The plans show the proposed home being 10 feet from the base of the tree and regardless of foundation design, I think building a new home this close to a large redwood is inviting structural problems several years down the line.
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 420 of 613
Line 9 Line 10 Line 11
Tree Tag #
Name (Initials)
WCISA Speces
Group
Classification
Booklet Page
Health
(Weighted
0.15)
Structure
(Weighted
0.70)
Form
(Weighted
0.15)
Overall
Condition
Rating (OCR)
"Weighted
Method"
Diameter
Inches at
2.0 ft. Above
Grade
Functional
Limitations
External
Limitations
WCISA
Species Group
Number
Trunk Square
Inches for
Replacement-
Size Specimen
of This
Average SF
Bay Area Cost
of 24 Inch Box
Tree (2019)
(UTC) Unit
Tree Cost per
Sq Inch (M
Divided by L)
Trunk Area
(TA) ((dia. x
dia.) x 0.785)
Basic
Functional
Replacement
Cost (BFRC) =
(OxN)
Depreciated
Functional
Replacement
Cost (DFRC) =
PxGxIxJ
Rounded-off
Appraised
Values
1 Ss 34 0.8 0.6 0.5 62% Multi 75% 75% 4 4.75 $250.00 $52.63 5179.00 272,578.95 $ 94,295 $ $94,300 $94,300
Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition, 2nd Printing (2019) "Functional Replacement Method / Trunk Formula Technique" Address: 530 Barron Ave, Palo Alto
Date: 3/13/25
Depreciation Factors
Advanced Tree Care and Consultin g Inc.
965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 1 of 1
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 421 of 613
3FQSPEVDUJPO.FUIPE
$PTU$PNQPVOEJOH5 FDIOJRVF
Client name _____________________________________________________ Date _________ Case # ____________ Phone _________________________________________________________E-mail ______________________________ Address ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 4VCKFDUUSFF
Species ________________________________________________ _________________ 1. T runk diameter* (D) ______________ @ _________ %2. Condition rating
Health _______________________________________________________ Structure______________________________________________________ Form ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ _________ %3. Functional limitations ______________________________________________ _________ %4. External limitations 3FQMBDFNFOUUSFF
Species ________________________________________________ _________________ 5. T runk diameter* (D) ______________ @ ____________________) $__________6. Replacement tree and installation cost (Source:
_____________ $__________7. Site preparation (if any) and present value of aftercare (if any) __________8. T otal replacement tree cost $
$BMDVMBUJPOT
_________ yrs
_________ %
__________$
__________$
__________$
__________$
__________
Years to parity (appraiser’s judgment)**
Interest rate Source: ____________________________________________ Basic compounded cost (line 8 × [1+ line 10]line 9 ) Depreciated compounded cosUA (line 11 × line 2 × line 3 × line 4) Additional cleanup cost
T otal (line 12 + line 13)
Rounded $
* Diameter and cross-sectional area may be replaced with plant area, volume, or height as appropriate. ** The age and cross-sectional area of the subject tree are not necessarily relevant. Its size (diameter, volume, and/or height) is relevant.
Years to parity should reflect the appraiser’s best estimate at the time for a healthy specimen to reach a size where it provides equal utility or benefits.
A Apply depreciation if it is appropriate for the assignment.
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA. 3FWJTFEJO$VSSFOUBTPG0DUPCFS
Tom Sullivan 6/19/25
408 223 5896 [email protected]
530 Barron Ave, Palo Alto
Coastal redwood, Sequoia sempervirens
107" 2'
62 80
60 50
75 75
Coastal redwood, Sequoia sempervirens
2.46" 54"
750.00Industry Standard
0 $750.00
75 6.87Current mortgage rate 30yr fixed
109,457.86
26,269.88
15,000
41,269
41,300
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist
Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 422 of 613
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 423 of 613
Item 10
Attachment E - Arborist Report
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 424 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Vicki Young <[email protected]>
Sent: 17 September 2025 05:31
To: Raybould, Claire; Bhavani Potharaju
Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Claire Raybould
Bhavani Potharaju
Planning and Development Services Department
Re: 530 Barron Avenue
File No: 25PLN-00021
Dear Ms. Raybould and Ms. Potharaju:
The August 28, 2025, Tentative Approval Letter for the 530 Barron Project states that the approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.12.110 and 18.77.075. These sections govern review of second story construction and the low density residential review process. The letter does not state that the proposed application satisfies the municipal code requirements for removal of a protected tree. The 530 Barron property has two protected trees.
I requested a Director’s Review of the Tentative Approval letter because I disagree with the conclusion that there is no design alternative that would allow for the preservation of the Coastal Redwood “grove” designated as Tree #1. The application does not meet the standards in Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding the removal of a protected tree.
PAMC 8.10.010 sets standards for the removal of protected trees in recognition that trees and landscaping are an essential part of the city’s infrastructure. “It is the city's intent to encourage both the preservation of trees and the proactive incorporation of trees and their benefits within development.”
Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10.050 (b)(2) permits removal of a protected tree only if there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (a)(2), a financially feasible design alternatives means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater.
Catherine Mondkar of Urban Forestry noted the following deficiencies in the prior application.
1. the applicant must explore an additional alternative that would incroach into the TPZ of Tree #1 within a reasonable threshold that would construct the home in such a way the preserves the tree’s structural integrity without increasing the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 425 of 613
2 of the tree or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater.
The third application includes an alternative design that would preserve Tree #1.
2. the consulting Arborist must clarify the specific reproduction cost of Tree #1. The C2 report referenced the appraised value, not the reproduction cost.
The third application includes reproduction costs for Tree #1.
3. that the estimated construction cost of each alternative must be provided in order to compare them against the reproduction cost of Tree #1.
No construction costs have been provided for either the proposed design or the alternative design.
4. The design alternative must be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist.
The June 25, 2025, addendum to the Consulting Arborist’s report shows that he reviewed the alternative design and stated that it would certainly be possible to build the house as shown in the drawings. The tree would not be adversely impacted as long as the foundations were designed to bridge over larger roots and compaction within the TPZ was kept to a minimum. Redwoods are quite tolerant to construction impacts and can easily live through heavy canopy pruning without any problems. The tree in question is a massive Coastal Redwood that has five trunks growing from the base. Pruning of this grove to minimize the canopy over the prospective house would not leave a poorly proportioned redwood, since while some of the trunks might be heavily pruned, while others would remain intact.
The Tentative Approval letter gives no grounds for rejecting the design alternative that preserves Tree #1. The applicant has not provided the project costs required for a determination under PAMC
8.10.050(b)(2) that a protected tree can be removed. I disagree that Documents submitted during C3 demonstrate that there are no feasible design alternatives that would preserve tree #1. Since the project costs were not presented, the requirements of 8.10.050(b)(2) have not been satisfied and the protected tree cannot be removed.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Vicki H. Young
3730 La Selva Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
[email protected]
Law Offices of Vicki H. Young
2211 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: 650-289-0635
Cell: 415-606-7699
Facsimile: 650-289-0636
On Monday, September 8, 2025 at 12:33:57 AM PDT, Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Vicki,
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 426 of 613
3 The email is sufficient. Please list the reasons for appeal request in response to this email. It will help us summarize your concerns in the staff report.
Thanks & Regards,
BHAVANI POTHARAJU
Associate Planner
408.340.5642 x126 c 408.819.0452
Timings: Mon- Fri, 7-10am PST
a new design on urban planning
m-group.us | M-LAB
From: Vicki Young <[email protected]>
Sent: 05 September 2025 04:13
To: Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]>; Raybould, Claire <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Good afternoon,
I have a question about my objections to the 530 Barron Avenue Tentative approval. I received a postcard saying that the written request for Director's Review is due 14 days from the date on the post card. That would be Sept. 11.
Does my email requesting a Director's Appeal satisfy the written requirement, or do I need to submit something more formal by Sept. 11?
Thank you.
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 427 of 613
4 Vicki Young
Law Offices of Vicki H. Young
2211 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: 650-289-0635
Cell: 415-606-7699
Facsimile: 650-289-0636
On Friday, August 29, 2025 at 11:16:54 AM PDT, Raybould, Claire <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies, I just realized I said September 15th. I meant October 15th.
Claire
Claire Raybould, AICP
Manager, Current Planning
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 329-2116 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 428 of 613
5 From: Raybould, Claire
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 11:11 AM
To: Vicki Young <[email protected]>; Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval
Good morning Vicki,
Thank you for your e-mail. Yes, we do consider properties immediately across the street from the site to be adjacent. I’d appreciate if you could list the reasons you are requesting the hearing in response to this e-mail. This will allow staff to write a staff report that explains the project that was approved, and detail your concerns on the project for the Director of Planning.
We will confirm the date/time of the director’s hearing (these are held on Wednesdays at 3:30 pm once a month. the next one I believe is scheduled for September 15th). At the Director’s hearing the Director will review the staff report, hear from the applicant and requestor(s). He will then issue a decision within 14 days of the hearing, which may include a reversal of the decision, no changes, or a revised decision with additional conditions of approval included. That decision may be appealed by the applicant or the requestor to Council.
Thanks,
Claire
Claire Raybould, AICP
Manager, Current Planning
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 329-2116 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 429 of 613
6 From: Vicki Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 10:07 AM
To: Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]>; Raybould, Claire <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good morning Bhavani and Claire,
I am responding to the email I received about the Tentative Approval for the 530 Barron Project. I live at the corner of Barron and La Selva Drive, directly across the street from the property. Is that considered "adjacent" to the property? Your letter says that only owners/tenants of an adjacent property can request a Director's Hearing.
I would like to request a Director's Hearing. What are the next steps?
Thank you.
Vicki Young
3730 La Selva Drive
Palo Alto, California 94306
Cell: 415-606-7699
Facsimile: 650-289-0636
On Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 09:09:12 PM PDT, Raybould, Claire <[email protected]> wrote:
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 430 of 613
7 Good evening all,
I’m reaching out because you had expressed an interest in the proposed Individual Review (IR) application for a new two- story home at 530 Barron Avenue and I wanted to inform you that the proposed project has been tentatively approved. I know there were expressed concerns, in particular, with respect to the proposed redwood tree removal on the property.
Staff considered these important concerns through the review process, requesting that the applicant provide further exploration of alternatives to the layout/design, including exploration of a potential variance that may allow for the tree to be retained. Ultimately while the applicant did explore multiple alternatives, including a variance alternative, the proposed design was not modified in a manner that retained the redwood tree in question. A second large redwood tree closer to the side yard property line is proposed to be retained in the tentatively approved plans.
I’m attaching the tentative approval letter for your awareness. Please feel free to reach out to myself or the project planner, Bhavani (cc’d) if you have any questions or concerns, including next steps if you chose to request a Director’s hearing on the proposed project. Please note that only an applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may request a hearing.
Claire
Claire Raybould, AICP
Manager, Current Planning
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 329-2116 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 431 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Kerri <[email protected]>
Sent: 30 August 2025 01:51
To: Claire Raybould
Cc: Bhavani Potharaju
Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Hello Claire,
We feel there are viable options that would save the larger strand of trees and would like to discuss.
October 15th would work for us. Several neighbors reached out after receiving your email asking to attend the meeting once we have a date. I wanted to give you a heads up for planning purposes.
Take care,
Kerri Jung
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2025, at 11:22 AM, Raybould, Claire <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Kerri,
I recognize that the outcome is not what you hoped. While I know we have had discussions on your concerns in the past, for the record can you explain your reason for requesting the appeal? This will provide staff the information necessary to prepare the staff report for the Director’s hearing. Hearings are held at 3:30 pm on Wednesdays once a month and I anticipate that the hearing in October will likely be held on October 15th, but I will coordinate the Director’s schedule/a room for the hearing before confirming. If you have a conflict at that time please let me know.
Claire
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 432 of 613
2 <image003.png> Claire Raybould, AICP
Manager, Current Planning
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 329-2116 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
<image002.png>
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
From: Kerri Jung <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 10:03 AM
To: Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]>
Cc: Raybould, Claire <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you, Bhavani. Would the previous email I sent suffice, or do I need to send a formal email to the director?
Sincerely,
Kerri Jung
On Aug 29, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Kerri,
An email to formally appeal for the director’s hearing is sufficient. We will wait for the 14 day appeal period to complete and then schedule a hearing date. The meeting will be conducted at the City on a Wednesday at 3.30pm. You can attend in person or online. The next hearing date will likely be in the first or second week of October.
Thanks & Regards,
<image001.png> BHAVANI
POTHARAJU
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 433 of 613
3 Associate Planner
408.340.5642 x126 c
408.819.0452
Timings: Mon- Fri, 7-
10am PST
a new design on urban planning
m-group.us | M-LAB
From: Kerri <[email protected]>
Sent: 29 August 2025 10:05
To: Claire Raybould <[email protected]>
Cc: Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Hello Claire,
Thank you for the update. This is very disappointing. Please advise on how to request a Director’s hearing.
Sincerely,
Kerri Jung
538 Barron Ave.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2025, at 9:09 PM, Raybould, Claire
<[email protected]> wrote:
Good evening all,
I’m reaching out because you had expressed an interest in the proposed Individual Review (IR) application for a new two-story home at 530 Barron Avenue and I wanted to inform you that the proposed project has been tentatively approved. I know there were expressed concerns, in particular, with respect to the proposed redwood tree removal on the property. Staff considered these important concerns through the review process, requesting that the applicant provide further exploration of alternatives to the layout/design, including exploration of a potential variance that may allow for the tree to be Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 434 of 613
4 retained. Ultimately while the applicant did explore multiple alternatives, including a variance alternative, the proposed design was not modified in a manner that retained the redwood tree in question. A second large redwood tree closer to the side yard property line is proposed to be retained in the tentatively approved plans.
I’m attaching the tentative approval letter for your awareness.
Please feel free to reach out to myself or the project planner, Bhavani (cc’d) if you have any questions or concerns, including next steps if you chose to request a Director’s hearing on the proposed project. Please note that only an applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may request a hearing.
Claire
<image004.png> Claire Raybould, AICP
Manager, Current Planning
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 329-2116 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
<image003.png>
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
<2025-0828 530 Barron Ave-Tent Approval Letter.pdf>
Item 10
Attachment F - Requests for
Directors Hearing
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 435 of 613
Removal of Protected Tree (revised)
Our application for removal of a protected tree was submitted as part of our application to build a house on our lot for our family. The Department of Urban Forestry found that the criteria to remove the tree were met and tentative approval was given. As part of a review by the Director of Planning, the Director has asked for more information about any potential design alternatives that would preserve both trees.
Previously, the best effort at creating a design alternative concept was put on paper, but was not actually code compliant since it did not provide for a second parking space. More information was also requested from the Urban Forestry department about guidelines for what is allowable when building a house within tree protection zones. A revision to the best alternative concept that preserves both trees is shown here. Once again, as detailed below, we find that the best alternative that preserves both trees is an unreasonable mess and it does not meet our family needs. There is no way to create a reasonable “design alternative” while preserving both trees.
According to PAMC 8.10.050 (b), removing a protected tree is permissible if “…it is determined by the urban forester… that…”
“Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise- permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s).”
The municipal code specifically calls out that the urban forester should make the determination about the buildable area and design alternatives. After careful consideration of the city code and the details of this application the urban forester found that the criteria were met and the protected tree can be removed.
An appeal to the Director of Planning should certainly con firm that proper procedures were followed according the the municipal code, but it should not seek to substitute for the opinion of the expert that is speci fically called out in the code to make the determination.
Reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area of the lot is clear. Greater than 99% of the lot is covered by tree protection zones of the two redwood trees, and the canopy covers 58% of the buildable area.
Tree Protection Zone. Any attempt to achieve a house similar to the proposed design is limited by the location of the trees and also by guidance from Urban Forestry to limit new building and soil disturbance to 25% of the tree protection Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Justification for Removal of
Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 436 of 613
zone for each tree. Section A shows how the best tree-preserving concept is situated on the land and how the tree protection zone coverage is calculated for the design concept. It illustrates the severe limitations caused by the tree.
Square Footage. Section B shows a best attempt at an internal layout. The total area is 496 square feet smaller than our proposed design. The alternative concept requires an extreme amount of hallway area to bridge the distance between the front and rear portions of the house. The alternative concept has 344 square feet of hallway area compared with 65 square feet in the proposed design resulting in an additional loss of 279 of useable living area. The di fference in useable living area between the proposed design and alternative concept is 775 square feet. This by itself shows that the concept is not similar to the proposed design and it is not a reasonable design alternative.
Awkward Layout. Building around the tree leads to a very awkward and impractical layout. The living area is broken up into front and rear sections connected by a long hallway. The living room / dining room becomes very tight.
The entry connects to the long hallway through the middle of the living room area.
The kitchen has been reduced in both directions and is now cramped. There is no longer room for stools at the island. The separate living room area, common area for the kids, and laundry room have been completely lost. The primary bedroom suite has also been severely compromised with the bedroom being reduced from 221 square feet to 154, and is now barely wide enough to fit in a king-size bed. It may be possible to build this concept, but based on the awkward, non-standard resulting layout it is not a reasonable design alternative to the proposed design.
Home Insurance. The alternative concept would need to be built largely under the tree canopy. Section C shows how this would work. The branches of the tree would be pruned from the ground up to 30 feet. This would keep the removal of functioning leaf area to just under the 25% limit. Unfortunately, building under the tree canopy will be a risk when trying to secure home insurance. It is a growing issue that neighbors may not have had to deal with since they have older homes and older policies. Section C gives links to some online articles about the issue.
We have talked to an insurance agent that said if a policy review is triggered (which is certainly would with a new house built) that overhanging branches would not be allowed. This may already be recognized by the Urban Forestry Department as an evolving issue within Palo Alto with no de finitive timeline on any potential resolutions. It may have also played a role in prompting the removal of an oak tree at 1024 Emerson St. If we are forced by the City to design an awkward house, then have to cut down the tree in order to secure insurance, then no one gains from it. It would be better to plan a house that works well with the lot and to plant appropriate replacement trees in locations that make sense.
Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Justification for Removal of
Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 437 of 613
Foundation Damage. Our consulting arborist included a section in his report giving his opinion about the previous version of the alternative concept. He advised that, while the tree would likely survive the construction process, there are good reasons to avoid building so close to the large trees. Among these reasons are that the roots of the tree could eventually damage the house and the tree may be left without adequate irrigation.
Financial Feasibility. There was a request to estimate if the project cost of the alternative concept would be significantly more expensive than the proposed plan. It is likely that the alternative concept would cost less to build than the proposed plan. This is because the alternative concept is about 500 square feet smaller than the proposed design. This should drive home the point that the alternative concept is not even close to being an equivalent or similar house as the proposed design. A lesser, awkward house may be “financially feasible”, but that does not automatically mean it is really a design alternative. Implicit in the phrase “financially feasible design alternative” is that the financial viability will be tested among reasonable alternatives that achieve similar functionality.
An alternative way to look at financial feasibility is to look at the opportunity cost of building a smaller house. At an estimated resale value of $2000/s.f., the 500 s.f. of lost area would represent much more money than the threshold of twice the reproduction value of the tree.
A proper design alternative to the proposed design must result in a house that is substantially similar and meets the needs of our family to the same degree. As shown above, due to the limitations of available building area around the trees, proposed design alternatives will fall short because
(1) the useable living area of the best alternative concept is 775 square feet less, (2) the layout would be unreasonably awkward,
(3) building under the tree canopy would make securing home insurance risky and may result in an awkward house and tree removal, and
(4) the house would be at risk of future structural damage from the roots of the nearby, large tree.
Unfortunately, no reasonable design alternative exists that would allow for preservation of the trees. We request the Director of Planning to con firm that the urban forester’s decision to allow tree removal was made in accordance with municipal code.
Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Justification for Removal of
Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 438 of 613
EXHIBIT - TREE 1 TPZ ANALYSISTOTAL AREA OF TPZ = 4656 SQ.FT.AREA OF TPZ COVERED BY EACH TYPEOF STRUCTURE:- PROPOSED HOUSE =1108 SQ.FT. (23.8% OF TPZ)- WALKS & DRIVEWAY = 158 SQ.FT. (3.4% OF TPZ)TOTAL NEW TPZ COVERAGE = 27.2% Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Justification for Removal of
Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 439 of 613
EXHIBIT - TREE 2 TPZ ANALYSISTOTAL AREA OF TPZ = 5674 SQ.FT.AREA OF TPZ COVERED BY EACH TYPEOF STRUCTURE:- PROPOSED HOUSE =1052 SQ.FT. (18.5% OF TPZ)- WALKS & DRIVEWAY = 442 SQ.FT. (7.8% OF TPZ)TOTAL NEW TPZ COVERAGE = 26.3% Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Justification for Removal of
Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 440 of 613
fl[f.)
ur./r n6 [yt N InrlF
oo- l rco4
JITthE
frA
e*r, m?
W-ffCt\€ *
t-LAh
A *$ k6{
oQo
OC
L
6qo frh4rLPtq 9T'
4x (coof,-
1't7 4 Lt..tttG t=Y-eA lVe+ $ r-tav)
XToo 4 6xo^&€
1-Z q sa.Ptr
I
l
(*)
f
fiatur,*4
t O.en!*tJ
CAvu)
Sr't t Ne l'7,1 ,l 6
EXCESS HALLWAY
Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Justification for Removal of
Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 441 of 613
pu+t
rr zf r4
1,4 frtS DFt
6€1 2
lo,{ Y* t+
fr€v q
lo,€* tL
r
-t
1l { j*L_{
"I
57* # P\ (Lg-D l"J +T '
ZAo fvoof
la t"f +
oftat{
"l
I
I
(
@@
@0
1 I
t
t
Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Justification for Removal of
Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 442 of 613
9’
110’
90’53’
25’ 30’
53’
110’
90’
Before pruning After pruning from bottom
Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s Justification
for Removal of Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 443 of 613
EXHIBIT - TREE 1 TPZ ANALYSISTOTAL AREA OF TPZ = 4656 SQ.FT.AREA OF TPZ COVERED BY EACH TYPEOF STRUCTURE:- PROPOSED HOUSE =1108 SQ.FT. (23.8% OF TPZ)- WALKS & DRIVEWAY = 158 SQ.FT. (3.4% OF TPZ)TOTAL NEW TPZ COVERAGE = 27.2% Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s Justification
for Removal of Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 444 of 613
Links to more information about insurance risk
https://homesmsp.com/2023/11/overhanging-tree-branches-make-home-uninsurable.html https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-carlos-family-says-home-insurer-dropped-them-with-no- warning-over-oak-tree/
https://www.reddit.com/r/homeowners/comments/13w36tp/
home_insurance_wants_all_tree_overhang_trimmed_or/
Item 10
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Justification for Removal of
Protected Tree #1
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 445 of 613
February 3, 2026
Dear Members of the City Council,
Please grant our request for a City Council hearing. All we want to do is build a house on our lot for our family. We think we are being unfairly blocked from doing so.
Our application for removal of a protected tree was submitted as part of an application to build a house. After evaluating the application in detail, the City staff applied the relevant municipal code and gave a tentative approval. An appeal was raised to the Director of Planning, who reversed the sta ff’s decision.
We believe the Director’s decision is clearly at odds with the municipal code. The decision is also incomplete in that it does not explain how the decision is supported by the code, and it does not respond to several valid arguments that were presented in the application and later in the two Director’s hearings. Please give us a hearing so that you can ensure that the Palo Alto municipal code is being properly applied.
Relevant code. According to PAMC 8.10.050 (b), removing a protected tree is permissible if
“…it is determined by the urban forester… that…”
“Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise- permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s).”
This 25% rule was added by the Council to provide an objective standard to make it more clear when removing a tree is allowed. It seems that it was written for our exact situation. With over 99% of the buildable area in the tree protection zone and 58% of the buildable area directly under tree canopy, there is no question that the 25% criteria is met. If it doesn’t apply to our situation, then it is hard to imagine a scenario where it does apply.
In fact, while the rule was added to the code recently, it is a continuation of previous City practice. When the language was added at the one year update of the Tree Protection Ordinance, the City staff explained to the Council that “This rule has been used in past practice on residential lots that are dominated by large, centrally placed trees. Adding this reason for removal here addresses this oversight.” Meaning of “design alternative”. The final clause says “and there is no financially feasible design alternative…”. It does not say, “and there is no house can be built on the lot no matter how small and awkward”. The purpose is to protect trees where Item 10
Attachment H - Applicant’s
Request for Appeal
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 446 of 613
possible, without allowing them to be a significant barrier to development. By reading the plain meaning it is clear that by “design alternative” it means a house that is similar to the proposed house. This meaning is consistent with past practice of the City. This was the City’s intent as this section of code was being crafted, as confirmed by the head of Urban Forestry at one of the Director’s hearings. It was the interpretation of the City staff when the application was tentatively approved. It is also consistent with the City’s application of code for multi-family residential development.
In our application we show that due to the location of the trees in the buildable area, it is not possible to build a similar house while preserving both trees. At best, we could build a house that is 500 s.f. less in area, more than 750 s.f. less in livable area (when you take into account absurdly long hallways), and that the resulting layouts would be very awkward. We also explicitly listed out design goals for the project, such as having a living room large enough to invite a few friends over. We showed how the large, centrally placed tree makes it impossible to meet the design alternatives. The fact that it is not possible to build a similar house while preserving both trees is not in dispute.
Director’s interpretation. The Director’s decision seems to create a new interpretation of the meaning of “design alternative”. The decision implies, without much explanation, that any house that can be built on the lot is a fair design alternative, regardless of how small and awkward. It implies that as long as a house of some sort can be built for cheaper than the proposed house, then the tree cannot be removed.
In the application we note that it is possible to build a smaller, awkward house on the lot that is not at all similar in function to our proposed house. We conceded that it obviously would be cheaper to construct because it would be so much smaller than the proposed house.
The Director’s creative, narrow interpretation of the code does not align with the plain meaning of the code’s text. It does not align with the intent behind this provision at the time it was added, or the practice before it was written down. It does not align with the understanding of the Department of Urban Forestry, or the lower level staff in the Planning department. It does not align with current application of the code for multi- family residential development.
If this view were to become the new interpretation of this provision, then it is hard to imagine the 25% rule could be applied to any future building project. It would essentially be an end-run around the provision. Regardless of how we currently personally feel about the City’s laws, they should be applied fairly until such time as the Council changes them in a transparent, legal process.
Foundation Damage and Home Insurance. Besides the main reason that the 25% rule applies to our project, there are other good reasons to allow our proposed house and tree removal to go forward. Our consulting arborist included a section in his report advising that, while the tree would likely survive the construction process, it is best to avoid building so close to the large trees Item 10
Attachment H - Applicant’s
Request for Appeal
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
63 Packet Pg. 447 of 613
because the roots of the tree could eventually damage the house. It is also increasingly common for home insurance companies to require that a house does not have any large overhanging branches. This is happening nationally, but also here in Palo Alto.
If our right to build a house is constrained by the City so that we can only build an awkward house under the canopy and close to the tree trunk, then we would be put at high risk of damage to our most valuable asset. There would also be a high risk to eventually have to cut down the tree in order to secure insurance or after foundation damage. No one would gain from that situation. It would be better to plan a house that works well with the lot and to plant appropriate replacement trees in locations that make sense (right tree, right place).
Please grant us a hearing so that we can explain how the 25% rule applies to our project and also explore these other issues of future house damage if needed.
Sincerely,
Tom Sullivan and Cat Sullivan
Item 10
Attachment H - Applicant’s
Request for Appeal
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
64 Packet Pg. 448 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: John Hinton <[email protected]>
Sent: 21 February 2025 04:50
To: Bhavani Potharaju
Cc: Hinton, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 530 Barron Ave Palo Alto (25PLN-00021)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Mr. Bhavani Potharaju,
My family owned 530 Barron until 2003. We bought it about 1998. When we took occupancy, the previous owner had just cut down one of the heritage redwoods on the property. We were left with the wood. In 1998, my children and I counted the rings on the fallen tree. We figure that it was at least 110 years old. The fallen tree was smaller than the other trees on the property.
My family lived on the property for a year while our house was being built on La Selva Drive. We started to plan on what to do with the property when our house was completed. The existing house on the property was old and not worth remodeling. In order to build something that was financially viable, a new house would have to be near the maximum allowable on the property, but the trees were in the building envelope.
We engaged an architect to help design something that would work (and save the trees). Our only hope was to apply for a variance to allow us to build outside of the standard building envelope. In 2002, we applied for such a variance, we had a hearing before the city council, and we were granted the variance. Our plan did not remove any trees and provided for a special foundation that would not harm the trees’ roots.
In the end, we chose not to build a new house for economic reasons and therefore, our variance expired.
I share this history with you for two reasons:
These trees are old, healthy, and beautiful. Our neighborhood would be poorer if they are removed. I’m sure a great majority of the neighborhood feels the same way. There is an alternative. I’d be happy to share my plans with you and the current owners.
John Hinton
408-690-0758
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
65 Packet Pg. 449 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
66 Packet Pg. 450 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
67 Packet Pg. 451 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Kerri Jung <[email protected]>
Sent: 23 February 2025 02:46
To: Bhavani Potharaju; Chris; [email protected] Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Construction and Redwood Tree Removal at 530 Barron Avenue (File Number 25PLN-00021)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Dear Ms. Potharaju,
We are reaching out to formally express our opposition to the proposed construction project at 530 Barron Avenue and the potential removal of a significant redwood circle on the property.
The redwood cluster on this property, made up of five trees, is over 100 years old and is important to both the history of the site and the Barron Park neighborhood. The existing home, built in 1926, was designed to accommodate these trees and when the current owners purchased the home in 2022, the listing specifically stated, "Buyer should investigate the different options to rebuild, expand, or remodel with the City of Palo Alto," which we believe was included due to the trees' protected status.
We understand that the homeowners are seeking a waiver to remove the trees, citing limitations on construction.
However, previous plans submitted to Palo Alto planners in 2002 showed that a two story home exceeding 2,000 square feet could be built on this lot while preserving the redwoods. Those plans included a setback adjustment to allow for a two-story home in the footprint of the existing house. This past proposal shows there are viable alternatives that would allow for new construction without the loss of these trees. We would support building plans that preserve these protected trees and we strongly encourage the city to explore these options with the homeowners.
Beyond their historic value, these redwoods provide significant environmental benefits. Coast redwoods can sequester approximately 250 tons of carbon each and their root systems helps improve water quality.
We have also noted some inconsistencies in the Planning Review Application. The application describes retaining a "portion of the existing residence as a new detached ADU," but this portion is already a functioning ADU that was rented out until two years ago. The proposed plan would replace an existing smaller, more affordable home with a large 2,530-square-foot house and an attached 303-square-foot JADU. This change not only compromises environmental integrity but also contributes to the ongoing displacement of modest-sized homes in our community.
We appreciate the city’s careful review of this project and we look forward to discussing potential solutions with you during our March 6th meeting. We hope we can work toward an outcome that respects both the homeowners’ needs and the integrity of Palo Alto’s heritage trees.
Sincerely,
Kerri and Chris Jung
538 Barron Avenue
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
68 Packet Pg. 452 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Francisco Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: 23 February 2025 14:27
To: Bhavani Potharaju
Subject: Opposition to Redwood Tree Removal at 530 Barron Avenue (File Number 25PLN-00021) Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Dear Ms. Potharaju,
My name is Francisco Martin and I live at 548 Barron Ave. Palo Alto, 94306
We have been informed that the owners of 530 Barron Ave (2 hours over from ours) have requested the removal of 5 redwood trees to build a larger home.
A giant sequoia was removed from our front yard by the city a couple of years ago because it had an illness. This had a large impact on the neighborhood environment, where large protected trees are disappearing at an alarming rate. The removal of these other trees would have an even more significant impact and would radically transform our neighborhood to one without a soul.
We would like to request that the proposal to build a new home be considered while respecting these centennial trees.
Thanks for your consideration.
- Francisco Martin
408-335-8589
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
69 Packet Pg. 453 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: [email protected]
Sent: 23 February 2025 07:04
To: Bhavani Potharaju
Subject: Tree at 530 Barron Ave.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Dear Ms. Bhavani Potharaju, Project Planner,
It would be a pity to remove such a wonderful tree.
I'm sure a project of a new or remodeled house can be created in order to preserve the tree.
Manuel Guerrero
3765 La Selva Dr.
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
70 Packet Pg. 454 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
71 Packet Pg. 455 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
72 Packet Pg. 456 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
73 Packet Pg. 457 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Vicki Young <[email protected]>
Sent: 25 February 2025 02:14
To: Bhavani Potharaju
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 530 Barron Avenue, File No. 25PLN-00021
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Bhavani Potharaju
Project Planner
CPU Development Center
Re: 530 Barron Avenue
File No: 25PLN-00021
Dear Ms. Potharaju:
I am writing about my concerns for the application to build a new two-story home at 530 Barron Avenue. The application calls for the removal of a magnificent Coast Redwood tree that should be spared. The tree is a protected species and meets the criteria for a heritage tree set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.090 - It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species, it is one of the largest and oldest in Palo Alto, and it possesses distinctive form, size, age and location.
I have lived across the street from this tree since 1987, and I view the tree trunks daily from my kitchen window. The 530 Barron address is located at the entrance of La Selva Drive. As described in the recent Barron Park Association Newsletter, La Selva Drive was part of the driveway leading to the mansion built by Sarah Wallis and later owned by Edward Barron. It curved through the extensive grove of ornamental trees and shrubs planted by those early landowners. Edward Barron purchased the Wallis estate in 1878.
Our house is on the corner of Barron and La Selva. Records show that our house was built in 1927. Our neighbor at 538 Barron says that his house was built before then. The trees in the neighborhood were mature and verdant when we moved there almost 40 years ago. The “woodsy” character of the community sets Barron Park apart from other neighborhoods in Palo Alto.
I believe that the Coast Redwood in question is approximately 100 years old, and almost 100 feet tall. It is almost 9 feet in diameter at 2 feet. While the arborist report describes the tree as a single tree, five large trunks have grown from the base, so the tree appears to be a small grove. Two of five trunks by themselves are large enough to almost qualify as protected trees under the Palo Alto Code. The tree is in good condition and is a Locally Native Protected Species.
In reviewing earlier building applications for 530 Barron, I see that a former owner of the property applied for a variance in 2003 so that they could build a two story house at the location. The record number is Record 03IPT-00000-2053. The work description was for a rearyard setback variance and a rear yard daylight plane variance for the construction of a new two story single family residence. Not all Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
74 Packet Pg. 458 of 613
2 of the records for the application can be viewed on line, but the processing status shows that the Directors Decision was marked as Approved with Con. It is my understanding that the variances were requested so that the Coast Redwood tree/trees could be preserved.
In light of the variance that was approved in 2003, I believe there must be a feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Vicki H. Young
3730 La Selva Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
[email protected]
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
75 Packet Pg. 459 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Kerri Jung <[email protected]>
Sent: 19 May 2025 07:58
To: Bhavani Potharaju; [email protected] Cc: Chris; Lait, Jonathan; Stone, Greer
Subject: Updated Building Plan for 530 Barron Avenue (File Number 25PLN-00021) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Dear Ms. Potharaju,
We are writing to follow up regarding the proposed removal of the redwood ring at 530 Barron Avenue. Thank you for your thoughtful comments in the Corrections Table document; we’ll continue to check the city website for the property owners’ responses to the issues you raised. From the documentation, it’s clear the property owners would like to move forward with their project, and we believe there is a viable path that can support both their goals and the community’s interest in preserving these significant trees.
As mentioned in our earlier message, the five mature redwoods in this ring provide environmental benefits to the neighborhood and to Palo Alto as a whole, including carbon sequestration, improved air and water quality, and natural cooling. These directly support the city’s broader climate and sustainability goals. In addition to their ecological value, the redwood ring is also a living neighborhood landmark that is both important to neighbors and contributes to Barron Park’s unique character.
After reviewing the latest documentation, we believe the plan in “Section G: Small Tree Removal” offers a reasonable and balanced compromise. This plan would allow the homeowners to build a total of 3,132 square feet by removing a single smaller tree while preserving the five-tree redwood ring, a solution that is both viable and respectful of the site’s history. With appropriate setback variances, it seems possible to allow for new construction while protecting the environmental and community value of the redwoods.
The arborist report is clear that this is a feasible plan, noting that the redwood ring is in good health and that this plan could proceed without adversely impacting the trees, as long as reasonable precautions are taken.
We understand the homeowners have expressed concern about insurance due to tree overhang. However, after walking the surrounding neighborhood, we observed many homes, both older and newly built, with substantial tree overhang. Two examples include 739 La Para Avenue, which is beginning a construction project and has significant overhang from a large tree, and 3618 Laguna Avenue, where a new home is being built with a large oak tree overhanging a substantial portion of the structure. If helpful, we can provide a list of over 20 nearby addresses, both existing and recently constructed, that demonstrate this pattern, along with photos. These examples throughout our neighborhood show that mature canopy and new construction can safely coexist, and that insurance issues may not be as big a problem as the property owners fear.
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
76 Packet Pg. 460 of 613
2 Palo Alto has a long tradition of supporting heritage tree preservation through setback variances and thoughtful site planning. We encourage the city to continue that practice by supporting the Section G solution which preserves the redwood ring while allowing the homeowners to build.
If the current plan proceeds, we would like to be notified of any public meetings or opportunities for comment prior to a final decision. Several neighbors are closely following this proposal and we would all appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process.
Thank you again for your time, your careful review of this proposal, and your continued efforts to balance new development with stewardship of Palo Alto’s urban forest.
Sincerely,
Kerri and Chris Jung
538 Barron Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
77 Packet Pg. 461 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Rune Olslund (rolslund) <[email protected]>
Sent: 09 July 2025 09:23
To: Hinton Jenn Wagstaff
Cc: Bhavani Potharaju; John Hinton; La Selva Group; Kerri Jung; [email protected]; Jennifer Wagstaff Hinton
Subject: Re: 530 Barron Ave Palo Alto (25PLN-00021)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Hi Bhavani::
We live two houses from these trees. We see them every day. Going to work. Coming home from work.
Walking our dogs. Heading out for dinner. Going by them when we go to the grocery store. Our neighborhood, Palo Alto and Santa Clara will be less if these old souls are sacrificed for another modern multi-million $ development. Please help do the right thing here. You would be so appreciated by all of us.
Rune
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 8, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Jenn Wagstaff Hinton <[email protected]> wrote:
Good evening, Bhavani Potharaju.
We are reaching out to you again after 5 months of efforts working with the current owners of 530 Barron - seeking ways to preserve the 100+ year old stand of Redwood trees, while assisting them with options we discovered in 2002 by working with the Canopy and Planning staff back at that time. We'd like to formally appeal any/all decisions by City Planning to allow the current owners to proceed with the tree removal, including the addition of this Project 25PLN-00021 to an upcoming City Council agenda to enable neighbors to share their concerns about the current removal plans. Please advise Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
78 Packet Pg. 462 of 613
2 when/how we may pursue this appeal path with your City Planning team and/or the City Council - including process, form submittals, and possible city council dates for
review. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Jenn & John Hinton
3838 LaSelva Drive
prior owners 530 Barron Ave.
650-704-1244
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 10:58 AM Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi John & Jennifer,
Thank you for reaching out to me with your comments. I have received your comments and sent it to other reviewing departments. I will keep you posted on the project review.
Thanks & Regards,
<image001.png> BHAVANI
POTHARAJU
Associate Planner
408.340.5642 x126 c
408.819.0452
Timings: Mon- Fri, 7-10am
PST
a new design on urban planning
m-group.us | M-LAB
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
79 Packet Pg. 463 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Payal Karsan <[email protected]>
Sent: 15 October 2025 06:56
To: Bhavani Potharaju
Cc: Sundip Karsan
Subject: Letter in Support of 530 Barron Avenue Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Payal and Sundip Karsan
3727 Cass Way
Barron Park, Palo Alto, CA 94306
[email protected], [email protected]
October 14, 2025
City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Letter of Support for Cat and Tom Sullivan – Residential Construction at 530 Barron Avenue
Dear Bhavani and City of Palo Alto Planning Department,
I am writing as a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood to express my strong support for my neighbor, Cat and Tom Sullivan, and their plans to build a home on their property located at 530 Barron Avenue.
Our neighborhood values both the preservation of Palo Alto’s natural environment and the ability of residents to responsibly develop and enjoy their properties. In this case, I understand there is a protected tree on the site that may affect the feasibility of construction. From what I know, Tom has been thoughtful and transparent throughout this process, engaging with professionals and the City to explore preservation and mitigation options.
If it is ultimately determined that the tree must be removed to allow for construction, I respectfully urge the City to provide a clear and fair path forward — including reasonable mitigation measures — so that Cat and Tom can proceed with building their home. Supporting homeowners in finding practical solutions benefits the broader community and helps maintain the vibrant, family-oriented character of Barron Park.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Payal and Sundip Karsan
Resident, Barron Park Neighborhood
Palo Alto, California
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
80 Packet Pg. 464 of 613
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Charlton Lui <[email protected]>
Sent: 15 October 2025 01:07
To: Bhavani Potharaju
Cc: Charlton Lui
Subject: Request to Read Public Comment – 530 Barron Avenue (Sullivan Family Project) Application 25PLN-00021).
Attachments: Formal Written Comment – 530 Barron Avenue.docx; Personal Comment – 530 Barron Avenue (for reading aloud).docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated.
Dear Ms. Potharaju,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in support of the Sullivan family and their proposed project at 530 Barron Avenue (Application 25PLN-00021).
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the Director’s Hearing scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, 2025, but I would greatly appreciate it if my personal comment (attached) could be read aloud during the public comment portion of the hearing. This statement reflects my perspective as a Palo Alto neighbor who knows the Sullivans personally — our children go to school and play on sports teams together, and I have had the pleasure of coaching some of those teams.
For the official record, I have also attached my formal written comment in support of the project.
Thank you very much for your time and assistance in ensuring my comments are included in the hearing.
Warm regards,
Charlton Lui
Palo Alto Neighbor
Attachments:
1. Formal Written Comment – 530 Barron Avenue (Word Doc)
2. Personal Comment – 530 Barron Avenue (Word Doc, formatted for reading aloud)
1. Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
81 Packet Pg. 465 of 613
Title: Support for the Sullivan Family – 530 Barron Avenue Project Dear Ms. Potharaju and Planning Staff,
I am writing to express my support for the Sullivan family and their proposed project at 530 Barron Avenue (Application 25PLN-00021).
The Sullivans currently reside in a 924-square-foot home, which is inadequate for their growing family of four. Their proposal to construct a 2,528-square-foot two-story residence with attached and detached accessory dwelling units is reasonable, well-planned, and consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
While I understand there are concerns regarding the removal of an existing tree, the Sullivans have taken care to comply with all city regulations, demonstrating a commitment to minimizing environmental impact. Their project represents a thoughtful approach to creating a safe, comfortable, and livable home for their family while remaining engaged members of the Palo Alto community.
I respectfully urge the City to approve their application.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charlton Lui | Palo Alto Neighbor | [email protected]
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
82 Packet Pg. 466 of 613
Title: Public Comment – Support for the Sullivan Family Address: 530 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto
Hello, my name is Charlton Lui, and I am a Palo Alto neighbor of the Sullivan family.
Our kids go to school and play on sports teams together, and I have had the pleasure of coaching some of those teams. The Sullivans are one of the kindest, most generous families you could meet, always willing to help others and contribute positively to our community.
Their current 924-square-foot home is far too small for their family of four. Their proposed rebuild to a 2,528-square-foot home is thoughtful, modest, and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. They have followed all City guidelines and have taken care to minimize any impact from tree removal.
Families like the Sullivans make Palo Alto a stronger and more connected community.
I wholeheartedly support their project and respectfully urge the City to approve it.
Sincerely,
Charlton Lui
Palo Alto Neighbor
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
83 Packet Pg. 467 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
84 Packet Pg. 468 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
85 Packet Pg. 469 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
86 Packet Pg. 470 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
87 Packet Pg. 471 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
88 Packet Pg. 472 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
89 Packet Pg. 473 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
90 Packet Pg. 474 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
91 Packet Pg. 475 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
92 Packet Pg. 476 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
93 Packet Pg. 477 of 613
Item 10
Attachment I - Public
Comment
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
94 Packet Pg. 478 of 613
Project Plans
In order to reduce paper consumption plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Use the map to find “530 Barron Avenue” and click the green map icon link
3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information
The project website with a link to the project plans is also available at:
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/530-Barron-Ave
Item 10
Attachment J - Tentatively
Denied Plans
Item 10: Staff Report
Pg.
95 Packet Pg. 479 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2603-6111
TITLE
SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (FIRST READING: March 9, 2026; PASSED: 7-0)
BACKGROUND
The City Council heard this item on March 9, 2026 for a first reading and approved it on a 7-0 vote. No changes were made to the ordinance, and it is now before the City Council for a second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 11
Item 11 Staff Report
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 480 of 613
*NOT YET APPROVED*
0160183_20260202_ay16
1 Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Requirements Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 18.70.105 (Noncomplying facility – de minimis exception) of Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read as follows:
18.70.105 Noncomplying facility - De minimis exception
Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 18.70.080, 18.70.090, and 18.70.100, up to 250 square feet of non-complying floor area (i.e. floor area associated with a non-complying feature) may be relocated as follows, provided that the degree and manner of non-compliance is not increased:
(a) The non-complying facility houses a single-family residential use in a low-density residential zone district; and
(b) Any proposal to relocate non-complying floor area will comply with the following:
(1) Projects that include relocation of 150 to 250 square feet to a location above the ground floor shall be subject to Section 18.10.040, subd. (i), or 18.12.110, as applicable; or
(2) Projects that include relocation of less than 150 sf above the ground floor and that are therefore not subject to Individual Review, shall comply with the objective standards for single-family development as applicable to the proposed relocation.
SECTION 2. 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 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it constitutes minor adjustments to the City’s zoning ordinance to implement State law requirements related to accessory dwelling units as established in Government Code Section 65852.2, and these changes are also likely to result in few additional dwelling units dispersed throughout the City. As such, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed action will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Item 11
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Amend
Requirements Relating to
Accessory Dwelling Units
and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 481 of 613
*NOT YET APPROVED*
0160183_20260202_ay16
2 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST: _______________________________ __________________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_______________________________ __________________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
__________________________________
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
Item 11
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Amend
Requirements Relating to
Accessory Dwelling Units
and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 482 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2603-6182
TITLE
SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of Authorizing Work in the Baylands Related to the Adjacent Development at 2100-2400 Geng Road (24-PLN-00356) (FIRST READING: March 16, 2026; PASSED 7-0)
BACKGROUND
The City Council heard this item on March 16, 2026 for a first reading and approved it on a 7-0 vote. No changes were made to the ordinance, and it is now before the City Council for a second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance of the Council of Authorizing Work in the Baylands Related to the Adjacent Development at 2100-2400 Geng Road (24-PLN-00356) APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 12
Item 12 Staff Report
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 483 of 613
NOT YET APPROVED
1 152_20260302_ts24
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of Authorizing Work in the Baylands Related to the Adjacent Development at 2100-2400 Geng Road (24-PLN-00356)
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. Strada Investment Group, on behalf of San Francisco No. 69 LLC (collectively, the “Applicant”), has proposed a housing development project located at 2100–2400 Geng Road that would redevelop an existing approximately 11-acre site currently improved with office buildings and surface parking lots with approximately 145 multifamily townhome units, including 19 below-market-rate units, and community open spaces, as more detailed in City Planning Permit Application 24-PLN-00356 (the “Project”);
B. CEQA review on the Project (including the plan in this ordinance) has been conducted and is exempt under CEQA regulation 15183;
C. The Project site is located adjacent to the Baylands Athletic Center (“BAC”), a City- owned public recreation facility within the City’s Baylands open space, which is dedicated parkland under PAMC section 22.08.020 et seq; D. Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor; E. To comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the City of Palo Alto’s floodplain management requirements pursuant to Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), the Project site must be elevated by importing soil ranging from approximately one (1) to six (6) feet in depth across the site; F. An Arborist Report prepared for the Project by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, dated August 2025 (Attached as Exhibit A) identifies approximately forty-five (45) non-native Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) trees located on the southern edge of the Baylands Athletic Center adjacent to the Project site (the “City Trees”) that may be impacted by Project-related grading and construction activity; G. According to the Arborist Report, thirty-one (31) of the City Trees are in “poor” condition and fourteen (14) are in “fair” condition;
H. The exact number of City Trees that will be impacted by Project construction cannot be determined until final grading plans are prepared and implemented; I. The City and the Applicant desire to establish a mutually acceptable monitoring and replacement plan to address potential impacts to City Trees during Project construction, consistent with the goals of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 8.10) and the City’s Urban Forestry Guidelines; and J. Unless directed otherwise by the City Council, the City’s Urban Forestry Section and Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 484 of 613
NOT YET APPROVED
2 Community Services Department shall use the funds received from the Applicant under this Project to plant and establish replacement trees on City-maintained property east of 101 within a maximum distance of 1 mile from the BAC property.
Replanting efforts will focus on the area around the Baylands Athletic Center first and spread to other Baylands Open Space areas when additional sites are needed.
Tree species selection for replacement trees will include a minimum of two thirds (2/3) climate smart native species compatible with the Baylands habitat zone.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the following Plan under Article VIII (Parks) of the City Charter and PAMC section 22.08.005 for the removal of certain City Trees in the Baylands under the following provisions:
1. Updated Arborist Report Prior to Grading Permit
In connection with submittal of Project grading permit application(s) involving work along the shared boundary with the Baylands Athletic Center, the Applicant shall submit to the City’s Urban Forestry Section (“Urban Forestry”) an updated arborist report prepared by a certified arborist identifying any City Trees located on the Baylands Athletic Center property that must be removed to facilitate grading or site access. Upon application to and review by Urban Forestry, Urban Forestry shall issue a Tree Removal Permit under PAMC section 8.04.040 for those City Trees identified where the Tree Protection Zone is so impacted that the tree will be prone to become unstable or unlikely to survive and otherwise in compliance with the requirements in PAMC Ch. 8.04. The scope of Urban Forestry’s review shall be limited to making this determination. Applicant shall be responsible for removal of the City Tree(s) to be removed. Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry at least 14 calendar days in advance of any scheduled tree removals.
2. Monitoring and Reporting of Remaining Trees
During grading activities, the Applicant shall retain a licensed arborist to be present for any excavation work within the Tree Protection Zones of any City Tree. During active grading work, the arborist shall conduct monthly inspections of the remaining City Trees. Upon completion of grading, the arborist shall conduct quarterly inspections of the remaining City Trees for the duration of Project construction.
The purpose of such inspections shall be to assess City Tree health and identify any City Trees that either (a) pose an imminent hazard to public health or safety, or (b) are unlikely to survive as a result of grading impacts. For City Trees that pose an imminent hazard to public health or safety, Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry (including its on-call staff if after hours) and shall remove the tree after receiving a Tree Removal Permit or other City authorization, including over-the-phone approval for emergency issues. For any City Tree that is unlikely to survive as a result of grading impacts, Applicant shall remove any such City Tree following application and issuance of a Tree Removal Permit by Urban Forestry. Applicant shall notify Urban Forestry at least 14 calendar days in advance of any such tree removal.
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 485 of 613
NOT YET APPROVED
3 3. Tree Replacement Contribution
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, the Applicant shall remit to the City payment for replacement of the City Trees (the “Tree Replacement Contribution”). The Tree Replacement Contribution shall be calculated based on the canopy width of the City Trees that were removed using Table 3-1 of the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Technical Manual. The canopy width of the City Trees shall be based on the canopy width as measured in the Arborist Report described in Recital E. The Tree Replacement Contribution shall be $1,250 per each 24” box tree required. Urban Forestry Section and Parks Golf and Open Space shall use these funds to plant and establish replacement trees on the BAC property.
SECTION 3. Other Requirements. This ordinance serves as approval for the Plan described above for the purposes of compliance with Article VIII of the City Charter and PAMC
22.08.005. This ordinance does not fulfill any other requirement as may be required by law, including but not limited to: encroachment permits, grading permits, building permits, and tree removal permits. This ordinance does not waive compliance with such requirements and Applicant remains responsible for compliance.
SECTION 4. CEQA. CEQA review on the Project (including the plan in this ordinance) has been conducted and is exempt under CEQA regulation 15183.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
//
//
//
//
//
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 486 of 613
NOT YET APPROVED
4 SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day after adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director, Community Services Department
____________________________
Director, Planning & Development Services
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 487 of 613
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Preliminary Arborist Report
2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
PREPARED FOR:
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 350
San Ramon, CA 94583
PREPARED BY:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
2550 Ninth Street, Suite #112
Berkeley, CA 94710
April 2025
Revised August 2025
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 488 of 613
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Preliminary Arborist Report
2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overvie
w 1
Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Palo Alto Tree Protection Requirements 6
Palo Alto Tree Replacement 6
Suitability for Preservation 7
Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 9 Estimate of Value 10
List of Tabl
es
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequ
ency of occurrence of trees 2
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 8
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Map
Preliminary Tree Disposition and Estimate of Value
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 489 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report
2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
Introduction and Overview
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson is preparing plans to redevelop property at 2100 – 2400 Geng Road in Palo Alto. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co.) was asked to prepare a Preliminary Arborist Report for the project site for submission to the City of Palo Alto. Plans depict proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of townhomes with associated service roads and parking. In August 2025, plans were altered to eliminate off- site work at the neighboring City Park. The subject report was revised based on the new plans.
This report provides the following information:
1. An assessment of tree health, structure, and suitability for preservation.
2. An estimate of the value of each tree.
3. A preliminary assessment of the impacts of constructing the proposed project and recomme
ndations for action.
Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on October 22 and 23, 2024. Additional trees were evaluated on November 19, 2024, following discussions with the project team. Trees with a trunk diameter of 4 inches or greater located in or overhanging the project area were included in the assessment.
The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Identifying the tree species;
2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map;
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54 inches above grade;
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy,
vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good
structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defect
s that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig, and small branch dieback, thinning of cro
wn, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 0 - Tree is dead.
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “m oderate” or “low”. Suitability for pre
servation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an as
set to the site for years to come.
High
: Trees with good health and structur al stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘good’ category.
Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 490 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 2
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Description of Trees
Two hundred and seventy (270) trees were assessed, representing 26 species (Table 1). Blue gum was the most common species with 49 trees, followed by river she-oak with 43, and coast redwood with 33. While species like coast live oak and coast redwood are native to the Palo Alto area, none of the assessed trees appeared to be indigenous to the site. Trees were distributed throughout the entire site, with many lining the property boundaries and others grouped together in landscaped areas next to buildings. Overall, 53 trees were in good condition, 162 were in fair condition, and 55 were in poor condition (Table 1).
Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment Form and approximate locations are shown on the Tree Assessment Map (see Exhibits).
Table 1: Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 2100 – 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon 2 4 6 12
Japanese maple Acer palmatum - 3 1 4
African fern-pine Afrocarpus falcatus - 2 - 2
Black alder Alnus glutinosa - 1 - 1
European white birch Betula pendula - 6 - 6
River she-oak Casuarina cunninghamiana 7 29 7 43
Western redbud Cercis occidentalis - - 1 1
River red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 2 6 8 16
Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus 33 15 1 49
Raywood ash Fraxinus angustifolia
'Ra
ywood'
6 7 - 13
Evergreen ash Fraxinus uhdei - 1 - 1
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba - 1 - 1
Silk oak Grevillea robusta - 5 - 5
Chinese flame tree Koelreuteria bipinnata - - 1 1
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 4 2 - 6
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 1 20 2 23
Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora - - 2 2
Crabapple Malus sylvestris - 8 1 9
Mayten Maytenus boaria - 1 - 1
Canary Island date palm Phoenix canariensis - - 2 2
Cherry Prunus sp. - - 2 2
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - 6 3 9
Holly oak Quercus ilex - 2 - 2
Yellow willow Salix lasiandra - 1 - 1
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - 22 11 33
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 491 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 3
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Water gum Tristaniopsis laurina - 20 5 25
Total 55 162 53 270
Of the 43 river she-oaks, seven were in good
condition, 29 were in fair condition, and seven
were in poor condition. Condition was largely
related to available growing space and tree
structure. Most trees grew close together in
small groups. She-oaks in good condition had
good structure and vigor. Those in fair condition
had moderately undesireable structural features
such as a low live crown ratio and/or a
phototropic lean. Those in poor condition had
more considerable structural deficiencies like
old topping cuts. Development stage varied
from young to mature, indicated by diameters
measuring between 6 – 25 inches.
Eleven (11) redwoods were in good
condition and 22 were in fair condition.
Development stage was mostly semi-
mature with diameters measuring
between 17 – 35 inches. Redwoods in
fair condition often exhibited signs of
drought stress like twig dieback and
browning foliage. Those in good
condition had greener, fuller crowns
(Photo 2).
Photo 1: River she-oaks #200 – 202 (left –
right) competed for space in a small planter.
Each was in good condition.
Photo 2: Coast redwoods #116 – 122
(left – right) were in good condition
with dense, green foliage.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 492 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 4
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Forty-nine (49) blue gums were assessed. Forty-eight
(48) were off-site and had branches that extended into
the subject property by up to 40 feet. Trunks were
near the property line (Photo 3). Blue gum #24 was
located on the subject property. Of all blue gums, 33
were in poor condition, 15 were in fair condition, and
#23 was in good condition. Trunks were usually not
accessible behind the fence, and diameters were
estimated to be up to 56 inches.
Twenty (20) water gums were in fair conditon and five
were in good condition. Condition was informed by growing space availability, with those in fair condition being heavily suppressed by nearby buildings. Those in good condition had more space to develop good branching structure. Trees were semi-mature to mature in development, indicated by diameters between 7 – 15 inches.
Twenty-three (23) sweetgums were assessed. Most (20 trees) were in fair condition, often suppressed by nearby buildings and having structural deficiencies like codominant trunks.
Sweetgums #63 and 131 were in good condition, while #81 was in poor condition. All were semi- mature in development with diameters ranging between 10 – 19 inches.
Eight of the 16 river red gums were in good condition, six were fair, and #212 and 213 were poor.
Multiple stems arose from a single point on most trees at a height of between 12 – 20 feet. Trees in good condition were more vigorous than trees in fair condition, and had fewer negative features such as improper heading cuts or sapsucker damage. Poor condition river red gums had very low vigor and/or branch dieback and epicormic sprouting. Diameters ranged from 12 – 43 inches, representing semi-mature to mature development stages.
The 13 Raywood ash trees were
either in fair (7 trees) or poor (6
trees) condition. Multiple upright
stems arose from a single point
on all trees (Photo 4). Condition
varied with overall vigor. Fair
condition trees had denser
foliage than those in poor
condition. Diameters measured
between 11 – 21 inches.
Photo 3: Trunks of off-site blue gums were often
close to the property line fence.
Photo 4: Raywood ash trees
#101 – 105 (left – right,
foreground) had many narrow
branch attachments at a single
point on the trunk.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 493 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 5
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Twelve (12) blackwood acacias were assessed. Six were in good condition, four were fair, and #160 and 234 were poor. Diameters measured between 9 – 32 inches. Acacia #25 was located on the neighboring property, with branches extending approximately 7 feet into the project area.
Eight crabapples were in fair condition while #13 was in good condition. Fair condition crabapples were often suppressed. All had multiple attachments at a single point on the trunk.
Diameters measured between 5 – 10 inches.
Nine coast live oaks were in fair (6 trees) or good (#219 – 221) condition. Five oaks were (#219 – 221, 227, and 228) located off-site, and had branches extending into the subject property by up to approximately 15 feet. Trunks measured between up to 19 inches.
Six European white birch were in fair condition. Thin foliage was concentrated at the top of each tree. Development stage was young, represented by diameters between 6 – 10 inches.
Six glossy privets were in fair (#232 and 251) or poor (#214, 229, 246, and 247) condition.
Condition varied with differences in overall vigor. Multiple stems arose from the base of most trees, measuring between 4 – 8 inches. Privet #229 was off-site.
The remaining 14 species were represented by 5 trees or fewer:
Five silk oaks were in fair condition. Four were semi-mature in development with trunks between 7 – 15 inches. Silk oak #223 was mature in development with a 32-inch diameter.
Japanese maple #34 was in good
condition while #147, 148, and 154 were
fair. Individual stems measured
between 4 – 6 inches. Each was
located at the foot of a nearby building,
resulitng in asymmetric crown profiles
(Photo 5).
African fern-pines #143 and 144 were in
fair condition. Diameters measured 16
and 13 inches.
Southern magnolias #217 and 218
measured 19 and 12 inches in diameter,
respectively. Both were in good
condition.
Canary Island date palms #22 and 252
were in good condition. Palm #22 was
off-site, with fronds extending into the subject property by approximately 13 feet. Eight (8) feet of brown trunk was below the lowest living frond. Palm #252 was taller with approximately 18 feet of brown trunk.
Cherries #68 and 74 were in good condition. Trunks below 7 and 10 inches, respectively.
Multiple small stems arose from an apparent graft at 4 feet on both trees.
Photo 5: Japanese maple #34
was suppressed and one-sided
due to the nearby building.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 494 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 6
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Holly oaks #42 and 43 were off-site and had branches extending into the subject property by approximately 14 and 9 feet, respectively. Both were in fair conditon and suppressed.
Trunks were estimated at 7 (#42) and 6 (#43) inches in diameter.
Black alder #50 was in fair condition. The 7-inch diameter trunk leaned to the west.
Western redbud #3 was in good condition. Codominant trunks arose from 3 feet to create a rounded crown. The trunk measured 7 inches below the attachment.
Evergreen ash #51 had a very narrowly attach ed codominant trunks with a seam from the base to 3 feet. Individual diameters measured 11 and 10 inches. Overall condition was fair.
Ginkgo #222 was in fair condition, having a one-sided crown to the east. The trunk was 15 inches in diameter.
Chinese flame tree #124 had an 11-inch diameter trunk. Multiple stems arose from wide attachments at approximately 10 feet and the canopy was slightly thin. Overall condition was fair.
Mayten #95 was in fair condition. It had an 11-inch diameter trunk.
Yellow willow #44 as off-site, and had branche s that reached approximately 15 feet into the subject property. Codominant trunks emerged from the base with estimated diameters of 20 and 12 inches.
Palo Alto Tree Protection Requirements
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.10 (Trees & Landscape Preservation and Management), describes Protected trees as certain native species with a minimum trunk diameter of either 11.5 or 18 inches, and all other species with a minimum diameter of 15 inches. Species with high water use, invasive properties, or undesirable fruit are excluded. Of the trees assessed, species that meet exclusion requirements are black alder, European white birch, blackwood acacia, blue gum, Canary Island date palm, evergreen ash, river red gum, and yellow willow. All street trees and other public trees are also considered Protected, regardless of species.
One hundred and thirty-eight (138) trees meet the criteria for Protected status: eighty-seven (87) are large enough to be considered protected mature trees; 48 blue gums appear to be on City property at Baylands Athletic Center, making them public trees; two trees (#7 and 20) are street trees. Protected trees are regulated by the City of Palo Alto and cannot be removed without a permit. Replacement tree plantings will be required for the removal of any Protected trees.
Protected status of each tree is provided in the Tree Assessment Form (see exhibits).
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 495 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 7
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape.
Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability, and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health present a low risk of damage or injury if they fail.
We must be concerned, however, about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure, and death should be allowed to continue.
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tole rate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than non- vigorous trees are. For example, many blue gums were in poor condition. These trees would not tolerate construction impacts as well as those in fair condition.
Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are more likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely.
Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For example, coast redwood and river she-oak are tolerant of root severance and general construction impacts. Sweetgum is moderately tolerant. Blue gum is intolerant.
Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant em otional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. Most trees in this assessment were semi- mature or mature in development stage.
Invasiveness
Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (https://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. Palo Alto is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Blackwood acacia, blue gum, Canary Island date palm, and glossy privet have limited invasive potential. Mayten is on the watch list.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2, following page).
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 496 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 8
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation.
2100 – 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto
High Trees in good health and with structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Six trees had high suitability for preservation: Canary Island date palms #22 and 252, coast live oak #219, river red gum #216, and river she-oaks #200 and 201.
Moderate Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter lifespans than those in the “high” category.
One hundred and twenty-three (123) trees had moderate suitability for preservation: black alder #50, nine blackwood acacias, blue gum #23, cherries #68 and 74, Chinese flame tree #124, four coast live oaks, 23 coast redwoods, nine crabapples, evergreen ash #51, ginkgo #222, holly oaks #42 and 43, Japanese maple #34, mayten #95, 11 river red gums, 19 river she- oaks, silk oaks #223 and 230, southern magnolias #217 and 218, eight sweetgums, 24 water gums, and western redbud #3.
Low Trees in poor health or with significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. One hundred and forty-one (141) trees had low suitability for preservation: African fern-pines #143 and 144, blackwood acacias #19, 160, and 234, 48 blue gums, four coast live oaks, 10 coast redwoods, six European white birch, six glossy privets, Japanese maples #147, 148, and 154, 13 Raywood ash, four river red gums, 22 river she-oaks, silk oaks #231, 233, and 235, 15 sweetgums, water gum #139, and yellow willow #44.
We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation.
Retention of trees with moderate or low suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes and the use nature of the site.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 497 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 9
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Evaluations of Impacts and Recommendations
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities with the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Impacts from construction were estimated using a conceptual site plan (Geng Road Site, Dahlin Group and CBG, dated 7/25/25), a Tree Disposition Plan (The Guzzardo Partnership, dated 8/26/2025) and conversations with the project team (to date 8/28/2025). Plans are preliminary in nature. As such, this evaluation of impacts must be considered preliminary.
The site plan depicted locations of new townhomes and associated access roads. All existing structures will be demolished. Improvements would fill the entire site, property line to property line. A storm line is proposed off-site along the edge of the Baylands Athletic Center. No opportunities for tree preservation exist within the property.
Off-site trees adjacent to the project area will be impacted by the proposed construction including root severance and crown pruning. Impacts may be severe. First, demolition of existing infrastructure and landscape may damage trees. Second, grading, excavation, and other construction activities will injure trees, both directly by mechanical injury and indirectly by altering drainage. Most notably, a retaining wall is proposed at the property line on the north side of the site near a row of large, mature blue gums. Finally, existing branches may encroach into the site, requiring significant pruning.
The Project proposes to remove 207 existing trees within the project site and two street trees (209 total tree removals). The grade over the entire site will be raised, and no trees can be preserved within the boundaries. Of these, 83 trees are considered Protected trees by the City of Palo Alto and will require replacement (see Preliminary Tree Disposition and Estimate of Value table in the Exhibits).
Forty-five (45) trees were near the property boundary of Baylands Athletic Center and identified for potential preservation due to the installation of a retaining wall at the property line. All were mature blue gums, and unlikely to respond well to drastic site changes such as the proposed retaining wall and grade change. As a species, blue gums are intolerant of root impacts. The retaining wall is proposed immediately adjacent to the stand of trees at the property line. I expect impacts to be severe, and some trees may sustain impacts that exceed their tolerances. Until excavation begins or an exploratory trench is dug to expose roots, impacts must be considered preliminary. Disposition may change depending on expected impacts if preservation is not expected to be successful. I recommend reevaluating as designs develop.
Palm #22, blue gums #23 and 253, and blackwood acacia #25 were also located off-site at Baylands Athletic Center. Near these trees, no retaining wall will be installed. I expect impacts to be negligible for palm #22 and moderate for trees #23, 25, and 253. These four trees are identified for preservation.
The remaining 12 trees on private property bordering the site are also identified for potential preservation. Impacts may be severe, depending on the required root severance during installation of retaining walls and clearance pruning. Disposition may change depending on expected impacts if preservation is not expected to be successful. I recommend reevaluating as designs develop.
The Project’s tree removal requirements are a result of coastal flooding issues. The Project site’s elevation is currently between 6 and 10 feet above sea level. The site lies in a FEMA flood zone of AE-11, meaning that the site could flood up to 11 feet above sea level in a severe storm or high tide event. To mitigate this, the entire site must be raised to a minimum of 11 feet above sea level by importing 1 – 6 feet of additional soil across the site.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 498 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 10
The Project site is zoned for multifamily housing, with a portion of the site designated in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element as a housing inventory site. Redevelopment of the project site for these uses is
not possible without the entire site grade being raised.
Consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.050 (d)(1), there is no feasible way to retain the protected trees without reducing the otherwise-permissible buildable area by more than twenty-five percent. Based on the Project sponsor’s analysis, there is no financially feasible design
alternative that would allow for retention of these protected trees in connection with redevelopment of the site for housing.
The Project will fully mitigate the protected tree removals with a robust replacement tree planting plan, prioritizing native species, climate-adaptive drought tolerant species (in alignment with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030 (b)(2), and 8.10.050 (d)(3)(ii)), and species that provide high quality habitat for birds and other wildlife.
Because the
plans are preliminary, there may be opportunities to reduce tree impacts. The ability to preserve trees on this site and along the edges of the property depends on 1) selecting trees with moderate or good suitability for preservation and 2) establishing a tree protection zone large enough to sustain tree health and stability. All plans should include surveyed tree trunk locations so that impacts can be accurately assessed, and adequate tree protection measures can be determined.
Once a design alternative is selected, impacts to trees should be revisited.
Estimate of Value
To estimate the reproduction cost of each tree, I used the cost approach, reproduction method, trunk form
ula technique, as described in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition (International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta GA, 2018). In addition, I referred to Species Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a publication of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.
When estimating reproduction cost, the trunk formula technique considers four factors: size, condition, functional limitations, and external limitations. Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54
inches above grade. Condition reflects tree health and structural integrity.
Functional limitations reflect constraints to tree development based on the site and species. For example, the off-site blue gums along the north
edge of the property were crowded together, and
competed for available growing space. Trees in this row were depreciated for the limited growing area and proximity to the property boundary. I did not note any external limitations.
Based on
the information gathered, I estimated the reproduction cost for individual trees to range from $250 to $26,950, totaling $943,838 for all trees. The estimated value of trees identified for removal was $791,784 ($411,250 Protected). The estimated value of trees identified for potential preservation was $142,045 ($134,300 Protected). The estimated value of trees identified for preser
vation was $9,605 (all Protected). Values per tree are depicted in the Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of Value exhibit (see exhibits).
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 499 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 11
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Palo Alto Tree Replacement
Tree replacement mitigation is
required for Protected tree removals.
Replacement quantities are based on
the average canopy spread of the
removed tree. Two options are
presented in the Palo Alto Tree
Technical Manual for Replacement
Trees or Alternative Trees (Figure 1).
Individual assignments for
replacement trees are described in the
Preliminary Disposition and
Estimate of Value exhibit (see
exhibits).
The project’s landscape architect will
use these ratios to inform the
replacement planting plan.
Figure 1: Replacement tree matrix. Sourced from Palo
Alto Tree Technical Manual.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 500 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 12
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines
Trees on adjacent properties may be impacted by construction activities. The key to tree preservation is to minimize adverse impacts near trees to be retained. The following are recommendations for design and construction phases that will assist in successful tree preservation.
1. Reevaluate tree disposition as project plans progress.
2. The Tree Protection Zone shall be the project property line. The project’s security fence will serve as the tree protection fencing.
3. Off-site trees may require pruning to provide vertical clearance for construction. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 standards as well as the Best Management Practices -- Tree Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture.
4. On-site trees to be removed that have branc hes extending into the canopy of off-site trees to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by construction contractors. The qualified arborist should remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the trees and understory to remain.
5. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
6. Enlist the project arborist monitor excavati on for the footing of the retaining wall along the north edge of the property. Once roots are exposed, recommendations can be made on management decisions. Overall dispositions may change depending on the size and number of roots encountered.
7. Enlist the project arborist to monitor off-site trees identified for potential preservation on a monthly basis throughout the construction timeline to monitor any changes in condition.
8. If injury should occur to any tree during co nstruction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
9. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw.
10. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.
If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Ryan Suttle, Consulting Arborist & Urban Forester
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, Utility Specialist No. WE-12647BU ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #813
ASCA Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualified
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 501 of 613
Preliminary Arborist Report, 2100 – 2400 Geng Road
Revised August 2025 Page 13
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Map
Preliminary Tree Disposition and
Estimate of Value
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 502 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
1 River she-oak 18 Yes 4 Moderate 10,15, 12,10 Codominant trunks arise from 10’ ; high crown; suppressed south. 2 River she-oak 19 Yes 4 Moderate 12, 8,15,10 Codominant trunks arise fro m 12&14’; narrow suppressed crown. 3 Western redbud 7 No 4 Moderate 6,6,6,6 Codominant trunks arise from 3’; round crown. 4 Crabapple 5 No 3 Moderate 7,2,6,7 Suppressed we st; no lower branching; swollen base. 5 Crabapple 8 No 3 Moderate 5,8,7,5 Codom inant trunks arise from 4’; high crown; suppressed south. 6 Crabapple 8 No 3 Moderate 10,8, 5,7 Multiple trunks arise from 5’ ; high crown; suppressed north. 7 River she-oak 24 Yes; Street
Tree
4 Moderate 17,17,17,17 Street tr ee; codominant trunks arise from high in crown; topping cuts throughout crown.
8 Crabapple 7 No 3 Moderate 5,8,7,3 Multiple tr unks arise from 5’; no lower branches. 9 Crabapple 8 No 3 Moderate 13,7,8, 10 Multiple trunks arise from 5’; no lower branches. 10 Crabapple 7 No 3 Moderate 7,4,6,6 Multiple trunks aris e from 6’; no lower branches; messy structure. 11 Crabapple 7 No 3 Moderate 7,7,7,7 Wide multiple trun ks arise from 4’; 8”x2” basal decay cavity. 12 Crabapple 7 No 3 Moderate 7,3,5,9 Heavily suppr essed north; trunk bends north at 2’. 13 Crabapple 10 No 4 Moderate 14, 10,10,8 Multiple trunks arise from 5’ ; no lower branches; swollen base. 14 River she-oak 11 No 3 Moderate 12, 10,12,12 Codominant trunks arise from 14’; narrow thin crown. 15 River she-oak 18 Yes 3 Moderate 10,12, 14,11 Codominant trunks arise from 14’ ; narrow thin crown; southern trunk leans south.
16 River she-oak 18 Yes 3 Moderate 7,9, 12,12 High narrow crown bows south hi gh in crown; suppressed south. 17 River she-oak 19 Yes 4 Moderate 18, 15,18,18 Codominant trunks arise fro m high in crown; topping cuts throughout crown.
18 Blackwood acacia 25 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 22,22,22,22 Exposed surface roots; single upright trunk. 19 Blackwood acacia 20 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Low 10,8,12,12 Codominant trunks arise from 7’; crow n weight is southern. 20 River she-oak 18 Yes; Street
Tree
3 Low 16,14,12,15 Street tree; straight upright crown; dead and dying branches throughout crown.
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 503 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
21 Blackwood acacia 18 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Straight upright trunk; some decay on lowest branch (4”); good form.
22 Canary Island date palm 40 Yes; on City
property
4 High 10,10,10,10 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over property by 13’; 8’ wood feet of brown trunk; heavily suppressed under blue gum. 23 Blue gum 42 Yes; on City
property
4 Moderate 30,25,40,20 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over property by 40’; high crown; heading cuts throughout.
24 Blue gum 26 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Low 20,5,9,24 S-shape in trunk @ 20’ ; sap sucker evidence on upper crown. 25 Blackwood acacia 12 Yes; on City
property
4 Moderate 8,8,7,8 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over site by 7’; straight upright crown; good form and condition.
26 Water gum 8 No 3 Moderate 8,5,7,8 Pruned for light clearance; good young tree. 27 Water gum 7 No 3 Moderate 8,8,8,8 In m edian planter; round crown; good form. 28 Water gum 8 No 4 Moderate 8,8,8,8 In m edian planter; round crown; good form. 29 Water gum 9 No 4 Moderate 9,9,9,9 In m edian planter; round crown; good form. 30 Water gum 9 No 4 Moderate 11,11,11,11 In median planter; round crown; good form. 31 Water gum 9 No 4 Moderate 10,10,10,10 In median planter; round crown; good form. 32 Blackwood acacia 12 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 5,10,10,10 Narrow codominant tr unks arise from 8’; slight lean east. 33 Blackwood acacia 18 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Moderate 14,14,14,14 Multiple trun ks arise from 10’; thin crown. 34 Japanese maple 7,6 Yes 4 Moderate 14, 5,5,14 Codominant trunks arise fro m 1’; heavily suppressed under the building; dead twigs.
35 Coast redwood 18 Yes 3 Low 12,12,12,12 In rais ed planter; twig dieback; brown leaves. 36 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 Low 10,10,10,10 In rais ed planter; twig dieback; brown leaves. 37 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 Low 10,10,10,10 In rais ed planter; twig dieback; brown leaves. 38 River red gum 32 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Moderate 20,16,10,20 Trunk bows no rth; high crown; good growth. 39 River red gum 31 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 21,21,21,25 Trunk bows no rth; high crown; good growth. 40 River red gum 20 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 11,6,11,8 Codomi nant trunks arise from 12’; leans west.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 504 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
41 River red gum 23 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 14,14,14,14 Multip le trunks arise from 12’; vase shape crown. 42 Holly oak 7 No 3 Moderate 14,6,2,6 Off-site ex tends over property by 14’; suppressed. 43 Holly oak 6 No 3 Moderate 9,5,2,5 Off-site ex tends over property by 9’; suppressed. 44 Yellow willow 20,12 No; high
water use
3 Low 15,15,10,15 Off-site ext ends over property by 15’, Codominant trunks lean over property, suppressed.
45 River red gum 35 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 23,29,18,20 In parking island; leans over property; high crown; good growth. 46 River red gum 32 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 18,18,18,18 In parking island; multiple trunks arise from 10’; high crown; good growth.
47 River red gum 12 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 10,10,10,10 Codominant trunks arise from base& 12’ wester trunk removed. 48 River she-oak 24 Yes 3 Low 13,13,15, 12 Off-site; Codominant trunks; extends over property 13’. 49 Coast live oak 13 Yes 3 Moderate 12,8,8, 10 Off-site extends over property by 12’; thin; leans north over property.
50 Black alder 7 No; high
water use
3 Moderate 9,9,9,9 Trunk leans west suppressing trees on west side. 51 Evergreen ash 11,10 No; fruit per
Palo Alto
website
3 Moderate 10,12,15,15 Codom inant trunks are fussed from base to 3’; suppressed west. 52 Raywood ash 16 Yes 3 Low 16,16,16,16 In open planter; r ound crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold.
53 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Low 12,12,12,12 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold.
54 Raywood ash 13 No 3 Low 11,11,11,11 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold.
55 Raywood ash 18 Yes 2 Low 15,15,15,15 In open planter; r ound crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold.
56 Raywood ash 14 No 2 Low 12,11,11,6 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold; history of branch failure; decay.
57 Raywood ash 18 Yes 2 Low 16,16,15,13 In open planter; r ound crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 505 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
58 Raywood ash 16 Yes 3 Low 15,15,15,15 In open planter; r ound crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; sun- scold.
59 Raywood ash 16 Yes 3 Low 15,15,15,15 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; thin; sun-scold.
60 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Low 16,15,15,15 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; thin; sun-scold.
61 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Low 11,12,12,13 In open planter; round crown; multiple trunks arise from 8’; thin; sun-scold.
62 Sweetgum 14 No 3 Low 12,4,12,12 High crown suppressed by building. 63 Sweetgum 16 Yes 4 Moderate 18,15,18, 18 Multiple trunks arise from 15’; seams in attachments. 64 Sweetgum 14 No 3 Low 9,5,12,9 High crown suppressed by building. 65 Coast redwood 30 Yes 3 Low 20,20,20,20 Heavily suppressed by building on east; high crown. 66 Coast redwood 29 Yes 3 Low 13,13,13,13 Heavily suppressed by building on east; high crown. 67 Coast redwood 31 Yes 3 Low 17,17,17,17 Heavily suppressed by building on east; high crown. 68 Cherry 7 No 4 Moderate 5,5,5,5 Grafted at 4’; multiple trunks arise from 4’; healthy crown. 69 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Low 20,15,2,15 High crown suppressed by building. 70 Sweetgum 11 No 3 Low 11,10,11,8 Si nuous trunk; suppressed north. 71 Sweetgum 13 No 3 Low 10,12,12,12 Up right trunk; twig dieback. 72 Sweetgum 13 No 3 Low 12,12,8,11 Codominant trunks arise from 12’; no lower branches. 73 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Low 20,15,2,15 High crown suppressed by building. 74 Cherry 10 No 4 Moderate 5,5,9,9 Grafted at 4’; multip le trunks arise from 4’; healthy crown; growth on west side.
75 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 Low 14,14,14,14 Typical fro m; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 76 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 Low 12,12,12,12 Typical fro m; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 77 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Low 11,11,11,11 Typical fro m; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 78 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Low 13,13,13,13 Typical fro m; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 79 Coast redwood 32 Yes 4 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 80 Coast redwood 28 Yes 3 Moderate 13,13,13,13 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown. 81 Sweetgum 10 No 2 Low 10,8,8,7 H igh crown; decay on trunk; poor and condition form. 82 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 Moderate 12,12,12, 12 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown; suppressed on southeast.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 506 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
83 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 Moderate 8,8,8,8 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown; suppressed on west.
84 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 Moderate 13,13,13, 13 Typical from; tight cluster of trees; high crown; suppressed on north.
85 Coast redwood 28 Yes 3 Moder ate 14,14,14,14 Typical from; suppressed by building. 86 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 Moder ate 13,13,13,13 Typical from; suppressed by building. 87 European white birch 7 No; high
water use
3 Low 6,6,6,6 Upright thin crow n; twig dieback in upper crown. 88 Coast redwood 32 Yes 4 Moderate 16,16,16,16 Typical from; good crow n and structure; high crown. 89 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 Moderate 13, 13,13,13 Typical from; high crown. 90 Coast redwood 28 Yes 3 Moderate 14, 14,14,14 Typical from; high crown. 91 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 Moderate 12,12,12, 12 Typical from; high crown; in ti ght cluster; suppressed by building. 92 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 Moderate 12,12,12,12 Typical from; high crown; in tight cluster. 93 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Typical from; high crown; in tight cluster. 94 Coast redwood 31 Yes 3 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Typical from; high crown; in tight cluster. 95 Mayten 11 No 3 Moderate 15,16,10,6 M ultiple trunks arise from 6’; suppressed east; moderate form. 96 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 12,13,8,5 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 97 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 9,11,9,0 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 98 Water gum 9 No 3 Moderate 9,10,9,0 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 99 Water gum 10 No 3 Moderate 0,9,9,0 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 100 Raywood ash 18 Yes 2 Low 10,8,8,8 Multiple trunks arise from but headed back 12’; thin. 101 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 0,11,14,14 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 102 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 4,12,14,14 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 103 Water gum 11 No 3 Moderate 7,10,13,13 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 104 Water gum 10 No 3 Moderate 7,0,14,11 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 105 Water gum 9 No 3 Moderate 0,13,12,11 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 106 Raywood ash 23 Yes 2 Low 17,17,17,17 Multiple trunks arise from 12’; headed back; thin. 107 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Low 11,12,14,11 High crown suppressed by building. 108 Sweetgum 11 No 3 Low 11,10,10,13 In pl anter; multiple trunks with cavity at attachment point. 109 Sweetgum 13 No 3 Low 12,0,10,14 High crown suppressed by building.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 507 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
110 Sweetgum 16 Yes 3 Low 12,12,0, 12 High crown suppressed by building; thin. 111 Coast redwood 34 Yes 4 Moderate 17,17, 17,17 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed by building.
112 Coast redwood 35 Yes 4 Moderate 18,18, 18,18 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed by building; good leaf color.
113 Sweetgum 14 No 3 Low 7,7,7,7 Stra ight upright trunk; thin. 114 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Low 9,8,14,9 M ultiple trunks; thin. 115 Sweetgum 11 No 3 Low 14,14,0,14 Wide codom inant trunks arise from 12’; thin. 116 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 Moderate 15,15, 15,15 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color.
117 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 Moderate 12,12, 12,12 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color.
118 Coast redwood 30 Yes 4 Moderate 14,14, 14,14 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color.
119 Coast redwood 31 Yes 4 Moderate 14,14, 14,14 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color.
120 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 Moderate 15,15, 15,15 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color.
121 Coast redwood 27 Yes 4 Moderate 16,16, 16,16 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color.
122 Coast redwood 35 Yes 4 Moderate 18,18, 18,18 Typical from; good crown and stru cture; high crown; suppressed; good leaf color.
123 Raywood ash 21 Yes 2 Low 9,12,15,15 Multiple trunks headed back; thin; wide attachments. 124 Chinese flame tree 11 No 4 Moderate 14,14, 17,17 Multiple trunks arise from 10’; wide attachments; somewhat thin. 125 River she-oak 18 Yes 3 Moderate 10,12,12,10 High narrow crown; history of branch failure. 126 Blackwood acacia 15 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Good upright form; base is flat on both the west and east sides. 127 River she-oak 19 Yes 3 Moderate 7,7,12,10 Codominant trunks arise from 12’&14’; thin; suppressed west. 128 River she-oak 14 No 3 Moderate 9, 14,9,9 High narrow crown; codominant trunks high in crown. 129 River she-oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate 9,9,9,9 High narrow crown; bleeding at base.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 508 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
130 Blackwood acacia 26 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 17,17,17,17 Codom inant trunks arise from 17’; high crown. 131 Sweetgum 19 Yes 4 Moderate 16,16,16,16 High crown suppressed by building. 132 Sweetgum 19 Yes 3 Moderate 15,15,15,15 Codominant trunks; thin; no lower foliage; Sa sucker evidence. 133 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Moderate 11,12,8,6 Codominant tr unks; messy crown. 134 Sweetgum 15 Yes 3 Moderat e 19,15,0,15 Codominant trunks; messy crown. 135 Sweetgum 17 Yes 3 Moderate 9,11,11,11 Corre cted bow on trunk; high crown; thin. 136 Sweetgum 10 No 3 Moderat e 13,12,8,12 Upright trunk thin crown. 137 Sweetgum 12 No 3 Moderate 16,12,12,12 Crooked trunk; thin; one-sided east. 138 Water gum 12 No 3 Moderate 14,9,8,11 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 139 Water gum 12 No 3 Low 18,5,5,11 Heavily suppressed by building; thin. 140 Water gum 12 No 3 Moderate 10,8,0,10 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 141 Water gum 13 No 3 Moderate 9,9,5,12 Heavily suppressed by building; good health. 142 Water gum 12 No 3 Moderate 17,3,0,12 Heavily suppre ssed by building; good health; codominant trunk; gurdling root.
143 African fern-pine 16 Yes 3 Low 15,16,16,0 Leans east away from building; thin; gurdling root; healthy leaves. 144 African fern-pine 13 No 3 Low 10,10,10,10 In planter; wide attachment; good growth. 145 European white birch 8 No; high
water use
3 Low 5,5,5,5 High narrow crown; thin.
146 European white birch 10 No; high
water use
3 Low 8,8,8,8 Crook at 2’; high narrow crown; thin.
147 Japanese maple 6 No 3 Low 8,0,11,12 Suppressed under building; bows away from structure. 148 Japanese maple 7 No 3 Low 0,0,10,10 Suppressed under building on two sides; bows away from structure.
149 Blackwood acacia 29 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Moderate 9,19,28,15 Leans and bows west away from other trees; multiple trunks arise from 13’; somewhat thin.
150 River she-oak 22 Yes 3 Moderate 9,9 ,12,6 Multiple trunks arise fro m 11’; thin; high narrow crown. 151 River she-oak 25 Yes 3 Moderate 11, 6,12,12 Multiple trunks arise fro m 10’; thin; high narrow crown. 152 River she-oak 20 Yes 3 Moderate 8,8 ,10,8 Codominant trunks arise fro m 8’; thin; high narrow crown.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 509 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
153 European white birch 7 No; high
water use
3 Low 5,5,5,5 High narrow crown; thin.
154 Japanese maple 6,4 Yes 3 Low 0,0,10,12 Suppressed under building on two sides; bows away from structure.
155 European white birch 6 No; high
water use
3 Low 2,2,6,5 High narrow crown; heavily suppressed; thin. 156 European white birch 10 No; high
water use
3 Low 4,4,8,5 High narrow crown; heavily suppressed; thin. 157 River she-oak 19 Yes 3 Moderate 6,6,10, 10 Multiple trunks arise from high in crown; bleeding on trunk at 2’; thin; high narrow crown.
158 River she-oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate 6,6,10,10 Single upright trunk; high narrow crown. 159 River she-oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate 9,9 ,12,7 Codominant trunks arise from 10’; thin; high narrow crown. 160 Blackwood acacia 9 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
2 Low 5,7,7,6 Bows sout h; dead top; thin.
161 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 40,10,10,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 7’; messy form.
162 Blue gum 38 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 30,15,15,30 Off-site t agged on fence; can not see trunk; extends over property by 16’; messy form; pruned away from property. 163 Blue gum 36 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 25,20,10,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 7’; messy form; pruned away from property.
164 Blue gum 38 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 10,6,5,15 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property.
165 Blue gum 36 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 35,30,20,25 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property.
166 Blue gum 40 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 40,50,25,35 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 16’; messy form; pruned away from property.
167 Blue gum 56 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 40,35,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property; leans heavily away from property.
168 Blue gum 40 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 40,25,15,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property.
169 Blue gum 28,26 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 40,10,15,10 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 9’; messy form; pruned away from property.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 510 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
170 Blue gum 38 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 30,35,15,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 7’; messy form; pruned away from property.
171 Blue gum 21 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 15,10,5,1 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 2’; messy form; pruned away from property.
172 Blue gum 19 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 15,10,10,10 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property.
173 Blue gum 19 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 35,20,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 7’; messy form; pruned away from property.
174 Blue gum 42 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 40,55,10,10 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 7’; messy form; pruned away from property.
175 Blue gum 53 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 40,40,10,15 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; doesn’t extend over property, roots are lifting parking lot pavement; pruned and leans away from property.
176 Blue gum 48 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 25,20,25,30 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property.
177 Blue gum 42 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 35,15,15,30 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 4’; messy form; pruned away from property.
178 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 20,15,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 10’; messy form; pruned away from property; base at fence line.
179 Blue gum 36 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 30,10,15,15 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 9’; messy form; pruned away from property.
180 Blue gum 17 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 5,5,8,4 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 4’; messy form; pruned away from property.
181 Blue gum 46 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 35,45,15,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property.
182 Blue gum 42 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 30,15,10,25 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 4’; messy form; pruned away from property.
183 Blue gum 16,10,5 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 30,10,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 6’; messy form; pruned away from property.
184 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 25,10,10,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 6’; messy form; pruned away from property.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 511 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
185 Blue gum 26 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 35,25,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property.
186 Blue gum 28 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 15,20,10,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 9’; messy form; pruned away from property.
187 Blue gum 52 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 40,35,20,45 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 8’; messy form; pruned away from property.
188 Blue gum 26 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 5,10,5,5 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk; extends over property by 5’; messy form; pruned away from property.
189 River she-oak 10 No 3 Low 6,6,6,6 Codominant trunks arise from 8’; high narrow crown. 190 River she-oak 6 No 2 Low 0,6,8,5 Codom inant trunks arise from 8’; branch is horizontal turning at 6”; high narrow crown.
191 River she-oak 10 No 2 Low 5,5,9,6 Singl e upright trunk; high narrow crown. 192 River she-oak 12 No 3 Low 0,8,12,7 Singl e upright trunk; high narrow crown. 193 River she-oak 7 No 2 Low 5,5,5,5 No tag; single upright trunk; topped; yellow jacket nest at base; high narrow crown.
194 River she-oak 8 No 2 Low 0,6,8,3 Singl e upright trunk; high narrow crown. 195 River she-oak 7 No 2 Low 0,7,7,0 S ingle upright trunk; topped; yellow jacket nest at base; high narrow crown.
196 Blue gum 30 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
2 Low 20,20,30,20 Off-site tagged on fence; can’t see trunk ; extends over property by 9’; dieback; pruned away from property.
197 River red gum 26 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Moderate 12,15,20,20 Wide c odominant attachment @ 12’;some included bark; good growth.
198 River red gum 39 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Low 16,10,20,20 Wide multiple trunks ar ise from 20’; branches over property topped.
199 River red gum 30 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Moderate 16,18,20,16 Wide mult iple trunks arise from 15&17’; sap sucker evidence; branches over property topped.
200 River she-oak 15 Yes 4 High 10,10,10,10 Single upr ight trunk; good form; good growth. 201 River she-oak 23 Yes 4 High 17,17,17,17 Codomi nant upright trunks; good form; good growth. 202 River she-oak 12 No 4 Moderate 6,6,8,8 Codominant upr ight trunks arise from 12&14’; branches topped; good growth.
203 Water gum 15 Yes 4 Moderate 8,5,12,19 Heavily suppr essed by building; good health; codominant trunks.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 512 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
204 Water gum 15 Yes 3 Moderate 14,0,15,16 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; thin. 205 Water gum 10 No 3 Moderate 10,0,10,8 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; thin; multiple trunks arise from 8’.
206 Water gum 10 No 3 Moderate 14,0,12,10 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; thin; codominant and multiple trunks.
207 Water gum 9 No 3 Moderate 12,0,10,8 Heavily suppressed by building; good health; thin; codominant trunks.
208 River red gum 40 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 Moderate 24,24,26,24 Wide multiple tr unks arise from 12&15’; good growth and condition.
209 Blackwood acacia 32 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Moderate 20,22,18,20 Wide multip le trunks arise from 8’; thin; in small planter. 210 River red gum 22 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Moderate 13,14,15,18 Narrow codominant trunks arise from 10’; sap sucker evidence in upper crown decay on southern branch.
211 River red gum 38 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Low 12,15,20,15 Trunk bow over neighbor property; topped in places; thin. 212 River red gum 32 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
2 Low 26,26,26,26 Narrow codominant trunks arise from 20’; thin; a lot of dead and dying branches.
213 River red gum 26 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
2 Low 26,24,26,28 Wide multiple trunks arise fro m 12’; thin; only growth is epicormic. 214 Glossy privet 8,6,4 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
1 Low 8,4,5,6 Growing in fence; multip le trunks arise from base; thin; ivy. 215 Coast live oak 18 Yes 3 Low 23,22,20,22 Growing at property fence line; suppressed; high crown. 216 River red gum 43 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 High 40,35,35,35 Codominant trunks arise from high in crown; good form and growth; oak under crown.
217 Southern magnolia 19 Yes 4 Moderate 24, 22,24,24 Multiple trunks arise from 4’; good form and growth; round crown. 218 Southern magnolia 12 No 4 Moderate 17,17, 16,18 Multiple trunks arise from 4’ ; good form and growth; round crown. 219 Coast live oak 16 Yes 5 High 10,21,8,10 Off-site tagged on fence; extends over the property by 15’. 220 Coast live oak 11 Yes 4 Moderate 8,17,15,10 Off-site t agged on fence; extends over the property by 8’. 221 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 Moderate 6,11,15,15 Off-site t agged on fence; extends over the property by 4’. 222 Ginkgo 15 Yes 3 Moderate 18,12,18,18 Stra ight upright crown; one-sided east.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 513 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
223 Silk oak 32 Yes 3 Moderate 18,18,20,18 Mult iple trunks arise from 5’; high crown. 224 River she-oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate 15,15, 15,15 Straight upright trunk; leans slightly east; minimal lateral branching.
225 River she-oak 6 No 3 Low 12,12,5,12 C odominant trunks arise from 14’; leans slightly east; minimal lateral branching.
226 River she-oak 12 No 2 Low 4,4,4,4 Single topped trunk; no branches. 227 Coast live oak 7 No 3 Low 6,0,4,5 Off-site tagged on f ence; trunk embedded in property line fence; doesn’t extend over property.
228 Coast live oak 15 Yes 3 Low 4,4,15,7 Off-site tagged on fence; bows south; doesn’t extend over property.
229 Glossy privet 7,6,5,4,4,
4,4
No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
1 Low 8,8,8,8 Off-site; growi ng in fence; multiple trunks arise from base; thin; ivy.
230 Silk oak 15 Yes 3 Moderate 8,8,8,8 Singl e upright trunk; narrow high crown. 231 Silk oak 12 No 3 Low 6,6,6,6 Crook in singl e upright trunk at 2’; narrow high crown. 232 Glossy privet 6 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Low 10,10,0,0 Sucker growth throughout crown; suppressed. 233 Silk oak 7 No 3 Low 6,6,6,6 High narrow crown.
234 Blackwood acacia 17 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
2 Low 17,13,0,0 Leans heavily north; growth only at top. 235 Silk oak 13 No 3 Low 10,10,10,10 High narrow crown; suppressed. 236 River she-oak 21 Yes 3 Low 18,22,25,20 C odominant trunks arise from high in crown; leans slightly south; suppressing other trees.
237 River she-oak 17 Yes 3 Low 5,5,12,10 Codominant trunks arise from high in crown; trunk engulfed in ivy; somewhat suppressed.
238 River she-oak 14 No 3 Low 5,5,10,8 Codom inant trunks arise from high in crown; in row of other trees; somewhat suppressed.
239 River she-oak 13 No 3 Low 6,4,8,5 S traight upright trunk; in row of other trees; somewhat suppressed.
240 River she-oak 10 No 3 Low 6,5,8,8 Stra ight upright trunk; in row of other trees; topped; somewhat suppressed.
241 River she-oak 19 Yes 3 Low 10,8,15,10 Straight upright trunk; in row of other trees; somewhat suppressed.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 514 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
242 Coast live oak 7 No 3 Low 12,7,12,8 Codominant tr unks arise from base; suppressed north. 243 Coast live oak 19 Yes 3 Moderate 15,10,18,15 Upright trunk; healthy but suppressed. 244 River she-oak 19 Yes 3 Low 0,0,18,0 Leaning heavily west; animal borrowing at base; heavily one sided south.
245 River she-oak 24 Yes 3 Low 18,18,18,18 Straight upright trunk; in row of other trees; somewhat suppressed.
246 Glossy privet 9,8,7 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
2 Low 11,11,11,11 Multiple trunks; twig and branch dieback. 247 Glossy privet 6,5,4 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
2 Low 8,8,8,8 Multiple trunks; tw ig and branch dieback; suppressed. 248 River she-oak 25 Yes 3 Low 15,0,10,15 Straight upright trunk; suppressed north. 249 River she-oak 22 Yes 3 Low 14,14,16,14 Strai ght upright trunk; high narrow crown. 250 River she-oak 18 Yes 2 Low 0,15,15,10 Straight upright trunk; high narro w crown; upper crown complete enfolded in other trees.
251 Glossy privet 8,8 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
3 Low 19,19,0,10 Codominant trun ks; heavily suppressed north. 252 Canary Island date palm 34 No; invasive,
Cal-IPC
4 High 14,14,14,14 18’ wood feet typical form.
253 Blue gum 13 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 5,8,5,4 Off-site; tag on fence; branches S 5’ over fence; very narrow codominant at 5’; narrow crown; poor structure.
254 Blue gum 18 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 15,10,4,10 Off-site; heading cuts at property fence; repeatedly topped. 255 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 30,35,10,10 Off-site; tag on fence; multiple attachments at 15 feet; one-sided N; branch tips over fence by 5’ to S.
256 Blue gum 20 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 15,15,4,6 Off-side; tag on fence; one-sided N; narrow intermediate tree. 257 Blue gum 14 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 15,10,3,5 Off-side; t ag on fence; one-sided N; narrow suppressed tree. 258 Blue gum 8,6,6,6,5,
5 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 6,5,6,7 Off-side; tag on fence; sm all stems from narrow attachment at base.
259 Blue gum 10 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 6,3,3,3 Off-side; tag on f ence; suppressed and leans E.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 515 of 613
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Canopy
Spread
(N,E,S,W) (ft.)
Comments
Tree Assessment
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
November 2024
260 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 6,3,3,3 Off-side; tag on fence; suppressed and leans N away from fence. 261 Blue gum 22 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 20,20,5,5 Off-side; tag on fence; suppressed and leans N away from fence to baseball field; N most in group.
262 Blue gum 16 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 6,30,5,0 Off-side; t ag on fence; suppressed and heavy Bow E away from fence to baseball field; middle of group.
263 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 15,5,5,0 Off-side; t ag on fence; suppressed and heavy Bow N away from fence to baseball field.
264 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 10,5,3,5 Off-side; t ag on fence; suppressed and heavy Bow N away from fence to baseball field; mechanical damage at base S.
265 Blue gum 26,10 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 35,15,10,10 Off-side; tag on f ence; narrow intermediate tree. 266 Blue gum 10,8,6,6,5 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 10,10,6,10 Off-side; tag on fence; stump resprout; suppressed. 267 Blue gum 35,4,4,4 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 30,30,10,15 Off-side; tag on fence; set back from fence; branch tips reach fence to S.
268 Blue gum 20 Yes; on City
property
2 Low 10,10,10,8 Off-side; t ag on fence; set back from fence; ivy engulfed; suppressed.
269 Blue gum 30 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 30,30,10,5 Off-side; tag on fence; set back from fence; ivy engulfed; sweep E.
270 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City
property
3 Low 25,5,5,10 Off-side; t ag on fence; set back from fence; ivy engulfed; suppressed.
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 516 of 613
Tree Assessment Map
2100 –2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
Prepared for:
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson
San Ramon, CA
Revised November 2024
No Scale
Notes:
Base map provided by:
Dahlin
Numbered tree locations are approximate.
2550 Ninth Street, Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
1 2 3
7 4
5 6
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35 36
37 38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49 50
51 52
53 54
55 61
60 59
58 57
56 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 81 80
79 78 77
76 82
83 84
85 86 87
88 89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
127 126
128
129
130
131 132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146 147
148
149
150
151
152
153 154
155
156
157
158 159
160 161
162 163 164
165
166
175 174 173
170 172 171
167 168 169
200
201 202
189 187
176 177 178 179
185 186
180 181 182 184 183
188 190
191 192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228 229
230 231
232 233 234 235
236
237
244
245
238 239
246
247 248
249
250 251
252
253
254
255
256
257 260
261
265
264
263
264 266
267 270
269 268
262
259 258
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance of the
Council of Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the Adjacent
Development at 2100-2400 Geng Road
(24-PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 517 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
1 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 6,750.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 2 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 7,500.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 3 Western redbud 7 No Remove Withi n development footprint 2,000.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 4 Crabapple 5 No Remove Within development footprint 750.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 5 Crabapple 8 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 1,650.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 6 Crabapple 8 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 1,650.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 7 River she-oak 24 Yes; street
tree
Remove Frontage being demolished and 6,850.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 8 Crabapple 7 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 1,300.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 9 Crabapple 8 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 1,650.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 10 Crabapple 7 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 1,300.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 11 Crabapple 7 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 1,300.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 12 Crabapple 7 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 1,300.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 13 Crabapple 10 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 3,350.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 14 River she-oak 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,950.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 15 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,900.00 $ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 16 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,900.00 $ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 17 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 7,500.00 $ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 18 Blackwood
acacia
25 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 12,850.00$ 44 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 518 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
19 Blackwood
acacia
20 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 5,150.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 20 River she-oak 18 Yes; street
tree
Remove Frontage being demolished and 2,900.00$ 29 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 21 Blackwood
acacia
18 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,750.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 22 Canary Island
date palm
40 Yes; City
property
Remove Off-site; edge of development, s t 3,704.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 23 Blue gum 42 Yes; City
property
Remove Off-site; edge of development, s t 4,300.00$ 58 Two 24-inch box & two 36-inch box
+ two 48-inch box
Replace the tree
with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
24 Blue gum 26 No; invasive Remove With in development footprint 4,650.00$ 29 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 25 Blackwood
acacia
12 Yes; City
property
Remove Off-site; edge of development, s
t 1,050.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 26 Water gum 8 No Remove Within development footprint 1,400.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 27 Water gum 7 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 28 Water gum 8 No Remove Within development footprint 2,200.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 29 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 2,750.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 30 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 2,750.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 31 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 2,750.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 32 Blackwood
acacia
12 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 1,850.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 33 Blackwood
acacia
18 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 3,550.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 34 Japanese maple 7,6 Yes Remove Within development footprint 1,450.00 $ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 35 Coast redwood 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 1,800.00 $ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 36 Coast redwood 20 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,200.00 $ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 519 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
37 Coast redwood 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00 $ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 38 River red gum 32 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,550.00$ 33 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 39 River red gum 31 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 8,550.00$ 44 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
40 River red gum 20 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 3,650.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 41 River red gum 23 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 4,800.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 42 Holly oak 7 No Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 900.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 43 Holly oak 6 No Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 700.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 44 Yellow willow 20,12 No; high
water use
Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 3,800.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 45 River red gum 35 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 10,850.00$ 45 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
46 River red gum 32 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 9,100.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 47 River red gum 12 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 1,450.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 48 River she-oak 24 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 2,600.00$ 27 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 49 Coast live oak 13 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 900.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 50 Black alder 7 No; high
water use
Remove Within developm ent footprint 700.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 51 Evergreen ash 11,10 No; messy
fruit
Remove Within developm ent footprint 2,050.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 52 Raywood ash 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,800.00$ 32 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 53 Raywood ash 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 54 Raywood ash 13 No Remove Within development footprint 2,550.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 55 Raywood ash 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 56 Raywood ash 14 No Remove Within development footprint 1,850.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 57 Raywood ash 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 58 Raywood ash 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 520 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
59 Raywood ash 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 60 Raywood ash 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 31 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 61 Raywood ash 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 62 Sweetgum 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 63 Sweetgum 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,500.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 64 Sweetgum 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 65 Coast redwood 30 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,650.00 $ 40 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 66 Coast redwood 29 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,350.00 $ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 67 Coast redwood 31 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,950.00 $ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 68 Cherry 7 No Remove Within dev elopment footprint 1,250.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 69 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 70 Sweetgum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 71 Sweetgum 13 No Remove Within development footprint 3,750.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 72 Sweetgum 13 No Remove Within development footprint 3,750.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 73 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 74 Cherry 10 No Remove Within development footprint 2,300.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 75 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,800.00 $ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 76 Coast redwood 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,200.00 $ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 77 Coast redwood 17 No Remove Within development footprint 2,600.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 78 Coast redwood 17 No Remove Within development footprint 2,600.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 79 Coast redwood 32 Yes Remove Within development footprint 12,050.00 $ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 80 Coast redwood 28 Yes Remove Within development footprint 6,700.00 $ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 81 Sweetgum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 850.00$ 17 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 521 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
82 Coast redwood 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,350.00 $ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 83 Coast redwood 21 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,850.00 $ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 84 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,800.00 $ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 85 Coast redwood 28 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,100.00 $ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 86 Coast redwood 27 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,800.00 $ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 87 European white
birch
7 No; high
water use
Remove Within developm ent footprint 500.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 88 Coast redwood 32 Yes Remove Within development footprint 12,050.00 $ 32 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 89 Coast redwood 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,300.00 $ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 90 Coast redwood 28 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,100.00 $ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 91 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,550.00 $ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 92 Coast redwood 25 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,300.00 $ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 93 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,550.00 $ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 94 Coast redwood 31 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,950.00 $ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 95 Mayten 11 No Remove Within development footprint 2,450.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 96 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development foot print 1,100.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 97 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development foot print 1,100.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 98 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 800.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 99 Water gum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 9 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 100 Raywood ash 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 17 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 101 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,100.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 102 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,100.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 103 Water gum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,100.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 522 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
104 Water gum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 105 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 800.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 106 Raywood ash 23 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,650.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 107 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 108 Sweetgum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 109 Sweetgum 13 No Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 110 Sweetgum 16 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,900.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 111 Coast redwood 34 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 8,250.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 112 Coast redwood 35 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 8,700.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 113 Sweetgum 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,950.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 114 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 2,200.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 115 Sweetgum 11 No Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 116 Coast redwood 29 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 6,050.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 117 Coast redwood 26 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 4,900.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 118 Coast redwood 30 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 6,450.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 119 Coast redwood 31 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 6,850.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 120 Coast redwood 25 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 7,450.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 121 Coast redwood 27 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 8,650.00$ 32 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 122 Coast redwood 35 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 14,400.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 123 Raywood ash 21 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,900.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 124 Chinese flame
tree
11 No Remove Within devel opment footprint 2,650.00$ 31 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 125 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 3,550.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 126 Blackwood
acacia
15 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 3,450.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 127 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 3,950.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 523 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
128 River she-oak 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 129 River she-oak 16 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 2,850.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 130 Blackwood
acacia
26 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,050.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 131 Sweetgum 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 5,500.00$ 32 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 132 Sweetgum 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,000.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 133 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 134 Sweetgum 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,550.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 135 Sweetgum 17 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,250.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 136 Sweetgum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 1,250.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 137 Sweetgum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,700.00$ 26 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 138 Water gum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 139 Water gum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 140 Water gum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 141 Water gum 13 No Remove Within development footprint 1,450.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 142 Water gum 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 143 African fern-pine 16 Yes Remove Wi thin development footprint 2,900.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 144 African fern-pine 13 No Remove Wit hin development footprint 3,150.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 145 European white
birch
8 No; high
water use
Remove Within developm ent footprint 600.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 146 European white
birch
10 No; high
water use
Remove Within developm ent footprint 800.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 147 Japanese maple 6 No Remove Within development footprint 350.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 524 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
148 Japanese maple 7 No Remove Within development footprint 350.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 149 Blackwood
acacia
29 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 10,650.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 150 River she-oak 22 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 6,200.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 151 River she-oak 25 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 7,950.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 152 River she-oak 20 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 5,150.00$ 17 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 153 European white
birch
7 No; high
water use
Remove Within developm ent footprint 500.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 154 Japanese maple 6,4 Yes Remove Wit hin development footprint 400.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 155 European white
birch
6 No; high
water use
Remove Within developm ent footprint 400.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 156 European white
birch
10 No; high
water use
Remove Within developm ent footprint 800.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 157 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 4,700.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 158 River she-oak 16 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 3,350.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 159 River she-oak 15 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 3,000.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 160 Blackwood
acacia
9 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 500.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 161 Blue gum 25 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,450.00$ 40 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
162 Blue gum 38 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
3,050.00$ 45 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
163 Blue gum 36 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
2,750.00$ 38 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
164 Blue gum 38 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
3,050.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
165 Blue gum 36 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
4,500.00$ 55 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 525 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
166 Blue gum 40 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
5,500.00$ 75 Replace the tree
with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
Replace the tree
with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
167 Blue gum 56 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, s
t
10,550.00$ 45 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
168 Blue gum 40 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
5,500.00$ 43 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
169 Blue gum 28,26 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
5,050.00$ 38 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
170 Blue gum 38 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
5,000.00$ 50 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
171 Blue gum 21 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,100.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
172 Blue gum 19 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
900.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
173 Blue gum 19 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
900.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
174 Blue gum 42 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
3,700.00$ 58 Two 24-inch box
& two 36-inch box
+ tw
o 48-inch box
Replace the tree
with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
175 Blue gum 53 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, s
t
5,750.00$ 53 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
176 Blue gum 48 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
4,750.00$ 50 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
177 Blue gum 42 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
3,700.00$ 48 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 526 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
178 Blue gum 25 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,450.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
179 Blue gum 36 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
2,750.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
180 Blue gum 17 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
750.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
181 Blue gum 46 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
7,200.00$ 58 Two 24-inch box
& two 36-inch box
+ two 48-inch box
Replace the tree
with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
182 Blue gum 42 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, s
t
6,050.00$ 40 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
183 Blue gum 16,10,5 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
900.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
184 Blue gum 25 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,450.00$ 33 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
185 Blue gum 26 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,550.00$ 38 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
186 Blue gum 28 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,750.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
187 Blue gum 52 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
9,150.00$ 70 Replace the tree
with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
Replace the tree
with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
188 Blue gum 26 Yes; City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, s
t
1,550.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
189 River she-oak 10 No Remove Within development footprint 1,450.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 190 River she-oak 6 No Remove Within development footprint 450.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 191 River she-oak 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 192 River she-oak 12 No Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 527 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
193 River she-oak 7 No Remove Within development footprint 550.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 194 River she-oak 8 No Remove Within development footprint 700.00$ 9 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 195 River she-oak 7 No Remove Within development footprint 550.00$ 7 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 196 Blue gum 30 No; invasive Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 2,000.00$ 45 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
197 River red gum 26 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 7,200.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 198 River red gum 39 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 15,900.00$ 33 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 199 River red gum 30 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 9,500.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 200 River she-oak 15 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 4,100.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 201 River she-oak 23 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 9,400.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 202 River she-oak 12 No Remove Within development footprint 2,700.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 203 Water gum 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 2,550.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 204 Water gum 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 1,900.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 205 Water gum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 206 Water gum 10 No Remove Within development footprint 950.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 207 Water gum 9 No Remove Within development footprint 800.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 208 River red gum 40 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 23,350.00$ 49 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
209 Blackwood
acacia
32 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,550.00$ 40 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 210 River red gum 22 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 5,200.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 211 River red gum 38 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 15,100.00$ 31 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 212 River red gum 32 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 6,550.00$ 52 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
213 River red gum 26 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 4,400.00$ 52 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 528 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
214 Glossy privet 8,6,4 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 300.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 215 Coast live oak 18 Yes Remove Within development footprint 1,550.00 $ 44 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
216 River red gum 43 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 26,950.00$ 73 Replace the tree with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
Replace the tree
with a
combination of
both tree canopy
and tree value
standards
217 Southern
magnolia
19 Yes Remove Within development footpr int 6,450.00$ 47 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
218 Southern
magnolia
12 No Remove Within devel opment footprint 1,850.00$ 34 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 219 Coast live oak 16 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 3,050.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 220 Coast live oak 11 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 1,250.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 221 Coast live oak 15 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 2,150.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 222 Ginkgo 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,350.00$ 33 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 223 Silk oak 32 Yes Remove Within development footprint 21,750.00$ 37 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 224 River she-oak 15 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 3,000.00$ 30 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 225 River she-oak 6 No Remove Within development footprint 650.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 226 River she-oak 12 No Remove Within development footprint 1,250.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 227 Coast live oak 7 No Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 500.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 228 Coast live oak 15 Yes Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 1,600.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 229 Glossy privet 7,6,5,4,4, 4,4 No; invasive Preserve Off-site; severe impacts 250.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 230 Silk oak 15 Yes Remove Within development footprint 4,150.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 231 Silk oak 12 No Remove Within development footprint 2,700.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 232 Glossy privet 6 No; invasive Remo ve Within development footprint 400.00$ 10 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 529 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
233 Silk oak 7 No Remove Within development footprint 700.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 234 Blackwood
acacia
17 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 1,300.00$ 15 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 235 Silk oak 13 No Remove Within development footprint 2,000.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 236 River she-oak 21 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 4,750.00$ 43 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box & two 36-inch box
237 River she-oak 17 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 3,200.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 238 River she-oak 14 No Remove Within development footprint 2,250.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 239 River she-oak 13 No Remove Within development footprint 1,950.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 240 River she-oak 10 No Remove Within development footprint 1,250.00$ 14 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 241 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 3,950.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 242 Coast live oak 7 No Remove Within development footprint 700.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 243 Coast live oak 19 Yes Remove Within development footprint 3,200.00 $ 29 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 244 River she-oak 19 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 3,950.00$ 9 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box 245 River she-oak 24 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 6,150.00$ 36 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 246 Glossy privet 9,8,7 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 750.00$ 22 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 247 Glossy privet 6,5,4 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 450.00$ 16 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 248 River she-oak 25 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 6,650.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 249 River she-oak 22 Yes Remove Withi n development footprint 5,200.00$ 29 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 250 River she-oak 18 Yes Remove Wit hin development footprint 600.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 251 Glossy privet 8,8 No; invasive Remo ve Within development footprint 1,000.00$ 24 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box 252 Canary Island
date palm
34 No; invasive Remove Within development footprint 8,334.00$ 28 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box 253 Blue gum 13 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
550.00$ 11 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 530 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
254 Blue gum 18 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
850.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
255 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
2,250.00$ 43 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
256 Blue gum 20 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,500.00$ 20 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
257 Blue gum 14 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
850.00$ 17 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
258 Blue gum 8,6,6,6,5,5 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
400.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
259 Blue gum 10 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
400.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box
260 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
500.00$ 8 Two 24-inch box One 36-inch box
261 Blue gum 22 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,150.00$ 25 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
262 Blue gum 16 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
700.00$ 21 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
263 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
500.00$ 13 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
264 Blue gum 12 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
500.00$ 12 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
265 Blue gum 26,10 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,750.00$ 35 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
266 Blue gum 10,8,6,6,5 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
550.00$ 18 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
267 Blue gum 35,4,4,4 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
2,650.00$ 43 Six 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
& two 36-inch box
268 Blue gum 20 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
1,000.00$ 19 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
269 Blue gum 30 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
3,200.00$ 38 Four 24-inch box Two 48-inch box
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 531 of 613
Tree
No. Species
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree Disposition Notes Estimated
Value
Canopy (Avg.
Diameter, ft.)
Replacement
Trees (24-inch
box)
Alternative
Trees (36-inch
box)
Preliminary Disposition and Estimate of
Value
2100 - 2400 Geng Road
Palo Alto, CA
April 2025
270 Blue gum 25 Yes; on City
property
Remove
Off-site; edge of development, st
2,250.00$ 23 Three 24-inch box Two 36-inch box
Total 943,838$
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of
Authorizing Work in the
Baylands Related to the
Adjacent Development at
2100-2400 Geng Road (24-
PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 532 of 613
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASHGREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
67 LYO FLO
24" BOX
5 CER FLO
24" BOX
5 ARB UNE
24" BOX
5 CAS CUN
24" BOX
6 HET ARB
24" BOX
35 GEI PAR
24" BOX
4 QUE LOB
24" BOX
3 PRU ILI
24" BOX
3 PRU ILI
24" BOX
4 ARB MEN
24" BOX
8 GIN BIL
24" BOX
5 GAR ELL
24" BOX
6 GAR ELL
24" BOX
9 ERI JAP
24" BOX
3 ARB MEN
24" BOX
4 GIN BIL
24" BOX
13 GIN BIL
24" BOX
22 ARB UNE
24" BOX
3 ARB UNE
24" BOX
11 TRI LAU
24" BOX
12 CER OCC
24" BOX
48 POD GRA
24" BOX
5 CER OCC
24" BOX
11 POD GRA
24" BOX
3 LAG NAT
24" BOX
27 CER OCC
24" BOX
11 LAG NAT
24" BOX
4 CER OCC
24" BOX
6 ACE CIR
24" BOX
6 ACE CIR
24" BOX
6 ARB UNE
24" BOX
15 CER OCC
24" BOX
1 QUE AGR
24" BOX
4 CER OCC
24" BOX
4 ERI JAP
24" BOX
36 POD GRA
24" BOX
14 ERI JAP
24" BOX
3 CIT MEY
24" BOX
11 CER OCC
24" BOX
4 CER OCC
24" BOX
3 CER OCC
24" BOX
Treatment Type: Silva Cell. Treatment Area
Name: UTS-1. See Civil Drawings.
6 ARB MEN
24" BOX
3 QUE AGR
24" BOX
2 QUE LOB
24" BOX
3 CER OCC
24" BOX
1 PRU ILI
24" BOX
15 GAR ELL
24" BOX
9 GAR ELL
24 " BOX
6 QUE AGR
24" BOX
10 GIN BIL
24" BOX
8 GAR ELL
24" BOX
6 CER OCC
24" BOX
4 GAR ELL
24" BOX
1 QUE AGR
24" BOX
3 PRU ILI
24" BOX
1 QUE AGR
24" BOX
3 QUE LOB
24" BOX
18 PLA RAC
24" BOX
20 LOP CON
24" BOX
7 GAR ELL
24" BOX
5 ARB UNE
24" BOX
10 GIN BIL
24" BOX
3 ERI JAP
24" BOX
1 QUE LOB
24" BOX
8 PRU ILI
24" BOX
4 PRU ILI
24" BOX
6 ARB UNE
24" BOX
5 PRU ILI
24" BOX
3 TRI LAU
24" BOX
Treatment Type:
Bioretention.
Treatment Area
Name: BR 3. See
Civil Drawings.
Treatment Type:
Bioretention.
Treatment Area
Name: BR 2. See
Civil Drawings.
Treatment Type:
Bioretention.
Treatment Area
Name: BR 4. See
Civil Drawings.
Existing Trees to Remain, Typ.
Existing Trees to
Remain, Typ.
Existing Trees
to Remain,
Typ.
Existing Trees
to Remain, Typ
3 AES CAL
24 " BOX
2 GAR ELL
24" BOX
3 CER OCC
24" BOX
8 QUE AGR
24" BOX
3 PRU ILI
24" BOX
1 QUE AGR
24" BOX
0'
SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"
25' 50'100'
THE
INC.
Guzzardo
Partnership,
Landscape ArchitectsLand Planners
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115
San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.com 11-24-2025
PLANTING PLANL 2.1
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of Authorizing Work in the Baylands Related to the Adjacent Development at 2100-2400 Geng Road (24-PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 533 of 613
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASHGREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
W/H
TRASH
GREEN
RECYCLE
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
UP
W/H
Tree Protection
Fence, Per Arborist
Tree Protection
Fence, Per Arborist
Tree Protection
Fence, Per Arborist
Tree Protection
Fence, Per Arborist
Tree Protection
Fence, Per
Arborist
1 2
3 5
46 7 8 9
10 11 13
12 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
67 68
66 69 71
70 81
73 72 75
74 76
77 80
78 79
82 83
84 85
86 87 88
89 90
95 94
93 9192
96 97
98 99 100
102
101
103
104
105
106107
110 109
108
111
112
116
118
117
120
119
121
122
123
124
115
114
113
131
132
133
125
126
127
128
129 130
144
134
136
135137138
139
140
141
142
143
151
150152
149
157
158
159
153
154
155
156
145
146
147
148
161
165
164163
162
166
188
187
186185184183182181180179178177176175
174
173172171
170169168167
207
203
206
205
204
200
201
202
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
218
217
248
247
246
252
251
250
249
245
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
243
242
244
231
230
229
227
223
226
225 224
222 219
220
221
160
253
254
255
256 257
260
264
263 265
266
267 270268 269
262
261
258
259
228
208
199
198
197
195
193
189
190191
192
196
194
0'
SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"
25' 50'100'
THE
INC.
Guzzardo
Partnership,
Landscape ArchitectsLand Planners
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 115
San Francisco, CA 94111www.tgp-inc.com 11-24-2025
TREE DISPOSITION PLANL 6.1
TREE DISPOSITION TABLE AND LEGEND
KEY
REMAIN
0 NON-PROTECTED TREE0
PROTECTED TREE
REMOVE
81 135
ON-SITE TREESQTY.KEY QTY.
KEY
46 NON-PROTECTED TREE6
PROTECTED TREE2
0 OFF-SITE TREESQTY.KEY QTY.
KEY
46 NON-PROTECTED TREE6
PROTECTED TREE83
135
TOTALSQTY.KEY QTY.
TREE REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS
TOTAL PROPOSED
24" BOX TREE648
CANOPY SPREAD
SIZE OF EXISTING
TREE TO BE
REMOVED
4'-9'
10'-27'
28'-39'
REPLACE-
MENT
TREES
(2) 24" BOX
(3) 24" BOX
(4) 24" BOX
ALTER-
NATIVE
TREES
(1) 36" BOX
(2) 36" BOX
(2) 48" BOX
44 35
# OF EXISTING
PROTECTED
TREES BEING
REMOVED
TOTAL
REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENT
AT 24" BOX
2 132
140
TOTAL
REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENT
AT 36" BOX
-
-
-
PROPOSED TREES ANALYSIS
* Approximate ratio of new trees to trees removed - 3:1 40'-55'(6) 24" BOX(2) 36" BOX318-
56'-60'(2) 24" BOX+000
60'+(15) 24" BOX+00-
(2) 48" BOX
+ Replace the tree with a combination of both Tree Canopy and Tree Value Standards (2) 36" BOX
(2) 48" BOX
TOTALS648 TOTAL PROPOSED TREES
TOTAL
REPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENT
AT 48" BOX
-
-
-
-
0 -
TOTAL8329200
1 CANOPY SPREAD
SIZE OF EXISTING
TREE TO BE
REMOVED
4'-9'
10'-27'
REPLACE-
MENT
TREES
(2) 24" BOX
(3) 24" BOX
(4) 24" BOX
ALTER-
NATIVE
TREES
(1) 36" BOX
(2) 36" BOX
(2) 48" BOX
(6) 24" BOX(2) 36" BOX
(2) 24" BOX+
60'+(15) 24" BOX+
(2) 48" BOX
(2) 36" BOX
(2) 48" BOX
TOTAL
TOTAL
PROPOSED
REPLACEMENT
AT 24" BOX
2 132
140
-
-
-
648
18-
-
--
TOTAL
PROPOSED
REPLACEMENT
AT 36" BOX
TOTAL
PROPOSED
REPLACEMENT
AT 48" BOX
-
-
-
-
-
--
TOTAL
PROPOSED 24"
BOX IN-LIEU
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*Note: The ratio of 24" box trees per each 60' plus canopy is not from the CPA Tree Technical Manual. **Note: The required 48" box replacements have been added to the 36" total using a 1:1.5 ratio + Note: The proposed 36" box trees have been assigned to each canopy class using the associated ratio.
NOTE:
All existing tree information is referenced from the Arborist Report dated August 2025, prepared by
HORT Science Bartlett Consulting, (925) 484-0211.
NOTE:
Existing trees to remain may be impacted during construction.
See Arborist Report for more information.
PROPOSED TREES
356 EXTRA---
44 35
# OF EXISTING
PROTECTED
TREES BEING
REMOVED
3 0
0 1
83 28'-39'
40'-55'
56'-60'
Exhibit A
Item 12
Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of Authorizing Work in the Baylands Related to the Adjacent Development at 2100-2400 Geng Road (24-PLN-00356)
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 534 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2603-6184
TITLE
SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Bird Friendly Design Standards (FIRST READING: March 16, 2026; PASSED: 5-2, Lu, Lythcott-Haims no)
BACKGROUND
The City Council heard this item for a first reading on March 16, 2026 and approved it on a 5-2, Lu, Lythcott-Haims no) vote. Staff have updated the ordinance to reflect the City Council’s direction on March 16, and it is now before the City Council for a second reading.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Bird Friendly Design Standards
APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 535 of 613
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
1 0160152_20260324_ay16
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Bird Friendly Design Standards
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations.
The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On November 13, 2017, the City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The plan included a policy encouraging bird-friendly design and a program to develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potenƟal for collisions.
B. On January 29, 2024, the City Council selected four City Council prioriƟes, one of which is “Climate Change & Natural Environment – ProtecƟon & AdaptaƟon.” This priority includes an objecƟve to approve a bird-safe glass and wildlife light polluƟon protecƟons ordinance.
C. On February 14, 2024, and July 18, 2024, the Architectural Review Board conducted study sessions and provided feedback on this ordinance.
D. On August 14, 2024, the Planning and TransportaƟon Commission reviewed the draŌ ordinance, provided feedback, and conƟnued the hearing to a date uncertain.
E. On October 30, 2024, the Planning and TransportaƟon Commission iniƟally reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommended its adopƟon to the City Council.
F. On December 10, 2025, aŌer considering addiƟonal informaƟon presented by staff, the Planning and TransportaƟon Commission again recommended adopƟon of the ordinance to the City Council.
G. This Ordinance is intended to reduce bird mortality rates by reducing the possibility of bird collisions with buildings, contribuƟng to a healthier and more resilient environment.
H. This Ordinance provides clear and consistent standards, streamlining the approval process by reducing the need for case-by-case review of individual projects.
SECTION 2. Section 18.40.280 (Bird-Friendly Design Standards) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read as follows:
18.40.280 Bird-Friendly Design Standards
(a) Purpose. The intent of this section is to establish bird-friendly design standards for glass to minimize hazards for birds and to reduce the potential for collisions.
Item 13
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Chapter
18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Adopt
Bird Friendly Design
Standards
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 536 of 613
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
2 0160152_20260324_ay16
(b) Definitions. The following terms are defined for the purposes of this section:
(1) “Bird Sensitive Area” means the areas located east of Highway 101 and west of Foothill Expressway.
(2) “Bird-Friendly Treatment” means treatment to glazing that provides visual cues to birds and reduces the likelihood of bird collisions by incorporating one of the following:
(A) Patterned Treatment, Permanent. Glazing shall be permanently translucent or obscured, or include patterns are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened, or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material. (i) For patterns using dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be at least a 1/4 inch in diameter and be no more than 2 inches apart in any direction.
(ii) For patterns using lines, they must be at least 1/8 inch in width and spaced no more than 2 inches apart.
(iii) Frit, ceramic ink, or other marker types must be opaque, permanently adhered, and durable for the life of the glazing, unless an alternative compliance method is chosen as outlined in Section 18.40.280(e). (B) Patterned Treatment, Limited. Films, decals, or other similar markers approved by the American Bird Conservancy or its equivalent, subject to Director approval, may be used only for residential development or the residential portion of mixed-use development, or the portions of a nonresidential elevation under 35 feet. These Limited Patterned Treatments shall have the same visual cues or patterns as Permanent Patterned Treatment under 18.40.280(b)(2)(A) and be applied to the outer surface to the extent possible.
(C) Exterior Features. Panes with exterior screens, shutters or shading devices installed permanently over windows, structures, or building features such that there is no gap larger than 9 inches in one dimension. Exterior features include, but are not limited to, metal screens, insect screens, shutters, window grilles, fixed solar shading such as louvres, and exterior insert, brise soleil, or solar screens.
(3) “Bird Hazard Installations” are defined as visually unbroken, exterior glazing and/or glass panels that are reflective or transparent that provide a clear line of sight through the glazed elements to porches, courtyards, water features, trees, vegetation, landscaping, or the sky on the other side of the glazed element, including, but not limited to: (A) Free standing features such as transparent awnings, (B) Transparent handrails and guards, (C) Transparent wind break panels, acoustic barriers, bus, weather shelters, other free-standing transparent walls, or see- through building protrusions; (D) Transparent skyways or walkways; (E) Two or more Item 13
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Chapter
18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Adopt
Bird Friendly Design
Standards
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 537 of 613
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
3 0160152_20260324_ay16
parallel transparent elements with a distance of 30 feet or less between them, when at least one of the parallel panes is 24 square feet or larger; or (F) Two or more transparent elements on opposing sides and within 12 feet of a corner (perpendicular, acute, or obtuse) when at least one of the panes is 24 square feet or larger.
(4) “Elevation” means any exterior walls of a building or structure, as seen from a two- dimensional perspective like the front, side, or rear.
(5) “Fenestration” means the openings in a building’s façade, such as door, skylights, and windows.
(6) “Glazing” means the reflective, transparent or translucent materials that fill openings in a building’s exterior walls. This typically includes glass but can also encompass other materials like plastic or acrylic sheets that allow light transmission. (c) Applicability. The bird-friendly design requirements apply to any of the following projects, when a permit is otherwise required:
(1) All newly constructed structures and buildings;
(2) Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070 of the Code; or (3) Any new fenestration or new or replacement Bird Hazard Installations. (d) Bird-Friendly Design Requirements
(1) Basic Requirement. Bird-Friendly Treatment is required for:
(A) All Bird Hazard installations.
(B) All glazing on an elevation of a building or structure that is unbroken and 24 square feet or larger in size.
(C) Glazing within 15 feet of a green roof.
(2) Residential and the residential portion of mixed-use development. (A) Within the Bird Sensitive Area, in addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than ten percent of an elevation of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing.
(B) Outside of the Bird Sensitive Area, in addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than 40 percent of an elevation above 35 feet of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing.
(3) Nonresidential and the nonresidential portion of mixed-use development. In addition to the requirements of (d)(1), no more than ten percent of an elevation of any structure or building shall be untreated glazing.
Item 13
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Chapter
18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Adopt
Bird Friendly Design
Standards
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 538 of 613
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
4 0160152_20260324_ay16
(A) Any portions of an elevation under 35 feet may be allowed to use films, decals, or other products approved by the American Bird Conservancy or its equivalent, subject to Director approval.
(e) Alternative Compliance. Property owners or applicants may request an alternative means of compliance with requirements established in Section 18.40.280(d). The alternative shall be recommended in a report by a biologist or ornithologist holding a degree in wildlife biology or a specialization in ornithology, and having experience in bird-friendly building design. The request shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the applicable procedures in Chapter 18.77, and is subject to approval by the Director. The proposed alternative compliance shall:
(1) Reduce the risk of bird collision to a level equivalent to or less than that which would result from strict compliance with Section 18.40.280(d); and (2) Be consistent with the intent of this section as set forth in Section 18.40.280(a). (f) Lighting. All projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting requirements pursuant to Section 18.40.250 of the Municipal Code.
(g) Exemptions. The following types of projects shall be exempt from Section 18.40.280(d):
(1) Any historic structure located within the City’s Historic Districts or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory or the State or National Historical Registers, except for new additions where treatment conforms to Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.
(2) The first floor of commercial uses facing a public street, up to 14 feet in height, within the following districts:
(A) Retail Shopping (R) Combining District
(B) Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining District
(C) Ground Floor (GF) Combining District
(D) North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Districts
(3) 100% affordable housing projects as defined in Section 18.32.030. (4) Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Chapter
18.09. (5) Outside of the Bird Sensitive Area, any portions of residential structures under 35 feet.
(6) Glazing that is necessary for airport safety or navigation in connection with operations at the Palo Alto Municipal Airport
Item 13
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Chapter
18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Adopt
Bird Friendly Design
Standards
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 539 of 613
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
5 0160152_20260324_ay16
(h) Additional Provisions and Conflict Precedence. All applicable windows, doors, or other features must comply with the requirements of this section, in addition to the California Building Code, including the fire hazard severity zone regulations in California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen), Fire Code, and applicable state or federal laws. within the event that the provisions of this section necessarily conflict with the aforementioned codes or state or federal laws, the standards in the applicable state or federals laws and codes shall prevail.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15308, as an action by a regulatory agency to protect the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day following its adoption.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Item 13
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Chapter
18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Adopt
Bird Friendly Design
Standards
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 540 of 613
*** NOT YET APPROVED ***
6 0160152_20260324_ay16
SECTION 6. Pipeline Projects. This Ordinance shall not apply to any project application deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Any project completed pursuant to such application shall be deemed a legal non-conforming structure and/or use, subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.70.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning & Development
Services
Item 13
Attachment A - Ordinance
of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending Chapter
18.40 (General Standards
and Exceptions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Adopt
Bird Friendly Design
Standards
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 541 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2512-5594
TITLE
Approval of FY 2026-2027 Human Relations Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Art Commission, and Stormwater Management Oversight Committee Work Plans; CEQA Status - not a project
RECOMMENDATION
The Human Relations Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Art Commission, and Stormwater Management Oversight Committee recommend approval of their respective Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Work Plans.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 30, 2020, the City Council adopted the Boards, Commissions and Committees (BCC) Handbook1, which implemented an annual review and approval of BCC work plans. Each BCC is required to prepare an annual work plan for Council’s review and approval. The annual report should include the results of the prior year’s work plan and should consist of up to three priorities. When applicable, the City Council would like to see metrics of community involvement and participation in meetings and activities included in the work plan.
Council may refer additional items to the BCC in response to new developments. If the BCC would like to add an issue for review after an annual work plan has been approved, a prompt request by the BCC Chair to the City Council is required and the item will then be addressed by the City Council as a whole.
1 Boards, Commissions, Committees Handbook:
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/5/city-clerk/bcc-handbook.pdf Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 542 of 613
At its December 2, 2024 meeting3, the City Council approved dividing BCC recruitments and work plan approvals into fall and spring cycles. Per the adopted schedule, work plans for the Human Relations Commission, Public Art Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Storm Water Management Oversight Committee are being brought to the City Council for consideration.
Representatives from each Commission/Committee will be available to discuss these workplans with the City Council in addition to representative staff liaisons to these bodies. These workplans reflect work in alignment with the Council priorities and priority objectives recently approved.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Projects included in commission work plans ultimately require staff time and other City resources to complete. When possible, staff provide input to the commissions during work plan development to ensure the impact on staff time and resources is reasonable given staff workload and other competing priorities. If approved as drafted, staff expect to be able to support execution of these workplans within existing resources.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Commission work plans are discussed publicly either at regular BCC meetings or retreats.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is not a project as defined by CEQA because this is a continuing administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: FY26-27 Human Relations Commission Work Plan Attachment B: FY26-27 Parks & Recreation Commission Work Plan Attachment C: FY26-27 Public Art Commission Work Plan
Attachment D: FY26-27 Stormwater Management Oversight Committee Work Plan APPROVED BY:
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
3 City Council, December 2, 2024; Agenda Item #14; SR # 2409-3480 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83110&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 14
Item 14 Staff Report
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 543 of 613
Human Relations Commission DRAFT – For City Council Review and Approval FY2026-27 Workplan
Staff Liaison: Sophie Pigman, Human Services Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
About the Commission
This updated workplan covers the calendar year 2026 (fiscal years 2026 -27) for the Human Relations Commission (HRC) .
The Commission is composed of 7 members who are residents of Palo Alto. Terms are for 3 years and commence on November 1 . See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.22.
Current Commissioners
• Michelle Kraus (Chair)
• Katie Causey (Vice Chair)
• Salwa Ansari
• Don Barr
• Amy Hsieh
• Sridhar Karnam
• Mary Kate Stimmler
Mission Statement
HRC Mission: To promote the just and fair treatment of all people in Palo Alto, particularly our most vulnerable populations. By promoting awareness of issues and enabling conversations that enhance inclusion, the HRC strives to create a community where ci vility, respect and responsible actions are the norm.
HRC Jurisdiction: Municipal Code 2.22.050
(a) The Human Relations Commission has the discretion to act with respect to any human relations matter when the commission finds that any person or group does not benefit fully from public or private opportunities or resources in the community or is unfai rly or differently treated due to factors of concern to the commission. (1) Public or private opportunities or resources in the community include, but are not limited to, those associated with ownership and rental of housing, employment, education and governmental services and benefits. (2) Factors of concern to the commission include, but are not limited to, socioeconomic class or status, physical condition or handicap, married or unmarried state, emotional condition, intellectual ability, age, sex, sexual preference, gender identity, race, cultural characteristics, ethnic background, ancestry, citizenship, and religious, conscientious or philosophical belief.
(b) The commission shall conduct such studies and undertake such responsibilities as the council may direct.
Item 14
Attachment A - FY26-27 Human
Relations Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 544 of 613
Prior Year
Accomplishments
April 2024-December 2025
Goal #1 – Core Responsibilities : Discussed the findings of the Human Services Needs Assessment and determined the Priority of Needs for the FY2026 -27 Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), (October 2024). Reviewed and made funding recommendations to Council for 21 two -year HSRAP grants totaling $941,735 to fund critical needs in the community for FY 2026 -27 (March and April 2025). A subcommittee of HRC commissioners and city staff served as the review committee for the Emerging Needs Fund. In Fiscal Year 2025 (July 2024 -June 2025), a total of 6 grants totaling $50,000 was approved. Reviewed and made funding recommendations to the Finance Committee for 8 grants totaling $480,000 as part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding program for Fiscal Year 2025 -26 (May 2025). Hosted the Planning and Development Department’s public hearing on the summary of fiscal year 2024 -25 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Accomplishments and review of the draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (C APER), (September 2025). Commission members served as liaison to the following organizations and committees: Palo Alto Police Department, Avenidas, Palo Alto Mediation Program, Project Safety Net, and the R.V. Dweller Collaborative.
Goal #2 – Inclusion & Belonging : Conducted a Listening Session with local faith leaders to better understand their needs and the communities they serve (June 2024). Approved HRC support of the Solidarity Celebration Picnic to Commemorate Juneteenth and Eid -Ul-Adha (June 2024). Made reco mmendations for actions stemming from the 2023 Older Adults Learning Series (September 2024). Reviewed and discussed the City Clerk’s Office proposed 2025 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule and the draft citywide list of h olidays and dates of significance (October 2024).
Approved support for the Palo Alto Annual Community Ramadan Iftar dinner (February 2025). Adopted a policy on public requests for HRC support (June 2025). Reviewed the training overview for the religious to lerance training to be offered to City staff, boards/commissions, and the City Council (July 2025). Reviewed and discussed the City Clerk’s Office proposed 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule and the citywide dates of significance list (October 2025 ).
Approved support for the Mitchell Park Library “Know Your Rights: Information for the Immigrant Community” program (November 2025). Approved a procedure for city staff to request HRC support for internal city events (November 2025).
Goal #3 - Public Safety : Conducted the “Creating a Safer Community: Understanding and Defining Hate Crimes” event for the public (October 2024). Approved a resolution stating that the HRC condemns all hate crimes and hate incidents (November 2024). Conducted a “Fraud Prevention” event for the public (April 2025). Conducted a luncheon for local faith leaders to discuss safety concerns and ask questions to the Palo Alto Police Department Chief and Assistant Chief (May 2025).
Goal #4 – Public Health : Provided feedback on the draft Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan from the Office of Transportation (January 2025).
Goal #5 – Housing, Economic Justice and Development : Hosted the Planning and Development Department’s public hearing for the initial public discussion of Fair Change Housing Policy approaches regarding use of criminal history information in Palo Alto rental housing decisions (October 2024). Conducted the “ Know Your Rights: Information for Palo Alto’s Immigrant Community” event for the public (February 2025). Conducted a learning session to hear from Early Childhood Education (ECE) providers and professional s on the current childcare landscape locally and regionally (May 2025). Presentation by the City Manager’s Office on the Local Housing and Homelessness Services Gap Analysis Report. Provided input relating to housing and services for the unhoused as feedba ck to the City Council (June 2025).
Conducted a Learning Session on alternative pathways to home ownership (September 2025). Presentation by the Utilities Department on City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) residential programs and service offerings (October 2025).
Presentation by Amy Everitt, President of the Golden State Opportunity and Sally Lieber, Vice Chair of the California State Board of Equalization on the Federal and California Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and how it may provide cash support to qu alifying unhoused, low -income, or seniors (November 2025). Presentation by the Palo Alto Mediation Program staff and Mediation Board co -chairs on their programs and services (November 2025).
Item 14
Attachment A - FY26-27 Human
Relations Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 545 of 613
Goal #6 – Climate Change : Presentation by Heart and Home Collaborative and City staff on City services and resources for the unhoused during periods of inclement and cold weather, including warming centers (November 2024).
Goal #7 – Learning Sessions (items are also listed under the goals above): Conducted a learning session to hear from Early Childhood Education (ECE) providers and professionals on the current childcare landscape locally and regionally (HEJD, May 2025). Conducted a learning session o n alternative pathways to home ownership (HEJD, September 2025).
Goal #8 – Emerging Issues : Received an update on the Public Art Program King Artist Residency (May 2025).
Presentation by the Palo Alto Library staff on library services for the community (September 2025). Presentation from local providers on programs and services addressing food insecurity in Palo Alto (December 2025)
Item 14
Attachment A - FY26-27 Human
Relations Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 546 of 613
GOAL 1:
Core Responsibilities
Funding Programs - Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Emerging Needs Fund. Continue to review and give input to funding decisions. Priority during this workplan cycle includes assisting staff with the HSRAP application process for the FY28 funding cycle.
Liaison with partner agencies. Each commissioner is assigned to at least one agency to promote learning and engagement.
The partner agencies are Avenidas, Palo Alto Police Department, Project Safety Net, Project Sentinel (Palo Alto Mediation Program), and the R.V. Dweller Service Provider Meeting.
Rapid Response – Commission will identify emerging issues in the community, prioritize those that need further attention and elevate any major initiatives, including those that involve significant staff time to the Council for approval. The Commission will also be responsive to future referrals by the Council.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW /
COUNCIL-APPROVED
The funding programs provide
human services organizations
with essential monetary support
to serve vulnerable and
underserved residents of Palo
Alto.
The HRC has the discretion to
act with respect to any human
relations matter when the
commission finds that any
person or group does not benefit
fully from public or private
opportunities or resources in the
community or is unfairly or
differently treated due to factors
of concern to the commission.
Ongoing Ad hoc HRC subcommittee and
staff time for the funding
decisions.
Moderate level of staff and ad hoc
subcommittee time.
During each applicable funding
cycle, HRC produces funding
recommendations to City
Council for HSRAP, CDBG, and
the Emerging Needs Fund.
Liaisons to a partner agency
provide at least one update
quarterly to the Commission
summarizing engagement with
the assigned agency, including
identified needs, challenges,
and opportunities relevant to the
Commission’s work.
When emergent human
relations concerns arise, HRC
leadership initiates timely
outreach, as appropriate, to
impacted community leaders or
organizations for the purpose of
listening, expressing support,
and understanding community-
identified concerns. Information
gathered is used to inform
Commission awareness and,
when appropriate, future agenda
items or referrals.
N/A
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Provide funding recommendations for HSRAP, CDBG and the Emerging Needs Fund as needed.
Meet with partner agencies on a regular and ongoing basis.
Respond to emerging issues.
Review and provide feedback on the HSRAP application, award process, and metrics of success.
N/A
Item 14
Attachment A - FY26-27 Human
Relations Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 547 of 613
GOAL 2:
Community Mental Health
Support current efforts to address mental health issues in the community with a focus on youth, LGBTQ+, veterans and unhoused individuals.
• Learning session on youth mental health and suicide prevention by Project Safety Net, allcove Palo Alto, and other pertinent agencies.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW /
COUNCIL-APPROVED
Increase community awareness
of the mental health challenges
faced by youth, adults and
veterans; and the services
available to them and their
families. Foster an ongoing
community dialogue on how to
prevent suicides and overdoses.
Spring-Summer 2026 Ad hoc HRC subcommittee and
staff time
Moderate level of staff and ad hoc
subcommittee time.
Coordinate with city
stakeholders and other non-
government organizations to
amplify their workshops,
outreach, and messaging.
N/A
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Conduct the learning session with Project Safety Net, allcove Palo Alto, and other youth mental health service providers.
Identify objectives to address mental health issues for LGBTQ+, veterans, and unhoused individuals.
N/A
Item 14
Attachment A - FY26-27 Human
Relations Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 548 of 613
GOAL 3:
Community Safety
Explore and implement avenues to decrease incidences of crimes in the community. • Continue to convene community presentations on fraud prevention. • Continue to convene faith leader meetings on community safety.
Provide a space for residents to voice their concerns about the safety conditions in their neighborhood, with an emphasis on areas around schools, and identify ways the HRC can address those concerns.
Explore ways in which climate change may disproportionately affect specific populations in the community. • Learning session from the Palo Alto Fire Department, and other relevant city departments, about current environmental disaster mitigation workshops.
• Identify ways to mitigate the impacts of environmental disasters on vulnerable populations.
AI for Belonging - a ‘transparency baseline’ for city-used algorithms, and a ‘Procurement Guardrail’ policy to ensure city vendors meet our equity standards.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW /
COUNCIL-APPROVED
All individuals who live, work or
worship in Palo Alto have the
right to do so without fear of
verbal or physical abuse or
attack.
Climate awareness and changes
in habits help everyone thrive
and special attention should be
paid to vulnerable populations.
Summer-Fall 2026 Ad hoc subcommittee and staff
time. Space, marketing, and event
budget for educational
programming.
High level of staff and ad hoc
subcommittee time.
Measures may include how
many people attend educational
programming, specific actions
taken by members of the public
to combat hate crimes, and the
increased reporting of hate
crimes.
N/A
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Convene community presentations on fraud prevention.
Convene faith leader meetings on community safety.
Learning session about current environmental disaster mitigation workshops.
Providing a space for residents to voice concerns about safety conditions in their neighborhoods.
AI for Belonging
N/A
Item 14
Attachment A - FY26-27 Human
Relations Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 549 of 613
GOAL 4:
Community Engagement
Foster a sense of inclusion, belonging, and civic engagement in the community. ● Invite Palo Alto youth advocates to present to the Human Relations Commission regarding their proposed initiative to lower the voting age to 16 in City of Palo Alto elections. ● Host an LGBTQ+ youth and allies leadership day at City Hall showing LGBTQ+ youth and allies not only different resources, but different paths in public service they can take. ● Convene one public input/brainstorming session with local LGBTQ+ nonprofits and advocates to assess what type of pride event the community is interested in, what nonprofits would have capacity to support, what would be needed to make that a reality.
● Implement an annual community nonprofit service provider convening. ● Identify ways to increase community engagement with the HRC, both during and between meetings. ● Respond to the referral from the Policy and Services Committee (12/9/25) to the HRC for consideration of strategies and policies to implement the City’s CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women) ordinance, contingent upon Council’s adoption of the ordinance. The Policy and Services Committee requests both immediate and long-term recommendations.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW /
COUNCIL-APPROVED
All individuals who live, work or
worship in Palo Alto have the
right to feel included and valued
as members of the community.
By adopting a CEDAW
ordinance, the City provides a
legal framework for the
protection and support of women
in the community.
Summer-Fall
CEDAW: Spring-Summer 2026.
Present recommendations by
November 2026.
Ad hoc subcommittee and staff
time. Space and marketing for
programming.
Moderate level of staff and ad hoc
subcommittee time.
Increased community
awareness and
communications, both online
and offline; increased
workshops, and learning
sessions.
CEDAW: Forward
recommendations to the City
Council.
N/A
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
CEDAW: Develop strategies and policies to present to Council.
Invite Palo Alto youth advocates to present to the Human Relations Commission regarding their proposed initiative to lower the voting age to 16 in City of Palo Alto elections.
Host an LGBTQ+ youth and allies leadership day at City Hall showing LGBTQ+ youth and allies not only different resources, but different paths in public service they can take.
Convene one public input/brainstorming session with local LGBTQ+ nonprofits and advocates to assess what type of pride event the community is interested in, what nonprofits would have capacity to support, what would be needed to make that a reality.
Implement an annual community nonprofit service provider convening.
Identify ways to increase community engagement with the HRC, both during and between meetings.
CEDAW:
Council-
Directed
Item 14
Attachment A - FY26-27 Human
Relations Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 550 of 613
GOAL 5:
Housing , Economic
Recovery and Development
(HERD)
Housing, Economic Recovery and Development
• Continue to identify roles the HRC can play to provide an equity perspective in ongoing housing initiatives such as meeting housing element goals, Stanford GUP, and the potential shift from the downtown housing advisory group to an SB79 advisory group.
• Hold a joint meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) if ADU “condoization” comes forward. • Continue to support efforts for increased renter protections and access to affordable housing, with a particular focus on seniors.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW /
COUNCIL-APPROVED
Providing active HRC
participation in actions to
positively affect the lives of
unhoused members of the
community.
During the term covered by this
workplan
Staff and HRC commissioner time
Lower level of staff and adhoc
subcommittee time.
HRC gives input on relevant
housing initiatives that arise.
N/A
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Research and identify housing programs that could best address equity and access needs in the community (cross sectional senior, families, low income.).
Continue to support efforts for increase renter protections and access to affordable housing, with a focus on seniors.
Joint meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
N/A
Item 14
Attachment A - FY26-27 Human
Relations Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 551 of 613
Parks and Recreation Commission
Draft FY2027 Workplan
Staff Liaison: Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
About the Commission
The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Commission is to advise the City Council on matters pertaining to the activities of the Open Space & Parks, Golf, and Recreation divisions of the Community Services Department, excluding daily administrative operatio ns.
Timeframe covered by Work Plan isFY27 July 1, 2026- June 30, 2027. The Commission is composed of seven members. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 2.25 Sections 2.25.010, 2.25.030, 2.25.040, 2.25.050, and
2.25.060. Residency is required. Further requirements are that members shall not be Council Members, officers, or employees of the City of Palo Alto. Each member of the Commission shall have a demonstrated interest in parks, open space, and recreation matters.
For more information about the Parks and Recreation Commission please visit our webpage.
Current Commissioners
• Nellis Freeman (Chair)
• Bing Wei (Vice Chair)
• Vadim Axelrod
• Amanda Brown
• Yudy Deng
• Shani Kleinhaus
• Roger Smith
Mission Statement
The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Commission is to advise the City Council on policy matters pertaining to the activities of the Open Space, Parks and Golf Division, and the Recreation Division of the Community Services Department.
Item 14
Attachment B - FY26-27 Parks &
Recreation Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 552 of 613
Prior Year
Accomplishments
CIP Review
• Based on feedback during the December 18, 2024 Special Meeting, the CIP plan was brought back for review and discussion again during January 28, 2025 and feedback was provided on the proposed plan for FY 2026- 2030.
Park Dedication FY26
• On June 18, 2025, a ribbon-cutting event was held for Fred Eyerly Tower Well Park.
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) Update
• Reviewed the draft 2022 BCCP including scope, and next steps • Highlighted gaps, grammatical and technical errors and the need for strengthening conversation actions including monitoring
• Evaluated opportunities to strengthen wildlife conversation • Recommended focusing on the action plan
Nature Preserve Access Policy
• Reviewed whether to restrict or expand access within parks and open space preserves, balancing environmental protection, safety, and recreational use as part of the Nature Preserve Access Policy follow -up. • Evaluated trail conditions and habitat impacts at Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, supported a seasonal, data- informed management approach, and reviewed public input gathered through a 30- day on-site outreach and comment period.
• Provided final recommendations on trail management and habitat protection priorities and formally concluded the Ad Hoc Committee’s work following completion of Council-directed actions and provided this update at the October 28, 2025, meeting.
Recreation Wellness Center
• Collaborated with City staff on stakeholder and community outreach initiatives. • Co-hosted a community meeting with City staff in January 2025 to discuss the proposed center and explore potential locations.
• Continued collaboration with the Friends of Palo Alto Recreation Wellness Center Board of Directors, providing updates to the PRC based on relevant input received.
• Transitioned to the liaison role as the work is ongoing.
Playing Fields
• Collaborated with staff on the Citywide Turf Study by participating in the focus groups, supplying prior research and informing evaluation criteria.
Item 14
Attachment B - FY26-27 Parks &
Recreation Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 553 of 613
• Advanced a formal recommendation to City Council through the Parks and Recreation Commission at its October 28, 2025, meeting.
Racquet Courts Policy Update
• Staff and the PRC ad hoc committee completed a comprehensive review racquet sports policies, including field reservations, tennis, and pickleball.
• The work included a best-practices policy review of tennis court reservation practices to support resident access, and implementation of pickleball improvements such as striping at Fletcher School/Terman Park and evaluation of multi-use court opportunities.
• The tennis and pickleball study have been completed and is scheduled for presentation to the PRC on February or March 2026 following a twelve-month effort that included two PRC presentations and extensive engagement with tennis and pickleball stakeholders.
Middle School Athletics
• Looked into the Middle School Athletics Program and investigated alternative operational models and determined if alternative models would create better programing for the community. • Evaluated contracting out both individual sports and the entire athletics program • Recommended keeping current program as is in order to optimize cost to user, cost to the City, and retain flexibility in programming to meet the needs of the community.
Cubberley Project
• Worked with staff on community engagement and activation to increase community awareness and involvement.
PROJECT/GOAL 1:
CIP Review
Review the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning and prioritization process to ensure consistency with the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan. Collaborate with staff to evaluate current project alignment, enhance transparency in project selection, and implement best practices for long-term capital planning and inter-departmental coordination.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES
NEEDED
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Optimize implementation of the Parks Master
Plan
Better Resource Allocation
Increased Public Trust
November 2026-January 2027
Moderate staff time
Alignment with Master Plan Goals
Stakeholder
Engagement/Transparency
Yes: Parks Master
Plan (Policy 2.G, 6.A)
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER
PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Item 14
Attachment B - FY26-27 Parks &
Recreation Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 554 of 613
Review CIP and to ensure alignment with the Master Plan
Establish annual and periodic review best practices
Yes: Parks Master
Plan (Chapter 5:
Progress Reporting)
PROJECT/GOAL 2:
Park Dedication
Pursue and evaluate top priority potential sites and identify potential new sites to recommend dedicating as parkland within our community
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES
NEEDED
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Increase dedicated parkland to provide
recreational opportunities, promote the health
and well-being of the community, and
support biodiversity
Advance goals of 4 acres of parkland per
1,000 residents, and within 1/2 mile of homes
June 2027
Moderate staff time (CSD, CAO,
Planning, PWE, Real Estate)
Recommendation of one or more
sites for dedication as parkland
Yes: Parks Master
Plan (Goals and
Policies 1.B, 1.C, 4.D,
5.C) and
Comprehensive Plan
(Policy L-8.1)
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER
PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Work with staff to assess the suitability of Ventura Community Center (PACCC) for parkland dedication.
Work with staff to assess the suitability of Rinconada Gardens, San Antonio Avenue at Ponce Drive, Los Altos Treatment Plant Site (wetland area), and Baylands Measure E Site (landfill slope portion).
Pursue dedication of Greer Park sewer easement associated with the 2850 W.
Bayshore Road development project
Review previously identified locations and consider new potential sites for park dedication
Yes
PROJECT/GOAL 3:
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP)
Review and support completion of the BCCP.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES
NEEDED
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Work towards releasing the Baylands
Comprehensive Conservation Plan which
was previously developed but not completed
Establish updated standards, guideline, for
stewardship for environmental infrastructure
in the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve
FY2027-FY2028
Moderate to high staff time
Continue review of 2022 BCCP and
consultant deliverables.
PRC recommendation and City
Council adoption of the updated
BCCP.
Yes (Parks Master
Plan Program 4.A.1)
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER
PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Item 14
Attachment B - FY26-27 Parks &
Recreation Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 555 of 613
• Continue review of Draft 2022 BCCP as needed
• Identify work needed to move forward with BCCP updates as possible and appropriate • Review proposed updates related to wildlife conservation and sea level rise, monitoring, implementation.
Identify topics appropriate for future amendments or related planning efforts beyond the current BCCP update.
Provide additional advisory input as requested by staff or PRC.
Yes
PROJECT/GOAL 4:
Natural Grass Pilot
Support staff in pursuing a natural grass pilot project to enhance playability and durability; and continue to explore opportunities to transition from synthetic turf at Cubberley
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES
NEEDED
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Optimized access to City playing fields
Proactive field management
FY27
Moderate staff time
Natural Grass Pilot to be forwarded to
City Council for evaluation
Engage with stakeholders for
feedback
Yes: Parks Master
Plan
(Programs 2.A.3;
2.C.3)
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER
PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Work with staff to review and recommend and propose a rubric of success measures for the natural grass pilot project to enhance playability and durability.
Continue to explore opportunities to transition from synthetic turf at Cubbereley.
Meet with stakeholders periodically for feedback
Yes
PROJECT/GOAL 5:
Courts Policy Update
Review and recommend updates to Racquet Sports policies, including tennis and pickleball
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES
NEEDED
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Proactive Pickleball and Tennis court
management
Work with staff to develop fair and equity
tennis court reservation system that
promotes wellness for residents.
Understand current utilization, demand
patterns, and user feedback for Pickleball
FY 27
Moderate staff time
Court reservation policy update
recommendation to City Council
Yes: Parks Master
Plan
(Programs 1.F.1;
2.A.3;
2.C.3)
Item 14
Attachment B - FY26-27 Parks &
Recreation Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 556 of 613
and tennis courts.
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER
PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Meet with stakeholders periodically/monthly if necessary for feedback
Work with staff to review current USTA resident requirements as it relates to reserving court space in Palo Alto for non-residents
Investigate the feasibility of expanding Pickleball courts
Completion of a 30-day utilization report with hourly breakdowns (tennis and pickleball)
Survey response rate of at least 60% from current users Identification of at least 3 top pain points (e.g., peak congestion, reservation hoarding, low off- peak use)
Work with staff to convene and support the joint taskforce for racquet sports
Meet with stakeholders for feedback and review court reservation systems and use policy and recommend an update as appropriate
Yes
PROJECT/GOAL 6:
Cubberley Project
Work with staff to facilitate progress on the Palo Alto Cubberley Project.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES
NEEDED
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Cultural, recreation and Park facilities for the
health and welfare of current and future
generations
Community engagement
FY27
High level of staff time
CSD, ASD, CMO
Clear PRC input on space use
and site activation policies.
Effective collaboration with staff on
community engagement.
Increased community
awareness and involvement.
Strong foundation for a successful
2026 ballot measure.
Master Plan recommendation
forwarded to City Council for approval
Council Approved
(Parks Master Plan
Goal 1; Policy 4.A)
Identified priority
major project
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER
PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Item 14
Attachment B - FY26-27 Parks &
Recreation Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 557 of 613
• Provide input on policy questions related to future use of space. • Advise on near-term site activation strategies.
• Support completion of the Cubberley Community Center Master Plan. • Support ongoing community engagement efforts
• Work with community stakeholder, like friends of palo alto parks, recreation wellness center, etc.
• Support staff in preparation for a 2026 ballot measure to support redevelopment.
Yes
PROJECT/GOAL 7:
Nature Connectivity
To strengthen biodiversity and pollinator connectivity across the park system, consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Parks & Recreation Strategic Plan and informed by regional best practices.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES
NEEDED
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
● City Policy analysis and synthesis
● Summary of policy gaps and
opportunities
● Best-practice reference summary
● Set of PRC policy
recommendations
FY27
Low staff time
Draft of policy recommendations to
guide integration of biodiversity and
pollinator connectivity into park
planning and capital projects.
Yes: Parks Master
Plan
(Programs 4.C
Connect Natural
Areas)
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER
PRIORITY
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
● Review existing City policies and plans (Comprehensive Plan, Parks & Recreation Strategic Plan, Urban Forest Master Plan, Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), and stormwater / green infrastructure guidance and other relevant plans) to assess how biodiversity and pollinator connectivity are addressed.
● Evaluate regional best practices, including Mountain View’s Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan and San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department biodiversity frameworks, to identify applicable policy approaches and available resources for Palo Alto.
● Develop program-level policy recommendations for integration into park planning and capital projects, with emphasis on:
○ Locally native and pollinator-supportive plant standards ○ Habitat continuity across parks, trails, and civic landscapes ○ Reducing ecological barriers within park projects and renovations • Identify opportunities for alignment with related City efforts (e.g., climate, sustainability, urban forestry) to reinforce consistent implementation.
Yes
Item 14
Attachment B - FY26-27 Parks &
Recreation Commission Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 558 of 613
Public Art Commission
FY 2027 Workplan
Staff Liaison: Elise DeMarzo, Public Art Program Director, Nadya Chuprina, Program Coordinator Lead Department: Community Services / Arts & Sciences
ďŽƵƚƚŚĞŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ dŚĞWƵďůŝĐƌƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝƐĐŽŵƉŽƐĞĚŽĨƐĞǀĞŶ;ϳͿŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘dŚĞƚĞƌŵƐĂƌĞƚŚƌĞĞ;ϯͿLJĞĂƌƐŝŶůĞŶŐƚŚĂŶĚĐŽŵŵĞŶĐĞŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭ͘ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJŝƐŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽǀĂĐĂŶĐŝĞƐĂƐŽĨ&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϭϮ͕ϮϬϮϲ͘dŚĞWƵďůŝĐƌƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽǀĞƌƐĞĞƐWĂůŽůƚŽΖƐƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJ ĂŶĚƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͘dŚĞŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶΖƐƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĚƵƚŝĞƐĂƌĞ͗ භ dŽĂĚǀŝƐĞƚŚĞĐŝƚLJŝŶŵĂƚƚĞƌƐƉĞƌƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞƋƵĂůŝƚLJ͕ƋƵĂŶƚ ŝƚLJ͕ƐĐŽƉĞ͕ĂŶĚƐƚLJůĞŽĨĂƌƚŝŶƉƵďůŝĐƉůĂĐĞƐ භ dŽƉĞƌŝŽĚŝĐĂůůLJƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞĐĂƉŝ ƚĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂĨĨĨŽƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨǁŽƌŬƐŽĨĂƌƚŝŶǀĂƌŝŽƵƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ භ dŽĚĞǀŝƐĞŵĞƚŚŽĚƐŽĨƐĞůĞĐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶŐĂƌƚŝƐƚƐǁŝƚŚƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ĞdžĞĐƵƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĂƌƚŝŶƉƵďůŝ Đ ƉůĂĐĞƐĂŶĚƚŽĂĚǀŝƐĞƐƚĂĨĨŽŶƚŚĞƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶŐŽĨĂƌƚŝƐƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚƐƚŽďĞĞdžƉĞŶĚĞĚŽŶĂƌƚŝŶƉƵďůŝĐƉůĂĐĞƐ භ dŽĂĚǀŝƐĞĂŶĚĂƐƐŝƐƚƐƚĂĨĨŝŶŽďƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞĨ ŽƌĂƌƚŝŶƉƵďůŝĐƉůĂĐĞƐĨƌŽŵƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ͕ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚŐŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĂů ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ
භ dŽƌĞǀŝĞǁƉůĂŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƌƚŝŶƉƵďůŝĐƉůĂĐĞƐĂ ŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJŽĨĂƌƚŝŶƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐ ƵƌƌĞŶƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐ ,ƐŝŶLJĂ^ŚĞŶ;ŚĂŝƌͿ
,ĂƌƌŝĞƚ^ƚĞƌŶ;sŝĐĞŚĂŝƌͿ
dĂƌĂĚĞůĂ'ĂƌnjĂ
ŵďĞƌ^ŵŝƚŚ
^ŝŵŽŶdƌĂŶ
ZŽďŝŶDƵůůĞƌLJ
ŶũĂŶĂ:ŽƐŚŝ
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 559 of 613
DŝƐƐŝŽŶ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ
dŚĞWĂůŽůƚŽWƵďůŝĐƌƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚĐĂůŝďĞƌŽĨĂƌƚǁŽƌŬ͕ĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶŐŵĞŵŽƌĂďůĞƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐĂŶĚ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĂƚƐƚŝŵƵůĂƚĞĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵůƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĐĞůĞďƌĂƚŝŶŐWĂůŽůƚŽ͛ƐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐĐŝǀŝĐƉƌŝĚĞ ĂŶĚƐĞŶƐĞŽĨƉůĂĐĞ͘
&zϮϬϮϳĚŽƉƚĞĚWƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͗
ϭ͘ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJΘ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͗ĞǀĞůŽƉƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚƚŚĂƚĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƐĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ďĞůŽŶŐŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐƐŚĂƌĞĚĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐŝŶĂŶĚĂƌŽƵŶĚWĂůŽůƚŽEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐĂŶĚ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ͘
dŚŝƐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚLJĂĐƚŝǀĞůLJƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚďLJĚƌŝǀŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƚŽůŽĐĂůďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐĂŶĚƌĞǀŝƚĂůŝnjŝŶŐƵďďĞƌůĞLJ ĂƐĂǀŝďƌĂŶƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŚƵďĂŶĚƐƚƵĚŝŽƐƉĂĐĞ͘
Ϯ͘ ^ŽĐŝĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞΘ/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͗ĞǀĞůŽƉƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚĂƚĂĚǀĂŶĐĞũŽLJ͕ĞŵƉĂƚŚLJ͕ĞƚŚŶŝĐĂŶĚĐƵůƚƵƌĂů ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƐŽĐŝĂů͕ƌĂĐŝĂů͕ĂŶĚŐĞŶĚĞƌĞƋƵŝƚLJ͘
dŚŝƐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚLJĞdžƉůŽƌĞƐƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƌƚ͕ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĚŝǀĞƌƐĞůŝǀĞĚĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐŽĨƚŚŽƐĞƐĞĞŬŝŶŐďĞůŽŶŐŝŶŐŝŶWĂůŽ ůƚŽ͘/ƚĨŽĐƵƐĞƐŽŶƌĂƉŝĚůLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞŶĞǁƐŚĂƌĞĚƐƉĂĐĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĂƌƚƚŚĂƚĂĐƚƐĂƐĂĐĂƚĂůLJƐƚĨŽƌ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŵŽŶŐĚŝǀĞƌƐĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘
ϯ͘ WƵďůŝĐƌƚ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͗tŝĚĞŶĂŶĚƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂĚǀŽĐĂĐLJĨŽƌƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞ ƌŽůůͲŽƵƚĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂǀĞŶƵĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚDĂƐƚĞƌWůĂŶĂŶĚƚŚĞĂLJůĂŶĚƐ͛ƌƚWůĂŶ͕ĂŶĚWDW ůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵŐŽĂůƐ͕ǁŚŝůĞƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƚŽĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŝƐƐƵĞƐĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĂǁŝĚĞƌŶĞƚǁŽƌŬŽĨĂƌƚŝƐƚƐ͘
ϰ͘ ZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ^ƚĞǁĂƌĚƐŚŝƉΘ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ
ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͗ĚǀĂŶĐĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ
ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJďLJƐƚƌĞĂŵůŝŶŝŶŐƉƵďůŝĐ
ĂƌƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐ͕ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŶŐŝƚLJĂƐƐĞƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĚŝůŝŐĞŶƚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐŝŽŶŝŶŐ͘
KƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůŝnjŝŶŐKƵƌWƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ
ǀĞƌLJƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽWƵďůŝĐƌƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞĞƚƐĂƚůĞĂƐƚƚŚƌĞĞŽĨŝƚƐĨŽƵƌĂĚŽƉƚĞĚ Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 560 of 613
ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŶŝŶƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůůLJĞdžƚĞŶƐŝǀĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƐĐŝĞŶƚŝŽƵƐůLJĞŶŐĂŐĞƐĚŝǀĞƌƐĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJ͗
• ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJΘ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͗dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶǀŽůǀĞƐĚŝǀĞƌƐĞŐƌŽƵƉƐŽĨ ƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘&ƌŽŵĂƌƚŝƐƚƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĨĂĐƚͲĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĚŝĂůŽŐƵĞƚŽƚŚĞ ĨŝŶĂůƵŶǀĞŝůŝŶŐ͕ƚŚŝƐĞŶƐƵƌĞƐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƌĞƐŽŶĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚůŽĐĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐĂŶĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐǀŝƚĂůŝƚLJďLJ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀŝnjĞƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽůŝǀĞĂŶĚŝŶǀĞƐƚŝŶWĂůŽůƚŽ͘
• WƵďůŝĐƌƚ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͗
ŶŐĂŐŝŶŐĂƌƚŝƐƚƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůŽĐĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŚĞůƉƐĂƌƚŝƐƚƐ ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚůŽĐĂůŝƚLJǁŚŝůĞĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ ďƌŽĂĚĞƌĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐĂĚǀŽĐĂĐLJĨŽƌƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚ͘
'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ
ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͗dŚĞWĂĐƚŝǀĞůLJŚĂƌŶĞƐƐĞƐůĞƐƐŽŶƐĨƌŽŵĞĂĐŚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚŽĐŽĚŝĨLJŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂůŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ͘dŚŝƐ ƌĞƐƵůƚƐŝŶƐƚƌĞĂŵůŝŶĞĚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐƉƌĞͲƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚĂƌƚŝƐƚƉŽŽůƐĂŶĚĐŽĚŝĨŝĞĚŵƵƌĂůĂŶĚĚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐŝŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͕ƚŽ ŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐǁŚŝůĞŵŝŶŝŵŝnjŝŶŐƐƚĂĨĨƚŝŵĞĂŶĚĐŽƐƚƐ͘
WƌŝŽƌzĞĂƌĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚŵĞŶƚƐ ϭ͘ ŽĚĞ͗ZdϮϬϮϱ͗dŚĞĨŽƵƌƚŚĞĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ŚĞůĚŝŶKĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϮϱ͕ǁĞůĐŽŵĞĚŽǀĞƌϮϳ͕ϬϬϬǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐĂŶĚĨĞĂƚƵƌĞĚϴͲƐƚŽƌLJ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐďLJƚŚƌĞĞǁŽƌůĚͲƌĞŶŽǁŶĞĚϯƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶŵĂƉƉŝŶŐĂƌƚŝƐƚƐŽŶƚŚĞWĂůŽůƚŽŝƚLJ,ĂůůĨĂĕĂĚĞ͘dŚĞ ĨĞƐƚŝǀĂůĂůƐŽƐŚŽǁĐĂƐĞĚĨŝǀĞƐŝƚĞͲƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚƌĞŝŵĂŐŝŶĞĚĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶƉůĂnjĂƐ͕ĂůůĞLJƐ͕ĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞƐ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĚLJŶĂŵŝĐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŝŵŵĞƌƐŝǀĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞƐŽƵŶĚĂŶĚůŝŐŚƚ͘ĞLJŽŶĚƚŚĞĂƌƚ͕ŽĚĞ͗Zd ϮϬϮϱŽĨĨĞƌĞĚĂƌŝĐŚůŝŶĞͲƵƉŽĨůŝǀĞŵƵƐŝĐĂŶĚĚĂŶĐĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĂƚďƌŽƵŐŚƚĞŶĞƌŐLJĂŶĚƌŚLJƚŚŵƚŽĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶ WĂůŽůƚŽ͘dŚĞĨĞƐƚŝǀĂůŚĂĚƐƚƌŽŶŐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉƐǁŝƚŚůŽĐĂůŵĞƌĐŚĂŶƚƐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐďƌŝŶŐŝŶŐŝŶ ĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJΨϭ͘ϯDŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚ͘
Ϯ͘ WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚWƵďůŝĐƌƚĂƚWƵďůŝĐ^ĂĨĞƚLJƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚŽƵůǁĂƌĞWĂƌŬʹƚŚƌĞĞƐŝƚĞͲƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐďLJĂƌƚŝƐƚWĞƚĞƌ tĞŐŶĞƌĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞǁW^ŝŶϮϬϭϴŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŽŶĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌĂŶĚƚǁŽŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐǁĞƌĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚϮϬϮϱ͘ĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵůĂŶĚĞdžƚĞŶƐŝǀĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕ tĞŐŶĞƌ͛ƐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐďƌŝŶŐĂďŽůĚĂŶĚŵĞĂŶŝŶŐĨƵůĂƌƚŝƐƚŝĐƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞǁĐŝǀŝĐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŝƚƐĞƌǀĞƐ͘/Ŷ^ŽƵƚŚWĂůŽůƚŽ͕ĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŽƵůǁĂƌĞWĂƌŬƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕>ͲďĂƐĞĚĂǁĂƌĚͲ ǁŝŶŶŝŶŐĂƌƚĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚƵĚŝŽhƌďĂŶZŽĐŬĞƐŝŐŶĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂŶĚŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚĂƐŝƚĞͲƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƚŝƚůĞĚ^ĞƚƚůĞŵĞŶƚ͕ ŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶϮϬϮϱ͘dŚĞŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀĞƐĐƵůƉƚƵƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĐĂƐƵĂůƐĞĂƚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŝŶŝƚƐǁƌĂƉƉĞĚƐŚĂƉĞ͘ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŽƵƐƌŝďďŽŶͲůŝŬĞƐƚƌŝƉĨŽƌŵƐŝƚƐĞůĨůŽŽƐĞůLJŝŶƚŽĂŚŽƵƐĞƐŚĂƉĞƚŚĂƚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚƉƌŽĨŝůĞƐĨƌŽŵǀĂƌŝŽƵƐǀŝĞǁ ĂŶŐůĞƐ͘dŚŝƐƐĞŶƐĞŽĨĨŽƌŵŝŶŐ͕ďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞsĞŶƚƵƌĂEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂƐĂĚLJŶĂŵŝĐƉůĂĐĞŽĨ ŽƉĞŶŶĞƐƐĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 561 of 613
ϯ͘ ϮϬϮϱ<ŝŶŐƌƚŝƐƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJ͗ůĞŽ>ĂŶĚĞƚĂͲ/ŶϮϬϮϱ͕ĂƌƚŝƐƚůĞŽ>ĂŶĚĞƚĂĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚƚŚĞŝƌ<ŝŶŐZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĐĞŶƚĞƌĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŝǀĞĚĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞ>'dY/нĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŵĞŵďĞƌƐƌĞƐŝĚŝŶŐĂŶĚͬŽƌǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŝŶWĂůŽůƚŽǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞŐŽĂůŽĨƐƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂďŽƵƚŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ͕ĞƋƵŝƚLJ͕ĂƐĞŶƐĞŽĨďĞůŽŶŐŝŶŐĂŶĚďƌŝŶŐŝŶŐWĂůŽůƚŽ͛ƐĚŝǀĞƌƐĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƚŚƌŽƵŐŚďĞƚƚĞƌƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĐŽŵƉĂƐƐŝŽŶ͘/ŶĨŽƌŵĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƌĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ >'dYнŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶWĂůŽůƚŽĂŶĚďĞLJŽŶĚ>ĂŶĚĞƚĂĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂƐŝƚĞͲƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬ͕ƚŝƚůĞĚdŽǁĂƌĚƚŚĞdŚĞŶĂŶĚ dŚĞƌĞ͘dŚĞƐĐƵůƉƚƵƌĞŝƐŵĂĚĞŽĨŚĂŶĚͲĞƚĐŚĞĚƐƚĂŝŶůĞƐƐƐƚĞĞů͕> ůŝŐŚƚ͕ĂŶĚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƐĂƌĞĨƵƌďŝƐŚĞĚ
ƉĂLJƉŚŽŶĞǁŝƚŚĂƵĚŝŽƚĞƐƚŝŵŽŶŝĞƐŽĨƋƵĞĞƌĂŶĚƚƌĂŶƐWĂůŽůƚŽĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐǁŝůůƌĞŵĂŝŶŽŶǀŝĞǁƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ^ƵŵŵĞƌϮϬϮϲ͘
ϰ͘ ϮϬϮϲ<ŝŶŐƌƚŝƐƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJ͗<ŝĂŶĂ,ŽŶĂƌŵĂŶĚʹƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞWĂƐƚŚĞ<ŝŶŐƌƚŝƐƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝŶϮϬϮϱ͕ ,ŽŶĂƌŵĂŶĚŝƐĨŽĐƵƐŝŶŐŚĞƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞůŝǀĞĚĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐĂŶĚƐƚŽƌŝĞƐŽĨ/WKĂŶĚŝŵŵŝŐƌĂŶƚŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞ WĂůŽůƚŽĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘dŚƌŽƵŐŚĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƉƐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞĚŽŶĐƵůƚƵƌĂůŝĚĞŶƚŝƚLJĂŶĚƐŚĂƌĞĚŚƵŵĂŶ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐ͕ƐŚĞĂŝŵƐƚŽĨŽƐƚĞƌĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ŚĞĂůŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚŵƵƚƵĂůƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐďLJĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐƚŽƐŚĂƌĞƚŚĞŝƌŶĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ͘dŚĞƐĞĐŽůůĞĐƚŝǀĞƐƚŽƌŝĞƐǁŝůůĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJŝŶĨŽƌŵƚŚĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚ ŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƐĞƌǀŝŶŐĂƐĂŶŝŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞďĞĂĐŽŶƚŚĂƚƐLJŵďŽůŝnjĞƐƌĞƐŝůŝĞŶĐĞ͕ĐĞůĞďƌĂƚĞƐďĞůŽŶŐŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞůLJďƌŝŶŐƐ WĂůŽůƚŽΖƐĚŝǀĞƌƐĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĐůŽƐĞƌƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞƉŽǁĞƌŽĨƐŚĂƌĞĚĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞ ƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŝƐĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽďĞŽŶǀŝĞǁƐƚĂƌƚŝŶŐ^ƵŵŵĞƌϮϬϮϲ͘
ϱ͘ ƌƚ>ŝĨƚ'ƌĂŶƚ͗hƚŝůŝƚLJŽdž
ĚŝƚŝŽŶʹEŝŶĞƚĞĞŶWĂůŽůƚŽĂŶĚĂLJƌĞĂͲďĂƐĞĚĂƌƚŝƐƚƐǁĞƌĞĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞĚƚŽƚƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵ ϭϵŝƚLJͲŽǁŶĞĚƵƚŝůŝƚLJďŽdžĞƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚWĂůŽůƚŽĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞ ƌƚ>ŝĨƚ'ƌĂŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘dĂŬŝŶŐĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞŽĨƵŶŝƋƵĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚWĂůŽůƚŽ͕ƚŚĞĂƌƚŝƐƚƐďƌŽƵŐŚƚƚŚĞŵĞƐŽĨ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĞŵƉĂƚŚLJ͕ĂŶĚǀŝďƌĂŶĐLJƚŽůŝĨĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝƌƉĂŝŶƚĞĚĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘^ƚĂĨĨĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂŶŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀĞ DĂƉŵĞŐƵŝĚĞ͕^ĐĂǀĞŶŐĞƌ,ƵŶƚƚŽŚĞůƉĞdžƉůŽƌĞĂůůhƚŝůŝƚLJŽdžDƵƌĂůƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŽǁŶŽƌǀŝƌƚƵĂůůLJ͘
ϲ͘ WƵďůŝĐƌƚŝŶWƌŝǀĂƚĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚʹƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨŵŽŶƵŵĞŶƚĂůŐůĂƐƐŵŽƐĂŝĐƉĂŶĞůƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚďLJĂƌƚŝƐƚ<LJƵŶŐŵŝ^ŚŝŶŽĨ ^ŚŝŶ'ƌĂLJ^ƚƵĚŝŽĂƚϯϮϬϬWĂƌŬŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ;ĨŽƌŵĞƌ&ƌLJ͛ƐƐŝƚĞͿŝŶƐŽƵƚŚWĂůŽůƚŽǁĞƌĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŝŶ ϮϬϮϱ͘dŚĞĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŝƐŝŶƐƉŝƌĞĚďLJƚŚĞŵƵůƚŝͲůĂLJĞƌĞĚŚŝƐƚŽƌLJĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͕ĐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞůŝĨĞŽĨ dŚŽŵĂƐ&ŽŽŶŚĞǁĂŶĚŚŝƐĂLJƐŝĚĞĂŶŶĞƌLJ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚďLJŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚƐŽĨdŚŽŵĂƐ&ŽŽŶ͕ƚŚĞ ǁŽƌŬĞƌƐ͕ƐĐŚŽŽůĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐŽŵĞŽĨŚŝƐŽǁŶĨĂŵŝůLJ͕ƉƌŽĚƵĐƚůĂďĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĚƌĂǁŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞĂƐƉĂƌĂŐƵƐƐŽƌƚŝŶŐ ŵĂĐŚŝŶĞƚŚĂƚǁĂƐƉĂƚĞŶƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĐĂŶŶĞƌLJ͘ථƉƌŝĐŽƚĨůŽǁĞƌƐĂŶĚƚŚĞථĨŝĞůĚƐƐŚŽǁƚŚĞ^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌĂǀĂůůĞLJŐƌŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞ ĨƌƵŝƚĨŽƌĐĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŝŶƐƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌ&ƌLJ͛ƐƐƚŽƌĞǁŚŝĐŚĨŽƌĚĞĐĂĚĞƐŚĞůƉĞĚŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŽƌƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝůŝĐŽŶ sĂůůĞLJǁŝƚŚŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƉĂƌƚƐƚŽďƵŝůĚƚŚĞŶĞǁƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůĐŽŵƉƵƚĞƌ͘ථ
ϳ͘ ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶDƵƌĂůƐ͗ƌƚŝƐƚƐDŽŶĂĂƌŽŶĂŶĚEŝŐĞů^ƵƐƐŵĂŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚƉĂŝŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌƐŝƚĞͲƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐŵƵƌĂůƐŝŶ ĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWĂůŽůƚŽ͘ĂƌŽŶ͕ĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞĚƚŽƉĂŝŶƚĂŵƵƌĂůĂƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŽĨD͛Ɛ^ŵŽŬĞ^ŚŽƉĂƚϱϯϰ ŵĞƌƐŽŶ^ƚ͕͘
ĂŶĚ^ƵƐƐŵĂŶʹĂƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŽĨƚŚĞWĂĐŝĨŝĐƌƚ>ĞĂŐƵĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƚϲϲϴZĂŵŽŶĂ^ƚ͘ŽƚŚŵƵƌĂůƐ͛ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐǁĞƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚ Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 562 of 613
ďLJƵŶŝƋƵĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ͕ŚŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚŶĂƚƵƌĂůĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͘dŚĞŶĞǁĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶŵƵƌĂůƐǁĞƌĞĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞĚ ĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƉŝůŽƚWƵďůŝĐDƵƌĂůƐŽŶWƌŝǀĂƚĞtĂůůƐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘
ϴ͘ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͗
ĂĐŚLJĞĂƌƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐƌƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝƚLJƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂŶĚĐĂƌĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ŐƌŽǁŝŶŐƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚĂƌƚĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƐƚĂĨĨŝƐĚŝůŝŐĞŶƚĂďŽƵƚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĞdžĂŵƉůĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨWŚĂƐĞ/ ƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚŽĨƚŚĞsŝĐƚŽƌƌŶĂƵƚŽĨĨ&ƌĞƐĐŽĞƐĂƚƚŚĞZŽƚŚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƌĞĨƵƌďŝƐŚŵĞŶƚŽĨŵŽŶƵŵĞŶƚĂů ƐĐƵůƉƚƵƌĂůǁŽƌŬƚŝƚůĞĚůďƵƋƵĞƌƋƵĞďLJ'ĂůĞtĂŐŶĞƌ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚƌĞĞ'ƌĞŐƌŽǁŶŵƵƌĂůƐŝŶĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWĂůŽ ůƚŽ͘
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 563 of 613
WZK:
dͬ'K>Ϯ͗
ϮϬϮϲDƵƌĂůƐĂŶĚƌƚ>ŝĨƚ'ƌĂŶƚƐ
ĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůƌŽůůŽƵƚŽĨŵƵƌĂůƐŝŶϮϬϮϯͲϮϱ͕^ƚĂĨĨŝƐĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƐĞǀĞƌĂůŵƵƌĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚWĂůŽůƚŽ͗ භ ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶDƵƌĂůʹůĂƌŐĞͲƐĐĂůĞŵƵƌĂůďLJĂƌƚŝƐƚ,ĂƌƵŵŽ^ĂƚŽŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞWĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞƉĂŝŶƚĞĚďLJ ƚŚĞĂƌƚŝƐƚĂƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŽĨƚŚĞůů^ĂŝŶƚƐ
ƉŝƐĐŽƉĂůŚƵƌĐŚĂƚϱϱϱtĂǀĞƌůĞLJ^ƚƌĞĞƚŝŶϮϬϮϲ͕ĂŶŝŵĂƚŝŶŐĂŶŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌŝŶĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWĂůŽůƚŽ͘
භ &ŝƌĞ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶϱDƵƌĂůʹŽĚĞĐŬ>ƵŶĂ͕ĂƌƚŝƐƚĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĞƌ͕ǁŝůůƉĂŝŶƚĂůĂƌŐĞͲƐĐĂůĞŵƵƌĂůŽŶƚŚĞƌŽůůͲƵƉĚŽŽƌ ŽĨƚŚĞ&^ϱŝŶƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨ&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϮϬϮϲ͘dŚĞŵƵƌĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶǁĂƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚďLJĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚƚŽƚŚĞĂƌƌŽŶWĂƌŬ
WZK:
dͬ'K>ϭ͗
<ŝŶŐƌƚŝƐƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJ͗ŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨϮϬϮϲZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJďLJƌƚŝƐƚ<ŝĂŶĂ,ŽŶĂƌŵĂŶĚĂŶĚůŽŽŬŝŶŐĂŚĞĂĚ <ŝĂŶĂ,ŽŶĂƌŵĂŶĚ͕ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂƌƚŝƐƚͲŝŶͲƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ;/ZͿ͕ŚĂƐĐŽŶĐůƵĚĞĚŚĞƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚĂŶĚǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĨŽƌŚĞƌƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶ͘,ŽŶĂƌŵĂŶĚŝƐĨŽĐƵƐŝŶŐŚĞƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞůŝǀĞĚĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐĂŶĚƐƚŽƌŝĞƐŽĨ/WKĂŶĚ ŝŵŵŝŐƌĂŶƚŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞWĂůŽůƚŽĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŐŽĂůŽĨĨŽƐƚĞƌŝŶŐĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ŚĞĂůŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚŵƵƚƵĂůƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐďLJ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŵĞŵďĞƌƐƚŽƐŚĂƌĞƚŚĞŝƌŶĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJǁŝůůĐƵůŵŝŶĂƚĞŝŶĂƉƵďůŝĐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂ ƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚƌĞƉŽƌƚŽĨŚĞƌĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚĂƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶŽŶ<ŝŶŐWůĂnjĂŝŶ^ƵŵŵĞƌϮϬϮϲ͘WĂŶĚƐƚĂĨĨǁŝůůĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞ ůĂƵŶĐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶĞdžƚƌƚŝƐƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJĨŽƌϮϬϮϲ͘
E
&//>/DWd^ d/D
>/E
Z
^KhZ
^
E
D
^hZ
K&
^h
^^
^dd
DEd
ͬ
>K>>tͬ
KhE/>Ͳ
WWZKs
^ŽĐŝĂů:ƵƐƚŝĐĞΘ/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ
WƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͖ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJΘ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ
&ƵŶĚƐĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ
ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĨŽƌĂƌƚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůĨƵŶĚƐ͘
^ƚĂĨĨƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĂŶĚƚŝŵĞŝƐƵƐĞĚ
ĨŽƌĂƌƚŝƐƚĐĂůůĂŶĚƚŚĞƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐ͘^ƚĂĨĨǁŝůůǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĂƌƚŝƐƚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ͕ĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ƌƚŝƐƚƵƐĞĚĂ
ƐƚƵĚŝŽĂƚƚŚĞƵďďĞƌůĞLJĂŵƉƵƐ͘
dŚĞWƵďůŝĐƌƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝƐ
ĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽĂƉůĂƚĨŽƌŵĨŽƌ
ŽŶŐŽŝŶŐĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂďŽƵƚ
ĞƋƵŝƚLJ͕ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚďĞůŽŶŐŝŶŐ
ŝŶWĂůŽůƚŽƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞĂƌƚƐ͘Ɛ
ĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ƚŚĞ<ŝŶŐƌƚŝƐƚ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐLJWƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƐ
ĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ͘ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůďĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚ͘
ŽƵŶĐŝůƌĞĨĞƌƌĂůƚŽƚŚĞ
WƵďůŝĐƌƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ
EŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮ͕ϮϬϮϬƚŚĞ
ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůǀŽƚĞĚƚŽ
ƌĞĨĞƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨ
ƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚŽŶ<ŝŶŐWůĂnjĂ
ƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ
ĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƚŽĞƋƵŝƚLJ͘
,/',
WZ/KZ/dz
>Kt
Z
WZ/KZ/dz
KhE/>Ͳ
/Z
d
WK>/zhWd
,ŝŐŚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚLJĨŽƌƐŽĐŝĂůũƵƐƚŝĐĞ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
zĞƐ
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 564 of 613
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚďƌŽĂĚĞƌWĂůŽůƚŽĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚƵŶŝƋƵĞŚŝƐƚŽƌLJŽĨĂƌƌŽŶWĂƌŬ͘
භ ŝŐŝƚĂůůLJWƌŝŶƚĞĚ>ĂƌŐĞͲ^ĐĂůĞDƵƌĂůĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ŚĞƌŵĂŶǀĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĨĂĕĂĚĞǁĂůůǁŝůůďĞƌĞĂůŝnjĞĚŝŶϮϬϮϲ͘
භ ƌƚ>ŝĨƚ'ƌĂŶƚƐϮϬϮϲ͗ƵƉƚŽƚĞŶΨϱ͕ϬϬϬŐƌĂŶƚƐǁŝůůďĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐƚŽĨƵŶĚƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂĐƌŽƐƐ ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐĂŶĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽ͕ĐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐŽŶŽǁŶƚŽǁŶ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂǀĞŶƵĞ͕ĂŶĚ ƵďďĞƌůĞLJŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶƚĞƌ͘
E
&//>/DWd^ d/D
>/E
Z
^KhZ
^
E
D
^hZ
K&
^h
^^
^dd
DEd
ͬ>K>>tͬ
KhE/>Ͳ
WWZKs
dŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐƚǁŽŽĨ
ƚŚĞW&zϮϳƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͗
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJΘ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJĂŶĚ
WƵďůŝĐƌƚ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͘
EĞǁŵƵƌĂůƐĂƌĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌ
ƐƉƌŝŶŐʹƐƵŵŵĞƌϮϬϮϲ͘
&ƵŶĚƐĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ
ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĨŽƌĂƌƚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůĨƵŶĚƐ͘
^ƚĂĨĨƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĂŶĚƚŝŵĞǁŝůůďĞ
ƵƐĞĚĨŽƌĂƌƚŝƐƚĐĂůůƐĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ƐĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐ͘^ƚĂĨĨǁŝůů
ǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƌƚŝƐƚƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ĚĞƐŝŐŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ
ĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ
Eͬ
,/',
WZ/KZ/dz
>Kt
Z
WZ/KZ/dz
KhE/>Ͳ
/Z
d
WK>/z
hWd
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶǀĂƌŝŽƵƐWĂůŽůƚŽŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͕ǁĂLJĨŝŶĚŝŶŐ͕ ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚĞŶůŝǀĞŶŝŶŐƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĂĐĞ
zĞƐ
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 565 of 613
WZK:
dͬ'K>ϯ͗
/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞWƵďůŝĐƌƚŝŶĐĂƉŝƚĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ;/WͿĐŝƚLJǁŝĚĞ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐ͗
භ &ŝƌĞ^ƚĂƚŝŽŶϰ͗>ŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶDŝĚƚŽǁŶŽŶƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨDŝĚĚůĞĨŝĞůĚĂŶĚ ĂƐƚDĞĂĚŽǁ͕ƚŚŝƐŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞŶĞĂƌ
DŝƚĐŚĞůůWĂƌŬĂŶĚWĂůŽůƚŽ>ŝƚƚůĞ>ĞĂŐƵĞ͘/ƚŝƐŚŝŐŚůLJǀŝƐŝďůĞƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘ƌƚŝƐƚ^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ'ĂůůŽǁĂLJ͛ƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĂƌƚ ĚĞƐŝŐŶǁĂƐƌŽŽƚĞĚŝŶŚŝƐƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƌŽůĞŽĨƚŚĞĨŝƌĞƐƚĂƚŝŽŶŝŶWĂůŽůƚŽ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌLJŽĨƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞ͘dŚĞĂƌƚŝƐƚŝƐ ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƌƚǁŽƌŬ͘&^ϰĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐŽŵŵĞŶĐĞĚŝŶϮϬϮϱĂŶĚŝƐĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶ ϮϬϮϳ͘
භ ŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWĂƌŬŝŶŐ'ĂƌĂŐĞ͗ƌƚŝƐƚŵLJ>ĂŶĚĞƐďĞƌŐŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚƚŽďĞŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚ ŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŶĞǁŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĂƚtĂǀĞƌůĞLJĂŶĚ,ĂŵŝůƚŽŶǀĞ͘KŶĐĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĐĞƐ͕ ŝƚŝƐĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽƚĂŬĞϭϮŵŽŶƚŚƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘ථථ^ƚĂĨĨǁŝůůƌĞƚƵƌŶƚŽƚŚĞWǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂů ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJŽĨĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŽŶĐĞƚŚĞŶĞǁĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ͘
E
&//>/DWd^ d/D
>/E
Z
^KhZ
^
E
D
^hZ
K&
^h
^^
^dd
DEd
ͬ>K>>tͬ
KhE/>Ͳ
WWZKs
ŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝƚŚ
Ăƌƚ͘ŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ƉƵďůŝĐŽŶƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕
ŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
ĂŶĚŝŶƐƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĂƌƚ͘
KŶŐŽŝŶŐ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůWĞƌĐĞŶƚĨŽƌƌƚĨƵŶĚƐ͕
ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚWƵďůŝĐ
tŽƌŬƐ͕ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŬĞLJ
ƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͘
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ
ĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ
Eͬ
,/',
WZ/KZ/dz
>Kt
Z
WZ/KZ/dz
KhE/>Ͳ
/Z
d
WK>/z
hWd
dŚĞƐĞƚLJƉĞƐŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŵĂLJƉƌŽŵŽƚĞĂůůĨŽƵƌŽĨƚŚĞW&zϮϳ ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͘
Eͬ
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 566 of 613
WZK:
dͬ'K>ϰ͗
WƵďůŝĐƌƚŝŶWƌŝǀĂƚĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
dŚĞŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽĞŶĂĐƚĞĚƚŚĞƌƚŝŶWƌŝǀĂƚĞĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŝŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϮϬϭϰ͘dŚŝƐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŵĂŶĚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŽǀĞƌϭϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚĞŝƚŚĞƌĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŽŶƚŚĞŝƌƐŝƚĞŽƌĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞƚŽƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐƌƚ&ƵŶĚ͘ ĨĞǁĞdžĂŵƉůĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗
භ ĂƐƚŝůůĞũĂ^ĐŚŽŽů͗dŚĞĂƐƚŝůůĞũĂ^ĐŚŽŽůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶǀŽůǀĞƐŵŽĚĞƌŶŝnjŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůďLJƌĞƉůĂĐŝŶŐŽůĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ǁŝƚŚĂŶĞǁĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘dŚĞĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶϮϬϮϯ͘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂLJ͖ĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŝƐŝŶĨĂďƌŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ භ ϲϲϬhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJǀĞ͗dŚŝƐƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƚhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJĂŶĚDŝĚĚůĞĨŝĞůĚZŽĂĚǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂƌƚǁŽƌŬĐŽŵŝŶŐĨŽƌŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶ^ƉƌŝŶŐϮϬϮϲ͘
භ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐǁŝƚŚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚĂůŽŶŐ ůĂŵŝŶŽZĞĂůĂŶĚ^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ͘
E
&//>/DWd^ d/D
>/E
Z
^KhZ
^
E
D
^hZ
K&
^h
^^
^dd
DEd
ͬ
>K>>tͬ
KhE/>Ͳ
WWZKs
dŚĞƐĞƚLJƉĞƐŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŵĂLJ
ƉƌŽŵŽƚĞĂůůĨŽƵƌŽĨƚŚĞW&zϮϳ
ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͘
dŚĞƐĞĞǀĞŶƚƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĐĂƌĞĨƵů
ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚ
ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
^ƚĂĨĨƚŝŵĞĨƵŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐ
ƌƚ&ƵŶĚ͕ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚ
ŵƵůƚŝƉůĞĐŝƚLJĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͘
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌ
ĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬ
Eͬ
,/',
WZ/KZ/dz
>Kt
Z
WZ/KZ/dz
KhE/>Ͳ
/Z
d
WK>/zhWd
KĨƚĞŶƚŝŵĞƐ͕ƚŚĞƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŚĂǀĞŚŝŐŚǀŝƐŝďŝůŝƚLJĂŶĚƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞ ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͕WƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽĨƚĞŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ǀĂůƵĂďůĞŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐƌƚĨŽƌWƌŝǀĂƚĞ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 567 of 613
WZK:
dͬ'K>ϱ͗
ŽĚĞ͗ZdϮϬϮϳ
dŚĞŽĚĞ͗ZdĨĞƐƚŝǀĂůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚŽĂƚƚƌĂĐƚůĂƌŐĞƌĂƵĚŝĞŶĐĞƐǁŝƚŚĞĂĐŚĞĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƐƵĐĐĞƐƐŽĨŽĚĞ͗Zd ϮϬϮϱ͕ƚŚĞϮϬϮϳĨĞƐƚŝǀĂůǁŝůůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞĞdžƉĂŶĚĞĚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞĂŵďŝƚŝŽƵƐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐŝŶďŽƚŚƐĐĂůĞĂŶĚďƵĚŐĞƚ͘dŚĞϮϬϮϱ ĨĞƐƚŝǀĂůďĞŶĞĨŝƚĞĚĨƌŽŵƐƚƌŽŶŐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉƐǁŝƚŚůŽĐĂůŵĞƌĐŚĂŶƚƐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϮϳ͕ϬϬϬ ǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐĂŶĚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĂŶĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚΨϭ͘ϯŵŝůůŝŽŶŝŶĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐŝŵƉĂĐƚ͘WůĂŶŶŝŶŐĨŽƌŽĚĞ͗ZdϮϬϮϳŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJƵŶĚĞƌǁĂLJ͕ǁŝƚŚ ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĂůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĐĂůůƐƚŽĂƌƚŝƐƚƐĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞƌĞůĞĂƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŵŝŶŐŵŽŶƚŚƐ͘
E
&//>/DWd^ d/D
>/E
Z
^KhZ
^
E
D
^hZ
K&
^h
^^
^dd
DEd
ͬ
>K>>tͬ
KhE/>Ͳ
WWZKs
ŽĚĞ͗ZdďƌŝŶŐƐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
ƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƚŽƉůĂLJ͕ŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚĂŶĚ
ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚĞǁŚŝůĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐ
ĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJĂŶĚ
,ĂŵŝůƚŽŶǀĞŶƵĞĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶ
ĂƌĞĂĂƌĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞĐƌŽǁĚƐ
ƐĞĞŬŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĞdžŚŝďŝƚƐ͘
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐďĞŐĂŶŝŶtŝŶƚĞƌϮϬϮϲ͘
dŚĞĞǀĞŶƚŝƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌ
KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϬϮϳ͘
/ƚŝƐƚLJƉŝĐĂůƚŽŚĂǀĞĂůĂƌŐĞƌ
ŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶŽŶ<ŝŶŐWůĂnjĂ͕ĂŶĚƵƉ
ƚŽƐŝdžĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ŶĞĂƌďLJ͘ŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
ŵĂŶLJĐŝƚLJĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͕ůŽĐĂů
ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐĂŶĚǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌƐŝƐ
ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ͘&ƵŶĚƐĨƌŽŵďŽƚŚƚŚĞ
DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĨŽƌĂƌƚĨƵŶĚƐ
ĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĨŽƌĂƌƚ
ĨƵŶĚƐĂƌĞƵƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞĨĞƐƚŝǀĂůƐ͘
WĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶŶƵŵďĞƌƐĂŶĚ
ƐƵƌǀĞLJƐĂƌĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚĨŽƌĞĂĐŚ
ŽĚĞ͗ZdĞǀĞŶƚƚŽŐĂƚŚĞƌ
ĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĂŶĚŵĞƚƌŝĐƐ͘
Eͬ
,/',
WZ/KZ/dz
>Kt
Z
WZ/KZ/dz
KhE/>Ͳ
/Z
d
WK>/zhWd
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕WƵďůŝĐƌƚ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ Eͬ
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 568 of 613
WZK:
dͬ'K>ϲ͗
KŶŐŽŝŶŐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚĂƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘tŝƚŚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϯϬϬĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐ͕ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ ĂŶĚƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞǀĂůƵĂďůĞŝƚLJĂƐƐĞƚƐĂƌĞĂŶĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůƉĂƌƚŽĨĂƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͛ƐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘,ŽŵĂŐĞƚŽ^ŝůĞŶĐĞďLJ :ĞƌŽŵĞ<ŝƌŬŝƐĂŶĞdžĂŵƉůĞŽĨƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚůLJƐŝƚĞĚĂƌƚǁŽƌŬŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐŶĞĞĚŝŶŐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚLJĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ͘
E
&//>/DWd^ d/D
>/E
Z
^KhZ
^
E
D
^hZ
K&
^h
^^
^dd
DEd
ͬ>K>>tͬ
KhE/>Ͳ
WWZKs
dŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉƌŽŵŽƚĞƐƚŚƌĞĞŽĨ
ƚŚĞWƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ͗ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ
Θ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
WƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͕WƵďůŝĐƌƚ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
WƌŝŽƌŝƚLJĂŶĚZĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ
^ƚĞǁĂƌĚƐŚŝƉΘ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ
ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJWƌŝŽƌŝƚLJ͘
ŶƐƵƌŝŶŐ
ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐĞǀĂůƵĂďůĞĂƐƐĞƚƐĂƌĞ
ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJĂŶĚ
ƌĞĨůĞĐƚǁĞůůŽŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͘
KŶŐŽŝŶŐ dŚĞĂŶŶƵĂůŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ
ĂůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĨƵůůLJĞdžƉĞŶĚĞĚ
ĞĂĐŚLJĞĂƌ͘^ƚĂĨĨĞŝƚŚĞƌƉĞƌĨŽƌŵ
ƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŝǀĞĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ
ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐŝŶͲŚŽƵƐĞŽƌŽǀĞƌƐĞĞ
ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞĚĂƌƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŽƌƐĂŶĚ
ƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝnjĞĚƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůƐĂƐ
ŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘
^ƚĂĨĨŝƐŚŽƉĞĨƵůƚŚĞLJǁŝůůďĞ
ƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůŝŶƐĞĐƵƌŝŶŐŐƌĂŶƚ
ĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŽƵŶƚLJĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ƉŚĂƐĞ//ƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ
ƌŶĂƵƚŽĨĨĨƌĞƐĐŽĞƐ͘
ĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐƚŚĂƚ
ƌĞĨůĞĐƚǁĞůůŽŶWĂůŽůƚŽĂŶĚ
ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚĨĂůůĞŶŝŶƚŽƐƵĐŚ
ĚŝƐƌĞƉĂŝƌƚŚĂƚŵŽƌĞĐŽƐƚůLJ
ƌĞƉĂŝƌƐĂƌĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJŽƌƚŚĞ
ĂƌƚǁŽƌŬĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞƐĂǀĞĚ͘
,ĂǀŝŶŐǁĞůůŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚ
ƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƚŝŶĂŝƚLJĐĂŶďĞĂŶ
ŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞĨŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽŵŽǀĞ
ĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŚĞƌĞ͘
,ĂǀŝŶŐĂƌƚǁŽƌŬƐ
ĨĂůůŝŶƚŽĚŝƐƌĞƉĂŝƌ
ŵĂLJůĞĂǀĞƚŚĞ
ŝƚLJŽƉĞŶƚŽ
ůĞŐĂůĂĐƚŝŽŶďLJ
ƚŚĞĂƌƚŝƐƚƐƵŶĚĞƌ
ƚŚĞsŝƐƵĂůƌƚŝƐƚƐ
ZŝŐŚƚƐĐƚ͘
,/',
WZ/KZ/dz
>Kt
Z
WZ/KZ/dz
KhE/>Ͳ
/Z
d
WK>/z
hWd
WƵďůŝĐƌƚ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ Eͬ
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 569 of 613
The fourth edition of Code:ART, held in October 2025, welcomed over 27,000 visitors and featured 8-story projection artworks by three world-renowned 3D projection mapping artists on the Palo Alto City Hall façade. The festival had strong partnerships with local merchants and community organizations bringing in approximately $1.3 M in direct economic impact.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 570 of 613
Code:ART also showcased five site-specific installations that reimagined downtown plazas, alleys, and public
spaces through dynamic projections, immersive
environments, and responsive sound and light.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 571 of 613
Beyond the art, Code:ART 2025 offered a
rich line-up of live music and dance
performances that brought energy and
rhythm to downtown Palo Alto.
Public Art Commissioners played a crucial
role in realizing Code:ART 2025, including
fostering partnerships with downtown
businesses and volunteering during the
festival nights to lead public tours and
provide information about installations.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 572 of 613
Three site-specific artworks by artist Peter Wegner
commissioned for the new PSB in 2018 including
two interior and one exterior artworks were
installed throughout 2025.
Designs for the permanent artworks were
developed by the artists through a thoughtful and
extensive research and community engagement.
Featured image: Space, Time & Palo Alto, 2024 by
Peter Wegner
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 573 of 613
Images above: Chance Impression and 100,000 Decisions by Peter Wegner. Both artworks are on permanent display at the Public Safety Building lobby.
Wegner’s artworks bring a bold and meaningful artistic presence to the new civic building, reflecting the community it serves.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 574 of 613
Settlement, by LA-based award winning art and
design studio UrbanRock Design, permanently
installed in Boulware Park in 2025, is an interactive
sculpture that provides casual seating within its
wrapped shape. A continuous ribbon-like strip
forms itself loosely into a house shape that
presents different profiles from various view
angles. This sense of forming, becoming, and
building references the Ventura Neighborhood as a
dynamic place of openness and change.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 575 of 613
In 2025, artist Aleo Landeta completed their King Residency project centered on the lived experiences of the LGBTQAI+ community members residing and/or working in Palo Alto with the goal of sparking conversations about inclusion, equity, a sense of belonging and bringing Palo Alto’s diverse communities together through better understanding and compassion.
Informed by their engagement with the LGBTQ+ Community in Palo Alto and beyond Landeta created a site-specific artwork, titled Toward the Then and There. The sculpture is made of hand-etched stainless steel, LED light, and incorporates a refurbished payphone with audio testimonies of queer and trans Palo Alto community participants will remain on view through Summer 2026.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 576 of 613
Approved by the PAC as the King Artist Resident in 2025, Honarmand is focusing her project on the lived experiences and stories of BIPOC and immigrant members of the Palo Alto community. Through collaborative workshops centered on cultural identity and shared human experiences, she aims to foster connection, healing, and mutual understanding by creating spaces for community members to share their narratives. These collective stories will directly inform the creation of a public art installation, serving as an inclusive beacon that symbolizes resilience, celebrates belonging, and ultimately brings Palo Alto's diverse communities closer together through the power of shared experience and representation. The temporary artwork is expected to be on view starting Summer 2026.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 577 of 613
Nineteen Palo Alto and Bay Area-based artists
were commissioned to transform 19 City-owned
utility boxes throughout Palo Alto commercial
corridors and residential neighborhoods as part
of the ArtLift Grant Program.
Taking advantage of unique locations
throughout Palo Alto, the artists brought themes
of community connection, empathy, and
vibrancy to life through their painted designs.
Staff created an interactive Mapme guide,
Scavenger Hunt to help explore all Utility Box
Murals throughout town or virtually.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 578 of 613
A series of monumental glass
mosaic panels designed by artist
Kyungmi Shin of Shin Gray Studio
at 3200 Park Boulevard
development project (former Fry’s
site) in south Palo Alto were
installed in 2025.
The artwork is inspired by the
multi-layered history associated
with the site, centering on the life
of Thomas Foon Chew and his
Bayside Cannery, and represented
by historical photographs of
Thomas Foon, the workers, school
children including some of his own
family, product labels, and the
drawing of the asparagus sorting
machine that was patented by the
cannery. Apricot flowers and
the fields show the Santa Clara
valley growing the fruit for canning.
The second inspiration is the
former Fry’s store which for
decades helped innovators of the
Silicon Valley with necessary parts
to build the new technological
innovations including the personal
computer.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 579 of 613
Artists Mona Caron and Nigel
Sussman completed painting
their site-specific murals in
downtown Palo Alto.
Caron, painted a mural at the
site of MAC’s Smoke Shop at
534 Emerson St. featuring
the Western Leatherwood
(Dirca occidentalis), a rare,
endemic Bay Area species
and captures the plant at the
luminous moment of its early
spring bloom and celebrating
its delicacy, persistence, and
deep connection to the
region’s natural ecology.
Nigel Sussman’s mural at the
site of the Pacific Art League
building at 668 Ramona St. is
inspired by the history of the
region, and of the building
itself. He layered references
to local history, architecture,
culture, and native flora and
fauna. During his design
development, the artist did a
site visit, spoke with local
historians, librarians,
residents, and PAL staff, and
completed his own personal
research to gather input to
inform his design.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 580 of 613
Image above: View of completed mural by Nigel Sussman, Palo Alto Discoveries, completed in January 2026. The new downtown murals were commissioned as part of the pilot Public Murals on Private Walls program.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 581 of 613
Dirca Occidentalis, 2026 by artist Mona Caron. The mural is located on the alleyway wall of Mac’s Smoke Shop at 534 Emerson Street in downtown Palo Alto.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 582 of 613
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 583 of 613
Each year the Public Art Program receives funding from the City to maintain and care for the City’s growing permanent art collection.
Permanent and temporary artworks are regularly cleaned and receive preventative treatments to protect them from the elements.
Some of the works receive more extensive conservation and repair treatments. Featured images: A monumental sculpture Albuquerque, 1982 by Gale Wagner after its complete restoration treatment in 2025. Right: artist Gale Wagner onsite with staff and art conservators confirming the paint color for the sculpture.
Item 14
Attachment C - FY26-27
Public Art Commission
Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 584 of 613
Stormwater Management Oversight Committee
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED
Workplan over the next 2 years Need contractor support to install the upgraded pipeline and pump stations
Reduction in the amount of ponding and
flooding in the future; confirm that
expenditures are in conformity
provisions of ballot measure.
YES
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
No
HIGH PRIORITY
Reduce ponding and flooding
LOWER PRIORITY
Track and monitor construction progress on W Bayshore Road Pump Station (SD- 20000). Track and monitor construction
progress on W Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements (SD- 23000).
DRAFT
PROJECT/GOAL 1 :
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
FY2026-2027 Workplan
Track and monitor 2017 Ballot Measure, which covers 13 Capital Projects. This workplan focuses on 3 projects and 3 completed project (SD 19000, Loma Verde; SD 22000, East Meadow Drive; SD 26000; East Meadow Circle).
Staff Liaison: Karin North, Assistant Director
Lead Department: Public Works
PURPOSE STATEMENT:
The Stormwater Oversight Committee reviews the projects, programs and expenditures that are funded by the Stormater Management Fees including proposed stormwater management capital improvement and confirms their conformity to the 2017 ballot measure. The Stormwater Oversight Committee's goals and purposes are to provide fiscal oversight for the projects funded by the 2017 ballot measure.
High priority to complete the upgrades listed in the Stormwater Fee which will reduce the amount of flooding and ponding of stormwater; track and monitor contruction progress on Corporation Way system upgrades and pump station (SD-21000) Item 14
Attachment D - FY26-27 Stormwater Management Oversight
Committee Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 585 of 613
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED
5-year Municipal Regional Stormwater
Permit effective July 1, 2022.
Utilize staff and consultant support to meet
requirements listed in the stormwater
permit.
City is in compliance with stormwater
permit; reduction of trash and an
increase of installation of GSI features
throughout the City
Yes
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
N/A
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL
LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED
Ongoing Leverage money allocated for GSI through
the Stormwater Management Fund
Increased acreage of watershed treated
through GSI Yes
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
N/A
Leverage the work to improve water quality entering the Bay.
PROJECT/GOAL 3:
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
Environmental protection and sustainability including regulatory and compliance goals.PROJECT/GOAL 2:
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
Regulatory compliance in alignment with the
City's policy on sustainablity
High priority for the City to stay in compliance with State mandates on stormwater compliance, which benefits the environment.
Improved water quality and environmental
enhancement
HIGH PRIORITY
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
LOWER PRIORITY
1. Finalize and implement GSI Design Guidance and Specifications for City projects.
2. Establish new design process and start implementing designs for City projects.
3. Implement EPA-funded GSI project.
4. Finalize the GSI Maintenance and Monitoring Manual
Review and identify a tool to measure impervious surface throughout City.
Track and monitor implementation of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan.
Item 14
Attachment D - FY26-27 Stormwater Management Oversight
Committee Work Plan
Item 14: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 586 of 613
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Clerk
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #:2512-5628
TITLE
Adoption of Recommendations by the Policy & Services Committee Implementing Changes to Meeting Procedures Related to Teleconferencing, Remote Public Participation, Translation and Interpretation Assistance, and Expanded Public Outreach; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy & Services Committee recommends the City Council:
1. Decline the use of expanded alternative teleconferencing for Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCCs),
2. Receive an update on changes to remote public participation and provide direction on the format for general public comment for City Council and Council Committee meetings,
3. Approve the Two-Way Remote Public Access Disruption Policy (Attachment A),
4. Approve the following practices as reasonable assistance for third party translation and interpretation services, and
a. Arrange a space for interpreters at the meeting location, upon written request to the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting,
b. Provide public speakers using interpretation extra time. Staff recommends providing twice as much time for individuals using interpretation, or an amount of time determined by the presiding officer,
c. Allow the public to use their own devices to access translation or interpretation devices, and
d. Loan city devices to the public to access translation or interpretation services upon written request to the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the meeting.
5. Direct the City Clerk to implement the following outreach practices a. Share information about agenda notification newsletters with community groups and organizations such as neighborhood associations, non-English news media, service organizations,
b. Post informational resources in the King’s Plaza and Council Chambers posting board and other public-facing City facilities with QR codes linking to the Agendas Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 587 of 613
webpage, newsletter sign-up page, meeting participation guide, and translation services webpage, and
c. Translate the Meeting Participation Guide 1 into the two most commonly spoken non-English languages as reported by the American Community Survey.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2025, the California State Legislature adopted SB 707, which amended the Brown Act to modernize remote participation and expand public access to meetings. This report provides an overview of SB 707 requirements, identifies areas where the City is already compliant, and outlines recommended policy and operational updates where changes are required.
The Policy & Services Committee (P&S) unanimously recommended not authorizing expanded alternative teleconferencing for BCCs, while supporting staff recommendations related to translation, outreach, and related provisions. 2 Because SB 707 requires 3this report is not agendized on consent .
The primary policy considerations before the City Council include whether to authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing for BCCs, how to implement remote public comment requirements, and adoption of policies and practices related to meeting disruptions, translation, and outreach.
BACKGROUND
The enactment of SB 707 brought notable changes to the Brown Act, the law that ensures public access and participation in local legislative body meetings. The bill is intended to modernize public meetings in light of newer technology and expand public participation and engagement.
The updates concern expanded BCC teleconferencing, remote public participation, third-party translation assistance, and public outreach. Certain provisions only affect the City Council’s meetings, while others apply to all Brown Act bodies. Some requirements went into effect on January 1, 2026, but others are not operative until July 1, 2026 to give agencies time to plan implementation.
The table below summarizes SB 707’s key updates and P&S’s implementation recommendations. 1 City of Palo Alto Meeting Participation Guide: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/city- charterprocedures/2025-meeting-participation-guide.pdf
2 Policy & Services Committee, February 10, 2026 Action Minutes:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=85416&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 588 of 613
Topic Summary
Applicable
Meeting
Bodies
Effective
Date
BCC Expanded
Alternative
Teleconferencing
Council could authorize BCCs to meet fully virtually
for up to six months at a time. The P&S Committee
did not recommend authorizing this form of
teleconferencing.
BCCs 1/1/26
Remote Public
Participation and
Public Comment
SB 707 requires the City Council provide a two-way
audiovisual or telephonic platform. The City’s use
of Zoom for City Council, Council Committees, and
BCCs exceeds this requirement. The City Council
must update its practices to allow for remote
general public comment by 7/1/26. Staff
recommends allowing remote general public
comment for Council Committees to maintain
consistency across meeting bodies. P&S directed
staff to evaluate dividing general public comment
into two sections. In-person comments will be
heard at the beginning of the meeting and remote
comments will be heard at the end of the meeting.
City
Council
7/1/26
Disruption of
Remote Public
Access Policy
The City Council must recess and attempt to
restore remote access if Zoom is disrupted during
a meeting. The City Council must adopt a
disruption policy describing these procedures by
7/1/26. P&S recommended adoption of the policy
(Attachment A).
City
Council
7/1/26
Third-Party
Translation and
Interpretation
Assistance
SB 707 requires the City Council to provide
reasonable assistance to individuals receiving
third-party translation and/or interpretation at
meetings. It does not require the City to provide
translation and/or interpretation services. P&S
recommended arranging space for interpretation
to occur, allotting extra public comment time for
individuals using interpretation, allowing
individuals to use their own devices for
interpretation and loaning City devices for
translation upon advance request.
City
Council
7/1/26
Outreach Efforts SB 707 requires cities to make reasonable efforts to encourage participation from groups that
traditionally do not engage in public meetings.
P&S recommends continuing existing outreach
practices and enhancing transparency and
accessibility by clarifying how community
City
Council
7/1/26
Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 589 of 613
members may request language assistance and
participate remotely, consistent with SB 707’s
intent to broaden civic engagement.
ANALYSIS
The following section details Brown Act changes brought by SB 707 that will affect the City and staff’s recommended implementations. The City’s current practices already satisfy or surpass some of SB 707’s requirements (detailed in Attachment B), but others will require a change in practice or policy.
Expanded Alternative Teleconferencing for Eligible Subsidiary Bodies (effective January 1, 2026) Following COVID-19, the State Legislature amended the Brown Act to allow members of legislative bodies to participate in meetings remotely under specific circumstances (i.e. “just cause” or “emergency circumstances”) with fewer noticing requirements than traditional Brown Act teleconferencing. This form of teleconferencing, which does not require remote attendance locations to be published on the agenda or accessible to the public, is referred to as alternative teleconferencing. The City Council incorporated SB 707’s changes, detailed in Attachment B, to alternative teleconferencing in its most recent Procedures and Protocol Handbook update.7 SB 707 allows the City Council to authorize an additional form of remote participation, called expanded alternative teleconferencing, for eligible subsidiary bodies, a category that includes the City’s BCCs. Commissioners are permitted to use alternative teleconferencing regardless of the City Council’s decision regarding expanded alternative teleconferencing. Council Committees are not eligible because SB 707 does not permit Councilmembers to use expanded alternative teleconferencing. Expanded alternative teleconferencing would allow BCC members to attend remotely without opening their location to the public and without just cause, subject to the minimum requirements listed below. Unlike alternative teleconferencing, expanded alternative teleconferencing does not require a quorum to attend from a singular physical location and therefore could allow a fully virtual meeting. This provision is optional and requires affirmative Council action to implement.
The City Council may authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing for up to six months and every six months thereafter. To authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing, the City Council must take formal action approving the expanded use of alternative teleconferencing for a period of up to six months, and include findings that Council has:
Considered the circumstances of the subsidiary body,
Determined that teleconferencing would enhance public access, Ensured publication of remote and physical access and comment options, and 7 City Council, February 9, 2025, Agenda Item #12; Staff Report # 2601-5874 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=85860 Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 590 of 613
Determined that teleconferencing would promote attraction, retention, and diversity of eligible board or commission members.
Meetings held via expanded alternative teleconferencing must meet the requirements below.
The City Council may impose additional requirements but may not remove requirements. The subsidiary body must provide a staffed physical meeting location where the agenda is posted and members of the body or public may attend and participate in-person, Elected officials may not use this section to appear remotely, and Remote members must appear visibly on camera, with limited exceptions.
While expanded alternative teleconferencing may improve flexibility and accessibility for BCC members, staff notes that in-person meetings provide important benefits that support the City’s public engagement goals. Face-to-face meetings facilitate stronger communication between Commissioners, staff, and community members, promote relationship-building, and allow for more dynamic public dialogue.
Further, a significant expansion of alternative teleconferencing presents compliance and administrative challenges. The City has eight BCCs addressing diverse subject areas ranging from stormwater management to arts and culture. These bodies are supported by staff from multiple departments, many of whom support BCC meetings infrequently. The Brown Act’s teleconferencing requirements are complex, and expanded alternative teleconferencing adds additional procedural obligations that increase the risk of inadvertent non-compliance.
The P&S Committee did not recommend authorizing expanded alternative teleconferencing for BCCs. If the City Council wishes to authorize expanded alternative teleconferencing, staff recommends that it be implemented thoughtfully and incrementally, with clear, administrable rules and defined evaluation criteria. Staff suggests beginning with a modest pilot approach. For example, Council could authorize one specific Board or Commission to conduct a limited number of fully virtual meetings within a six-month period, allowing staff and the body to evaluate impacts on public participation, meeting quality, and administrative workload before considering broader implementation. Implementation of expanded teleconferencing may require additional staff training and coordination across departments, particularly for BCCs supported by decentralized staff.
Remote Public Participation and Public Comment (effective July 1, 2026) SB 707 mandates City Council meetings include an option for remote public participation and accept remote public comment via a two-way telephonic or audiovisual platform. Palo Alto already uses Zoom for its City Council, Council Committee and BCC meetings, which surpasses the new requirements. However, the City Council will have to adjust its general public comment practices. The City Council currently accepts general public comment for non-agendized items only in-person and accepts public comment on agendized items in-person and remotely. The City Item 15
Item 15 Staff Report
Item 15: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 591 of 613
Council must allow remote general public comment beginning on July 1, 2026. This requirement does not apply to BCCs or Council Committees. Although not mandated by SB 707, staff recommends also accepting remote general public comment at Council Committee meetings to maintain consistency across City Council meeting bodies. Staff will communicate the change to the public prior to the effective date and update agenda materials and internal practices to comply with this provision.
P&S directed staff to explore splitting general public comment into an in-person portion at the start of meetings and a remote portion at the end of meetings. The City Council may implement this format for general public comment if it chooses. The City Council splits general public comment into two sections based on whether the speaker is in person or virtual. In-person speakers will be heard at the beginning of the meeting (subject to the existing 30-minute cap, after which remaining speakers will be heard at the end of the meeting) and virtual speakers will be heard along with any additional in-person speakers at the end. Staff is also seeking the City Council’s direction on general public comment for Council Committee meetings. This approach would accommodate an expected increase in general public comment while managing meeting capacity.