HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-28 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council
1
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
November 28, 2016
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
5:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker
request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council
reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 5:00-5:10 PM
Oral Communications 5:10-5:25 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval 5:25-5:30 PM
1. Approval of Action Minutes for the November 14, 2016 Council Meeting
Consent Calendar 5:30-5:35 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
2. Approval of two Blanket Purchase Orders for Hauling and Disposal of
Construction Material Debris From the Municipal Service Center to an
Off-Site Facility for the Utilities and Public Works Departments With a
Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $3,507,233 From November 1, 2016 to
June 30, 2019 With (a) Dillard Trucking Inc. ($1,494,085); and (b)
2 November 28, 2016
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
With TMT Enterprises, Inc. ($2,013,148); and Finding of CEQA
Exemption Pursuant to Guideline 15301(b)-(c) Maintenance of Existing
Facilities
3. Approval of Amendment Number 6 to Contract Number C08025506
With Placeworks|DCE to add $410,902 for a Total Not-to-Exceed
Amount of $3,212,059 for the Comprehensive Plan Update; and
Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S16163548 With
Management Partners to add $120,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed
Amount of $205,000 for Related Project Management Services; and
Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General Fund
4. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Legal Services
Agreement With the Law Firm of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson by an
Additional $325,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $375,000 for
Litigation Defense Services and Approve a Budget Amendment in the
General Fund
5. Approval to Schedule a Discussion Regarding Appointments for
Unscheduled Vacant Term on the Planning and Transportation
Commission Ending December 15, 2018; and Appointment of Three
Candidates to the Historic Resources Board and Four Candidates to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for Terms Ending December 15,
2019 in January 2017
6. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building Regulations), Chapters 16.45 (Transportation Impact Fee for
New Nonresidential Development in the Stanford Research Park/El
Camino Real CS Zone), 16.46 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on
Traffic in the San Antonio/West Bayshore Area), 16.47 (Approval of
Projects with Impacts on Housing), 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fee For
New Nonresidential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD)
Zoning District), 16.58 (Development Impact Fees), 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee), 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee), 16.61 (Public Art for
Private Developments); and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions
of Land), Chapter 21.50 (Parkland Dedication or Fees In-Lieu Thereof)
and; Adding 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration) (FIRST READING: November 7, 2016 PASSED: 8-1
Schmid no)
7. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Resolution 9579 to Update the Fiscal Year 2017
Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust the Planning and Community
3 November 28, 2016
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Environment Fees by Fiscal Year 2017 Adjustments to Salaries and
Benefits (FIRST READING: November 14, 2016 PASSED: 7-0 Berman,
Kniss absent)
8. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Section 4.39.080 (False Alarm Service Charges)
and Section 4.39.090 (Revocation of Alarm Registration) of Chapter
4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Update the False Alarm Program (FIRST READING: November 14,
2016 PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent)
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 5:35-7:45 PM
9. Discuss and Approve Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)
Framework, Principles & Guidelines
7:45-10:15 PM
10. Review of the Draft Land Use & Community Design Element of the
Comprehensive Plan Update Recommended by the Citizens Advisory
Committee
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
4 November 28, 2016
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Sp. Policy and Services Committee Meeting November 29, 2016
Sp. City Council Meeting November 30, 2016
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Plan Bay Area Update
Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the
First Quarter Fiscal Year 2017
Public Letters to Council
Set 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 28, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Action Minutes for the November 14, 2016 Council
Meeting
Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: 11-14-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 9
Special Meeting
November 14, 2016
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:30 P.M.
Present: Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman arrived at 5:33 P.M., Scharff,
Schmid arrived at 5:33 P.M., Wolbach
Absent: Berman, Kniss
Closed Session
1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees
Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Molly Stump, Rumi Portillo, Dania Torres Wong, Allyson Hauck)
Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a).
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Authority: Govt. Code Section 54956.8
Property: Lytton I (Lytton Gardens), 656 Lytton Avenue; Lytton II,
651 University Avenue; Lytton IV, 322, 332 and 334 Everett Avenue,
Palo Alto 94301
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: Lytton I AP# 120-03-074; Lytton II AP#
12-003-079; Lytton IV AP#120-14-046 & AP#120-14-048
Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami,
Molly Stump
Negotiating Parties: Community Housing, Inc., Episcopal Homes
Foundation, and City of Palo Alto
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of City’s Options to Repurchase
Lytton Gardens Senior Communities.
Vice Mayor Scharff advised he will not be participating in Agenda Item
Number 2- CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS… because he
owns real property within 500 feet of the subject property.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Wolbach to go into Closed Session.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/14/16
MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Berman, Holman, Kniss, Schmid absent
Council went into Closed Session at 5:31 P.M.
Vice Mayor Scharff left the meeting at 6:00 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 7:23 P.M. and Vice Mayor Scharff
returned to the meeting
Mayor Burt announced Council voted 6-0 Berman, Kniss absent, Scharff
recused, to authorize the Acting City Manager to exercise the City’s purchase
option on Lytton I (Lytton Gardens), 656 Lytton Avenue (APN 120-03-074)
dated October 31, 2016 and directed Staff to work with Community Housing,
Inc. toward an agreement that would preserve affordability for all Lytton
Garden units for the longest term possible.
Special Orders of the Day
3. Three Resolutions: Resolution 9640 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Abbie Knopper Upon
Completion of her Term as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner;”
Resolution 9641 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Expressing Appreciation to Ed Lauing Upon Completion of his
Term as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner;” and Resolution 9642
Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing
Appreciation to Jennifer Hetterly Upon Completion of her Term as a
Parks and Recreation Commissioner.”
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff
to adopt the three Resolutions expressing appreciation to Abbie Knopper,
Ed Lauing, and Jennifer Hetterly.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-15, including changes to Agenda Item
Number 14- Finance Committee Recommendation… as described by the Lalo
Perez, Acting City Manager/Chief Financial Officer.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/14/16
Mayor Burt and Council Member Holman registered no votes on Agenda Item
15- SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 9.17
(Personal Cultivation of Marijuana)…
4. Approval of Contract Number C17166399 With Page and Turnbull in
the Amount of $105,930 to Prepare Architectural Design Guidelines for
Eichler Neighborhoods and Assist the City of Palo Alto in the
Implementation of Related Changes to the Individual Review (IR)
Guidelines and/or Zoning Code; and Adoption of Categorical Exemption
Under Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines and Approval of a Related Budget Amendment in
the General Fund.
5. Approval of a Contract Amendment With Cypress Security, Inc.
(C16160138A) in the Amount of $768,223 for a Total Not-to-Exceed
Amount of $2,092,215 and Extend the Term of the Agreement to
June 30, 2017 and Approval of Budget Amendments in the General
Fund.
6. Approval of Contract Number C17165854 With Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc. in the Total Amount Not-to-Exceed
$426,800 to Provide Construction Services for the Rehabilitation of the
Meter Station in the Collection System to the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-04011; and
Finding of CEQA Exemption Pursuant to Guideline 15301(b),
Maintenance of Existing Facilities.
7. Resolution 9643 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Authorize the City Manager to Submit Application(s) and
Related Agreement(s) for the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Rubberized Pavement Grant
Program.”
8. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms).
9. Approval of Amendment Number 3 With C&S Engineers, Inc. Contract
Number C15155208A to Increase the Contract by $350,000 for a Total
Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,458,329 for Engineering and Design
Services Related to the Airport Apron Reconstruction Design Phase 1B;
and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Airport Enterprise Fund.
10. Approval of $3,175,600 Appropriation to Capital Improvement
Program Project VR-17000 From Vehicle Replacement and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/14/16
Maintenance Fund Reserve and Approval of Budget Amendments in
Various Funds.
11. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That the City Council
Approve Design Guidelines for the 2017 Gas Cost of Service Analysis.
12. Approval of the Contract With American Reprographics Company, LLC
(ARC) for Managed Print Services for a Not-to-Exceed Total of
$1,683,173 Over Five Years.
13. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a
Professional Services Agreement With Essense Partners in the Amount
of $870,000 for Utilities Marketing, Communication and Graphic Design
Services for a Term of up to Three Years.
14. Finance Committee Recommendation That the City Council Approve
the Fiscal Year 2016 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward
Into Fiscal Year 2017 and Approve Budget Amendments in Various
Funds.
15. Ordinance 5399 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Adding Chapter 9.17 (Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) to Title 9
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Public Peace, Morals and Safety) to
Prohibit Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana (FIRST READING: October
24, 2016 PASSED: 7-1 Burt no, DuBois absent).”
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMEBRS 4-14 PASSED: 7-0 Berman,
Kniss absent
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 15 PASSED: 5-2 Burt, Holman
no, Berman, Kniss absent
Action Items
16. PUBLIC HEARING: 900 N. California Ave. [14PLN-00233]:
Recommendation for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, With
Exceptions, to Subdivide an Existing 30,837 Square Foot Parcel Into
Three Parcels. The Parcel Map Exception is to Allow one of the Parcels
to Exceed the Maximum Lot Area. Environmental Assessment:
Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). Zoning
District: Single-Family Residential District (R-1) **QUASI JUDICIAL.
Public Hearing opened at 8:24 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 8:38 P.M.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/14/16
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois
to:
A. Find the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3); and
B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the proposed preliminary
parcel map application.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “including the addition of a
requirement that a second unit be built on Lot 3.” (New Part B.i.)
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “increase the setbacks to 8
feet on all sides of the garage and accessory buildings on Lot 3.” (New Part
B.ii.)
AMENDENT: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to
the Motion, “direct Staff to determine and certify that the aggregate
de-watering of the three basements not be deleterious to the surrounding
properties or vegetation.”
AMENDMENT RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party
dewatering review statement to assure that the aggregate impact is
evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of each lot.”
AMENDENT2: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add
to the Motion, “add the requirement that this development be subject to
whatever new dewatering requirements the Council adopts before the next
dewatering season.”
AMENDENT2 RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the
Motion, “add the requirement that this development be subject to whatever
dewatering requirements are in effect before the next dewatering season.”
(New Part C)
AMENDMENT RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party
review statement to assure that any aggregate impact presented by the
construction schedule is evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering
impact of each lot.”
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/14/16
AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the
Motion, “direct Staff to review the third party geo-technical report to assure
that any aggregate impact presented by the construction schedule is
evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of construction on
each lot.” (New Part D)
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded
by Council Member DuBois to:
A. Find the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3); and
B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action for the proposed preliminary
parcel map application:
i. Including the addition of a requirement that a second unit be
built on Lot 3; and
ii. Increase the setbacks to 8 feet on all sides of the garage and
accessory buildings on Lot 3; and
C. Add the requirement that this development be subject to whatever
dewatering requirements are in effect before the next dewatering
season; and
D. Direct Staff to review the third party geo-technical report to assure
that any aggregate impact presented by the construction schedule is
evaluated and not simply the individual dewatering impact of
construction on each lot.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent
18. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving Revisions to
the Architectural Review Findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
18.76 and Approval of an Exemption Under Sections 15061 and 15305
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The
Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Council
Approval of the Ordinance (Continued From September 12, 2016 and
October 24, 2016).
Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 8:28 P.M.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach
to adopt an Ordinance modifying the Architectural Review (AR) approval
findings including the following change:
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 7 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/14/16
A. Remove Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 (d)(2)(c).
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to add to the Motion, “replace Municipal Code Section 18.76.020
(d)(2)(c) with, ‘is consistent with Context Based Design Criteria, which will
be applicable to the Downtown Business District, the California Avenue
Business District, and El Camino Real.’”
AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECODNER to add to the
Motion, “remove from 18.76.020 (d)(1), '(including context-based design
criteria, as applicable)’ and replace 18.76.020(d)(2)(c) with, ‘is consistent
with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district.’” (New
Part B)
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to remove Part A of the Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “
B. Replace Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 (d)(5) with, ‘the landscape
design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the
extent practical, regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material
capable of providing desirable habitat and that can be appropriately
maintained;’ and
C. Remove from Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 (2)(b), ‘local’ after
‘including historic.’”
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded
by Council Member Wolbach to adopt an Ordinance modifying the
Architectural Review (AR) approval findings including the following changes:
A. Remove from 18.76.020 (d)(1), “(including context-based design
criteria, as applicable)” and replace 18.76.020(d)(2)(c) with, “is
consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone
district;” and
B. Replace Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 (d)(5) with, “the landscape
design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the
extent practical, regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 8 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/14/16
capable of providing desirable habitat and that can be appropriately
maintained;” and
C. Remove from Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 (2)(b), “local” after
“including historic.”
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent
17. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year
2017 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust Planning and Community
Environment Fees to Reflect Adjustments to Salaries and Benefits
Included in the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget.
Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 9:51 P.M.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid
to:
A. Find the Project exempt under Section 15273 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
B. Adopt an Ordinance approving amendments to the Planning and
Community Environment Section of the Municipal Fee Schedule for
Fiscal Year 2017 to adjust fees based on a 5.5 percent adjustment for
average salary and benefits increases.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent
19. Finance Committee Recommendation That Council: (1) Adopt a
Resolution Approving a Carbon Neutral Natural Gas Plan to Achieve a
Carbon Neutral Gas Portfolio by Fiscal Year 2018 With no Greater Than
10¢/Therm Rate Impact; and Terminating the Palo Alto Green Gas
Program; and (2) Provide Direction to Staff Concerning Aspects of Plan
Implementation (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO
DECEMBER 5, 2016).
This Agenda Item continued to December 5, 2016.
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Vice Mayor Scharff reported on his election last Thursday as President of the
Cities Association of Santa Clara County.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 9 of 9
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/14/16
Council Member Wolbach reported his attendance at a vigil Saturday night in
front of City Hall recognizing the inclusivity and diversity of Palo Alto.
Council Member DuBois reported that he, along with Mayor Burt and Council
Members Filseth and Holman are drafting a Colleagues Memorandum on the
topic of providing water to East Palo Alto.
Mayor Burt reported that a draft of the Colleagues Memorandum mentioned
by Council Member DuBois has been sent to the City Manager. He reported
his participation in a Veterans Day event at the Palo Alto Veterans Hospital
on Friday. He noted that veterans at the Hospital appreciated the
recognition and appreciation received from the community. He encouraged
the City and the community to be more deliberate regarding support of
veterans. He reported on a visiting delegation from Heidelberg, Germany, a
Smart Cities Alliance partner of the City. The delegation expressed interest
in becoming a Sister City of Palo Alto. Another Smart Cities Alliance Partner,
Yangpu District, Shanghai, China has also expressed interest in a Sister City
relationship with Palo Alto. He mentioned that Neighbors Abroad has
received these requests and plans to work with Heidelberg, Yangpu, and the
City toward Sister City relationships.
Council Member Holman wanted to express her appreciation to Mayor Burt
and Janice Svendsen, Executive Assistant to the City Manager for their
efforts in planning and supporting the City’s Veteran’s Day event.
Council Member DuBois noted that Heidelberg has 47 Council Members.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7393)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of a BPO for Hauling of Construction Material
Debris
Title: Approval of Two Blanket Purchase Orders for Hauling and Disposal of
Construction Material Debris from the Municipal Service Center to an Off-
Site Facility for the Utilities and Public Works Departments with a Total Not-
to-Exceed Amount of $3,507,233 from November 1, 2016 to June 30, 2019
with (a) Dillard Trucking Inc. ($1,494,085); and (b) with TMT Enterprises, Inc.
($2,013,148); and Finding of CEQA Exemption Pursuant to Guideline
15301(b)-(c) Maintenance of Existing Facilities
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute two blanket
purchase orders for hauling and disposal of construction material debris from December
1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 with a total not-to-exceed amount of $3,507,233 with (a)
Dillard Trucking Inc. (Dillard) in an amount not to exceed $1,494,085; and (b) with TMT
Enterprises, Inc. (TMT) in and amount not to exceed $2,013,148 (for TMT).
2) Find that approval of these two Blanket Purchase Orders are categorically exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines 15301(b)-(c)
(operation, repair, maintenance of existing facilities).
Background
The City’s Public Works and Utilities Departments are responsible for the maintenance, repair,
replacement and construction of City streets, sidewalks and underground utilities. These
activities generate substantial construction material debris that must be picked up, hauled
away and disposed of at an appropriate location.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The ongoing maintenance and operation of the City’s Utilities Department (CPAU) produces
several thousand tons of construction material debris annually including: mixed concrete and
asphalt rubble, clean fill dirt and mixed dirt and concrete/asphalt rubble. Construction debris
produced by the Public Works department includes clean concrete rubble, clean asphalt
grindings, yard waste and brush material.
Prior to the full closure of the City’s landfill in July 2011, both the Utilities and Public Works
departments were able to utilize the landfill for disposal of several thousand tons of
construction debris annually at substantially reduced costs. There were also no hauling fees
incurred by the City when using the landfill. As the final capping and grading of the landfill was
being completed, City departments were encouraged to dispose of clean dirt at the landfill at
no charge. Both departments were able to reduce hauling fees by disposing of clean dirt at the
landfill.
In August 2014 a Request for Quotation (RFQ# 154872) was issued to supply construction
material to the Utilities, Public Works and Community Services Departments. The RFQ also
included a solicitation to remove and dispose of construction material debris for both CPAU and
the Public Works department. Several vendors responded to the RFQ and TMT Enterprises was
awarded the three year contract from 2014-2017 (Staff Report ID# 5111). The successful bid for
the hauling service was $383,000 for the first year with a 3% escalation rate for each of the next
two years. Because this solicitation combined construction material purchases and delivery
along with hauling services, Staff has realized this limited the number of vendors able to
respond to the RFQ. In addition, over the past two years, Staff has seen hauling costs escalate
substantially. Considering the limited vendor pool on the initial RFQ and the rising hauling costs,
Staff made the decision to publish an RFQ for hauling services only. The existing Blanket
Purchase Order for hauling services will be terminated once a new contract is in place.
Discussion
Due to the high volume of construction in both Utilities and Public Works, it is essential that
there is a reliable system in place to dispose of the large amounts of construction debris
resulting from these activities. Once the City’s landfill closed and was no longer an option for
disposing of construction material, it was necessary to locate a new disposal site and to have
the material delivered to the location. The award of the hauling contract in 2014 provided a
solution. However, over the term of the contract the costs associated with the hauling service
have increased considerably.
There are several factors contributing to the increased costs for this service. The hauling service
provider, TMT Enterprises, uses the disposal facilities at Zanker Recycling (located in San Jose)
to dispose of the construction materials. Since TMT became the City’s hauling service provider
in 2014 the fees charged by Zanker Recycling have increased 22.5%. This increase in fees
translates to a substantial increase in associated per-ton costs.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
In addition, changes in the work of Utilities operations have increased the amount of debris
being produced. The amount of tonnage of material debris from Utilities construction activities
alone has increased from an average of 1,730 tons in 2014 to 4,200 tons in 2015, an increase of
over 130%. While debris hauling in 2015 was particularly high due to an unusually high
incidence of water leaks, the Utilities Department has also changed its techniques for installing
water services and has seen an increase in the number of water services it is installing. This is a
result of new fire code requirements requiring fire sprinklers in residences, which often triggers
an upgrade of the water service. The Department is also seeing an increase in the number of
sewer lateral replacements associated with new development projects. These changes in work
practices contribute to an increase in hauling material and associated expenses.
Along with cost increases associated with the final closure of the landfill, the escalation in fees
related to construction debris disposal over the past two years, and the increased volume of
debris being hauled, both the Utilities and Public Works departments have experienced
substantially increased operating costs. In addition, the current vendor, TMT Enterprises, is not
always available for hauling away the differing types of debris. As a result of these concerns,
staff solicited new proposals for hauling services only. The intent was to allow the City to seek
more current pricing from multiple vendors, ensure the contract reflects the new expenses and
volumes of debris being produced, and solicit from a wider range of vendors, including vendors
who provide only hauling services. In addition, the RFQ was structured so that Staff would be
able to choose from multiple vendors to provide backup providers when the primary provider is
not available.
Bidding and Selection Process
A Request for Quotation (RFQ #164060) was issued on July 14, 2016 and closed on July 26,
2016. Bids were received from two qualified vendors. The RFQ included the City’s option to
award the contract to multiple vendors. It was determined that Dillard Trucking, Inc., and TMT
Enterprises, Inc. were the lowest responsive and responsible bidders. An advantage of awarding
the contract to more than one vendor is it allows Staff to direct hauling services for specific
materials towards the provider with the lowest costs to the City.
Bids were requested for hauling clean concrete rubble, clean asphalt grindings, mixed concrete
and asphalt rubble, clean fill dirt, mixed dirt and concrete/asphalt rubble and yard waste and
brush material. Bid results are shown in Table 1:
Table 1
Vendor Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL
Dillard Trucking, Inc. $713,000 $727,260 $741,840 $2,182,100
TMT Enterprises, Inc. $694,500 $763,950 $840,280 $2,298,730
Although Dillard Trucking, Inc. was shown to be the lowest bidder based on the multi-year total,
closer scrutiny revealed differences in the hauling costs based on material type. A breakdown of
the material cost per item is shown in Table 2:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 2
Dillard TMT Dillard TMT Dillard TMT
Clean concrete rubble cost per
ton
$65.00
$13.50
$66.30
$14.85
$67.63
$16.33
Clean asphalt grindings cost per
ton
$65.00
$13.50
$66.30
$14.85
$67.63
$16.33
Mixed concrete and asphalt
rubble cost per ton
$65.00
$13.50
$66.30
$14.85
$67.63
$16.33
Clean fill dirt cost per ton
$33.00
$68.50
$33.66
$75.35
$34.33
$82.88
Mixed dirt and concrete/asphalt
rubble cost per ton
$45.00
$68.50
$45.90
$75.35
$46.82
$82.88
Yard waste and brush material
cost per ton
$65.00
$76.50
$66.30
$84.15
$67.63
$92.56
As shown in Table 2, Dillard Trucking Inc. was the lowest bidder for three types of material and
TMT Enterprises was the low bidder on three other types of material. Staff’s review of the
submitted bids determined that flexibility in vendor selection, vendor availability and
consideration of material type would be the most cost effective outcome for the City. Staff
contacted both vendors and informed them that the City planned to award the contract to two
vendors. Both Dillard Trucking Inc. and TMT Enterprises Inc. are in agreement with this decision.
Table 3 shows the expected amount to be spent over each year of the contract based on 2015
actual tonnage hauled.
Table 3
Vendor Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL
Dillard Trucking, Inc. $342,148 $348,991 $355,983 $1,047,122
TMT Enterprises, Inc. $21,144 $23,258 $25,576 $69,978
TOTAL: $363,292 $372,249 $381,559 $1,117,100
Should any one of the selected vendors be unavailable, staff is keeping in place the option to
contact the alternate vendor so that construction material debris hauling can continue without
any interruption in service. To enable that to occur, staff is requesting purchasing authority for
each vendor sufficient for that vendor to fulfill the City’s hauling needs on their own in the
event the other vendor ceases to be available. Staff determined the requested Blanket
Purchase Order amount based on actual FY2015 tonnage with a 10% contingency, using the bid
amounts shown in Table 2.The requested blanket authority for each vendor is reflected in Table
4, below.
Table 4
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Vendor Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL
Dillard Trucking, Inc. $488,193 $497,956 $507,936 $1,494,085
TMT Enterprises, Inc. $608,217 $669,039 $735,892 $2,013,148
Resource Impact
Staff determined the not-to-exceed amount for each vendor based on a 10% increase of actual
tonnage hauled in fiscal year 2015 and fees submitted by each vendor. At the time service is
required, Staff will determine the vendor based on the lowest bid submitted for each material
type. Staff is requesting approval for the maximum amount for each vendor, which allows staff
to use one vendor to provide all the hauling service during the duration of the contract if the
other vendor fails to fulfill its obligations under the contract. However, it is Staff’s expectation
that the hauling costs will be approximately $1,117,100, during the term of the contract,
divided amongst both vendors.
Funding for the hauling and disposal of construction debris is available in the FY17 Utility and
Public Works Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets. Funding for contract years two and
three are contingent upon annual appropriation and approval of funds.
Policy Implications
Authorization of these blanket purchase orders does not represent any change to existing
policy. Both vendors associated with this contract, Dillard Trucking Inc. and TMT Enterprises
Inc., will deliver the construction material to various quarries in the Bay Area depending on
material type. The quarries receiving the construction debris will recycle the material into base
rock, road base, asphalt and clean dirt.
Environmental Review
Council’s approval of the two blanket purchase orders for hauling and disposal of construction
debris from existing Utilities and Public Works facilities is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines 15301(b)-(c) (operation,
repair, maintenance of existing facilities), thus no environmental analysis is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: RFQ 154872-August 2014 Request for Quotation (PDF)
Attachment B: Staff Report ID 5111 (PDF)
Attachment C: RFQ 164060 July 2016 Off Haul Services (PDF)
Attachment C: RFQ 164060 Off Haul Services B1 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
August 7, 2014
The City of Palo Alto, Purchasing and Contract Administration, on behalf of the Utilities Department,
PWO Division, requests a quotation for:
PROJECT TITLE:
"SAND, ROCK AND ASPHALT FOR UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION"
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION CRFQ) NUMBER 154872
RFQ DUE DATE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014, 3:00 P.M.
Documents will not be accepted after 3:00 P.M., Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Table of Contents:
SECTION I Cover Page
Request for Quotation and Bidder Required Information (including submittal
instructions)*
SECTION II Insurance Requirements
Purchase Order Terms and Conditions
SECTION Ill Specifications and Bidder's Bid Pages*
*Complete, sign and submit forms as instructed in the RFQ. Failure to complete and/or submit these
forms may cause rejection of your Bid.
FOR BID DOCUMENTS: CONTACT PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
(650) 329-2271
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
PAGE 1OF14
BIDDER (COMPANY): =~--~-------------DATE:--~--
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION I -REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION
August 7, 2014
In response to this Request for Quotation (RFQ), the undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties
interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein; that this Bid is made without collusion with any other person,
firm or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the specifications herein referred to; and the Bidder proposes
and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, that the Bidder will contract with the City of Palo Alto (City), to provide all necessary
materials, and furnish the specified requirements in this RFQ, in the manner herein prescribed and at the prices stated in
the Bid.
Project Title
SAND, ROCK AND ASPHALT FOR UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION
City of Palo Alto Request for Quotation (RFQl number:
154872
Quotation Due Date
Quotation acceptance period closes (your quotation must be received by purchasing and contract Administration not later
than) 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 26, 2014.
Buyer/Contracts Administrator
Renee Howard
Telephone Number: (650) 496-5900
Specifications
Project Manager
Todd Seeley
Telephone Number: (650) 496-5945
The specifications or scope of work included have been prepared to describe the standard quality,
performance, and other characteristics needed to meet city requirements. The city will accept alternate
proposals of a designed material, product, thing, service, "or equal", and will determine if such alternate
proposals are satisfactory in meeting a mandatory requirement or specification and if the proposed alternate
meets the intent of the original mandatory requirement
Term of Agreement
City intends to issue a Blanket Order to provide for the purchase and delivery of sand, backfill rock and
asphalt material for Utilities construction, and various materials for the Community Services Department,
Parks Division. A City of Palo Alto representative will issue a Blanket Order for each department for the
purchase of goods and services as-requested and authorized basis. Quantities specified in the Bidder Bid
Pages are approximate and total of the bid will be used for the purpose of selecting the lowest responsible
bidder. Base on prior year's activity, the yearly expenditures is estimated to $325,000 per year. The term of
the pricing agreement shall be effective on tl)e date of award and shall expire June 30, 2017 for a maximum
of 36 consecutive months, subject to:
Firm price for the initial term of the pricing agreement;
City of Palo Alto City Council's annual approval of each current year's budget and appropriation of
funds;
The Vendor's compliance with the terms and conditions as established by this RFQ;
The Vendor's satisfactory performance, and timely compliance with the requirements of this RFQ;
and
Firm pricing for the two optional twelve (12) month term extensions, as set forth herein.
Note: If a price increase is to apply to the City's optional contract extensions specify such in the
space provided on each bid schedule.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, City may terminate the agreement, with or without cause, by providing ten
(10) days written notice.
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
PAGE 2OF14
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:-----
.. (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION 1-REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Contract Award
The contract, if awarded, shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The lowest bid
shall be the lowest total of the bid prices quoted on the Bid Schedule. This total is being used for the
purpose of determining the lowest bid. The City reserves the right to award more than one contract from this
solicitation.
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2 30.440, a responsible bidder is a bidder determined by the
awarding authority:
(1) To have the ability, capacity, experience and skill to perform the work, or provide the goods and/or
services in accordance with the bid specifications;
(2) To have the ability to perform the contract within the time specified;
(3) To have the equipment, facilities and resources of such capacity and location and location to enable
the bidder to perform the contract;
(4) To have the ability to provide, as required, future maintenance, repair, parts and service for the use
of goods purchased; ·
(5) To have a record of satisfactory or better performance under prior contracts with the city or others;
and
(6) To have complied with applicable laws, regulations, policies (including city council policies),
guidelines and orders governing prior or existing contracts performed by the bidder.
F.O.B. Point
Prices shall be F.0.B. Destination, Freight Prepaid. Price shall include all applicable transportation and delivery
charges. See Bid Scoedule for delivery point.
Submittal of Documents
Submit documents by delivering or mailing to the Manager of Purchasing and Contract Administration (fax responses
shall not be accepted). Bidders assume the risk of the method of dispatch chosen:
(Delivery in person or by other carriers)
City of Palo Alto
Purchasing and Contract Administration
Mezzanine, Civic Center
250 Hamilton Avenue, MS-MB
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Marking instructions
(US Mail only)
City of Palo Alto
Purchasing and Contract Administration
Mail Stop -MB
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
All Bids/Quotations and accompanying documents shall be submitted in a sealed envelope. The outside of the envelope
shall be marked, and identified in the manner specified below:
Quotation Enclosed
Project Title: SAND, ROCK AND ASPHALT FOR UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Request for Quotation number RFQ154872
Bidder/Company name, and return address.
Complete, sign and submit the RFQ/Bidder Information, Nondiscrimination Certification, and Bidder Bid Pages with your
quotation. Failure to complete and/or submit these forms may cause rejection of your quotation. All quotations must be
submitted on these forms.
Decision to Reject
The City reserves the right to reject any or all quotations, to waive any informalities contained therein, and to select
quotations on an item-by-item basis. The City reserves the right to award more than one contract from this solicitation.
No quotation may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days following the date of bid opening. The terms and conditions
(the provisions) that shall govern any resulting agreement between City and the Lowest Responsible Bidder are
. contained in this RFQ. No charges of any kind will be allowed unless specifically made part of your quotation and are
specified in your response.
CITY OF PALO AL TO 154872
Rev. 12/02/1 O
PAGE 3 OF 14
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:~-~~-
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION 1-REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Exceptions
To the specifications or requirements issued must be itemized and justified in writing and included wit.h
proposals or quotations submitted.
Taxes
Quotations shall include all applicable federal, state and local taxes, import duties, commissions or other
charges.
Bidder Information
Provide the information requested below or indicate "not applicable", if appropriate:
A Name and Address of Bidder (Company) -also provide "Remit To" address if different:
Telephone Number:---------Facsimile number:----------
E-Mail: _____________ _ Website:: ____________ _
B. Bidder is a:
o California Corporation
o Corporation organized under the laws of the '.>late of ____________ _
with head offices located at ----------------------'
and offices in California at
o Limited Liability Company
List name of managing member(s):
0 Sole Proprietorship ___________________ proprietor.
o Partnership
o Limited Liability Partnership
List names of general partners; state which partner or partners are managing partner(s)
o Other (attach Addendum with explanatory details)
C. Have you (or your firm) previously worked for the City of Palo Alto? __ Yes, or __ No (if "Yes", list
above, or if necessary, provide information on additional sheets).
D. Contractors license, number/type (if required):-------------------
E. The Bidder represents that it has not retained a person to solicit or secure a City contract (upon an
agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee) except for
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/1 O
PAGE 4 OF 14
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:-----
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION I -REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION
retention of bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial selling agencies for the purpose
of securing business.
F. During the Quotation process there may be changes to the Quotation documents, which would require
an issuance of an addendum or addenda. City disclaims any and all liability for loss, or damage to any
Bidder who does not receive any 'addendum issued by City in connection with this RFQ. Any Bidder in
submitting a Quotation is deemed to waive any and all claims and demands Bidder may have against
City on account of the failure of delivery of any such addendum to Bidder. Any and all addenda issued
by City shall be deemed included in this RFQ, and the provisions and instructions therein contained
shall be incorporated to any Quotation submitted by Bidder.
To assure that all Bidders have received each addendum, the following acknowledgment and sign-off
is required. Failure to acknowledge receipt of addendum/addenda may be considered an irregularity in
the Bid:
Addendum number(s) received: 01; 0 2; 0 3; 04; 0 5; 0 6; 0 7; 0 a; 0 g
Or, O ____ No Addendum/Addenda Were Received (check and initial).
G. The firm and individuals listed below, certify that: they do not and in the performance of this
contract they will not discriminate in employment of any person because of race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person; and further certify that they
are in compliance with all Federal, State and local directives and executive orders regarding
nondiscrimination in employment
Signature must be the same signature as appears in Bidder Bid Pages:
Officer*
(Signature)
(Printed name of signatory)
(Title of signatory)
Or,
The undersigned certifies that the Bidder is not a corporation, and is not subject to the requirements of
California Corporations code, and hereby agrees to, and accepts the terms and conditions of this RFQ.
(Signature)
(Printed name of signatory)
(Title of signatory)
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
PAGE 5 OF 14
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE: --=--c----=--c-=--
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION II -INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
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-:Vll, 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 ' '
MINIMUM LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
YES EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
LIABILITY COMBINED.
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
-EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000
-EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000.000
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
DAMAGE, COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,
INCLUDING, ERRORS AND
OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN
APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND
EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF. ANY
RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND
ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S
LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS,
OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
Ill. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS"
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/1 O
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.
PAGE 6 OF 14
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:-----
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION II -INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
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. 1.F THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON
OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL
PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-
PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A
TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO AL TO
P. 0. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303.
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
PAGE 7 OF 14
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE: -=---=--c--=--
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION 11-INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
ACCEPTANCE/AGREEMENT: City of Palo Alto (City) reserves the right to reject any and all quotations,· to waive any informalities, and,
unless otherwise specified by Seller, to accept any item in a quotation. By accepting or filing this-Purchase Order (P.O.), Seller agrees
to the terms and conditions herein which shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any form or other paper submitted by Seller. All
shipments or services performed shall be deemed to have been made pursuant hereto. No other terms are acceptable. This P.O.,
including all specifications and drawings, shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties unless modified in writing by City.
CITY'S PROPERTY: Seller agrees that the information, tools, jigs, dies, or materials, and drawings, patterns, and specification supplied
or paid for by City shall be and remain City property and shall be held by Seller for City unless directed otherwise. Seller shall account
for such items and keep them protected, insured, and in good working conditions without expense to City.
DELIVERY: The terms of delivery are as stated on the reverse side hereof. The obligation of Seller to meet the delivery dates,
specifications, and quantities set forth herein is of the essence of this P.O. No boxinQ, packing, or cartage charge will be allowed unless
authorized by this P.O. Deliveries are to be made both in quantities and at times specified herein or, if not, such quantities and times
are specified pursuant to City's written instruction. Items not delivered may be canceled without penalty to City. Shipments in greater or
lesser quantity that ordered may be returned at Seller's expense unless written authorization is issued by City.
PRICES: The price which Seller charges in filling this P.O. shall not be higher than Seller's most recent quote or charge to City for such
materials, supJ)lies, services and/or installations unless City expressly agrees otherwise in writing. Notwithstanding the prices set forth
the P.O. City shall receive the benefit of any general reduction in the price of any item(s) listed herein which may be made by Seiter at
any time prior to the last delivery of goods or services covered by this P.O.
TERMINATION: City shall have the right to terminate this P.O. or any part thereof upon ten (10) days notice in writing to Seller.
(1) Without Cause City may terminate all or any part of this P.O. without cause. Any claim by Seller for damages due to
termination without cause must be submitted to City within thirty (30) days after effective date of termination.
(2) For Cause. lf Seller fails to make any delivery in accordance with the agreed delivery date, delivery schedule, or otherwise
fails to observe or comply with any of the other instructions, terms, conditions or warranties applicable to this P.O., City may, in addition
to any other right or remedy provided by this .P.O. or by law, terminate all or any part of this P.O. in writing without any liability of City
with respect to Seller at any time during the term of this P.O. In the event of termination for cause, City may purchase supplies or
services elsewhere on such terms or in such manner as City may deem appropriate and Seller shall be liable to City for any cost and
other expenses incurred by City, which is charged to City.
CHANGES: City shall have the right at any time by written notice via P.O. Change Order to Seller to make changes in the specifications,
the quantity of items called for, delivery schedules, and requirements covering testing, packaging, or destination. Any claim by Seller for
adjustment under this clause shall be deemed waived unless made in writing with then (10) days after receipt by Seller of notice of such
change. Price increases or extensions of tie for delivery shall not be binding on City unless evidenced by a P.O. Change Order issued
by City's Purchasing Manager.
INSPECTION: City shall have the right to in.spect and approve or reject any materials, supplies, services and/or installations upon arrival
of notice of completion prior to payment without regard to the manner of shipment, completion, or any shipping or price terms contained
in this P.O. All materials, supplies, services and/or installations must be furnished as specified.
(1) Defective, damaged, and nonconforming materials and/or supplies may be returned for credit or refund, at Seller's
expense. City may charge Seller for all expenses of unpacking, examining, repacking and reshipping of such materials and/or supplies.
(2) Defective, incorrect and nonconforming seiyices and/or installations may be returned for credit or refund, at Seller's
expense. All of the above notwithstanding prior payment by City
(3) Seller's obligations to wave defects that exist.
WARRANTY: Seller expressly warrants that all materials, supplies, services and/or installations covered by this P.O. shall:
(1) conform to the specifications, drawings, samples, or other descriptions specified by City or if none are so specified, to
Seller's standard specification or the standards of the ASTM or ANSI or other national standard organizations;
(2) be new and unless specified to the contrary on the face hereof, will be free from defects in material and workmanship and
will be free of all liens and encumbrances and will conform to any affirmation of facts made on the container or label;
(3) be adequately contained, packaged, marked, labeled and/or provided in compliance with all applicable federal and state
laws and regulations (including materials deemed hazardous);
(4) be performed within the rules and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (as amended);
(5) be produced or transferred or disposed of as required by federal and state laws and regulation under the conditions of the
Toxic Substances Control Act; the Hazardous Materials Control and Hazardous Waste Regulations; and other toxic laws and programs.
Seller further expressly agrees to protect, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its employees and agents for any loss, damage, fine,
liability, fee (including reas,onable charges and fees) or expense arising in connection with or resulting from Seller's failure to furnish
materials or supplies or perform services that conform with any warranty contained herein.
(6) have good marketable title.
GOVERNING LAW: This P.O. shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, INSURANCE: Seller certifies, by acceptance, that he/she is an independent contractor. Seller shall
protect, defend, and indemnify and hold City harmless against all damages, liability, claims, losses and expenses (including attorney's
fees) arising out of, or resulting in any way from Seller's negligence in providing the goods or services purchased hereunder or from any
act ·or omission of Seller, its agents, employees, or subcontractors, Seller shall maintain such public liability insurance, including
contractual liability, automobile and general public liability, (including non-owned automobile liability) Worker's Compensation, and
employer's liability insurance as well adequately protect City against such damage, liabilities, claims, losses, and expenses (including
attorneys= fees). Seller agrees to submit certificates of insurance, evidencing its insurance coverage when requested by City.
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
PAGE 8 OF 14
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE: ____ _
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION II -INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE: By acceptance of this P.O., Seller certifies it is in compliance with the Equal Opportunity Clause
required by Executive Order 11246, as amended, and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended, including Affirmative Action
Compliance Programs for Veterans; Handicapped; and Minority Business, and other equal opportunity programs.
FORCE MAJEURE: City may delay delivery or acceptance occasioned by causes beyond its control. Seller shall hold such materials,
supplies, services and or installations at the direction of City and shall deliver them when the cause affecting the delay has been
removed. City shall be responsible only for Sellers= direct additional costs in holding the goods or delaying performance of this P.O.
and City's request. Seller shall also be excused if delivery is delayed by unforeseen events beyond its reasonable control, provided
Seller notifies City as soon as they occur. City rilay cancel this P.O. if such delay exceeds thirty (30) days form the original delivery
date. Seller shall use its best efforts to grant preference to this P.O. over those of other customers, which were placed after this P.O.
AUTHORITY OF AGENT OR FACTOR: Seller represents that, whenever it executes this P .0. on behalf of a third party as an agent or
factor, it shall disclose the existence of the agency or factor relationship to City. Seller shall be deemed to have the legal authority to
enter into this P.O. with City ·an behalf of the third party.
INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: In the event of a conflict between the terms of this P.O. and the attached
specification with respect to any obligation of Seller, the provision which impose the greater obligations upon Seller shall prevail.
CITY OF PALO AL TO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
PAGE 9OF14
J
BIDDER (COMPANY): ~~-----------------DATE: ____ _
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION Ill -SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES
City Council/City Manager
City of Palo Alto
Name of Company ____________ _
Palo Alto, California
In response to this Request for Quotation (RFQ), the undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties
interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein; that this Bid is made without collusion with any other person,
firm or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the speci'fications herein referred to; and the Bidder proposes
and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, that the Bidder will contraet with the City of Palo Alto (City), to provide all necessary
materials, and furnish the specified requirements in this RFQ, in the manner herein prescribed and at the prices stated in
the Bid.
No charges of any kind will be allowed unless specifically made part of your quotation and are specified in your response.
The City reserves the right to reject any or all quotations and to select quotations on an item-by-item basis.
Project Title: Sand, Rock and Asphalt for Utilities Construction,
Request for Quotations
Number RFQ 154872
Quotation Due Date: 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Bid Schedule A: For Water, Gas, and Wastewater IWGWl FY 14/15
.
BID APPROX. UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS
ITEM QTY. APPROXIMATE ANNUAL USAGE
!PRICE INCLUDES SHIPPING AND TAXES)
A1 2,000 Ton Clean Sand, Salt-Free and Clay-Free (Felton*):
(*Utility Trench sand from Quail Hollow is acceptable)
Sand must be free of debris and free of all organic
materials, including seashells, and shall be of such
size that 90 percent to 100 percent will pass a No.4
sieve and not more than 5 percent will pass a No.200
sieve.
(Price per ton in words)
A2 3,000 Ton Class 2 Recycled or virgin Aggregate Base Rock:
(Price per ton in words)
A3 1,000 Ton Class 2 Permeable (Virgin only) -3/4" Crushed Rock:
(Price per ton in words)
A4 500 Ton 3/4" Crushed Drain Rock (D/R):
(Price per ton in words)
.
A5 335 Ton 1 1 /2" Crushed Drain Rock (D/R):
(Price per ton in words)
UNIT
PRICE
$
$
$
$
$
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 1210211 O
PAGE 10 OF 14
TOTAL ITEM
PRICE
$
$
$
$
$
BIDDER (COMPANY): =,-----,--------,-------------DATE:-----
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION Ill -SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES
BID APPROX. UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT
ITEM QTY. APPROXIMATE ANNUAL USAGE PRICE
!PRICE INCLUDES SHIPPING AND TAXES)
A6 500 Ton Cutback Asphalt, 3/8" Cold/Mix (45CLDMIX): $
(Price per ton in words)
Bid Schedule Total (items A1 through A6, with all applicable taxes included) $
(Total Price in words)
Upon Renewal as per terms and conditions for A: For Water, Gas, and
Wastewater (WGWl FY 14/15. If no price increase is to apply, enter "0."
Escalation Rate for YEAR 2 7/1/15 to 6/30/2016
(if any):
(Blank equals zero)
Escalation Rate for YEAR 3 7/1/16 to 6/30/2017
(if any):
(Blank equals zero)
Bid Schedule B: For Community Services Department. Parks Division FY 14/15
BID APPROX. UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT
ITEM QTY. APPROXIMATE ANNUAL USAGE PRICE
(PRICE INCLUDES SHIPPING AND TAXES)
B1 300 Ton Baseball Infield Mix $
Mix shall be 70% red lava cinders, 1/8" fines mixed
with 30% wilder clay. There shall be no substitute for
wilder clay
(Price per ton in words)
B2 800 Cubic Topdressing mix-A $
Yard
Mix shall be 40% sand, 20% redwood nitrified
sawdust, and 40% loam. Mix must be free/screened
of rocks, trash, clumps, or other large debris.
(Price per cubic yard in words)
B3 800 Cubic Topdressing mix - B $
Yard
Mix shall be 70% TD-320 kiln dried sand, 30%
organic compost,(1/4" minus). Mix must be
free/screened of rocks, trash, clumps, or other laroe
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
PAGE 11OF14
TOTAL ITEM
PRICE
$
TOTAL ITEM
PRICE
$
$
$
BIDDER (COMPANY): __________________ DATE: ____ _
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION 111-SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES
BID APPROX. UNIT
ITEM QTY.
84 300 Ton
85 600 Cubic
Yard
86 400 Cubic
Yard
87 1,000 Ton
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT
APPROXIMATE ANNUAL USAGE PRICE
IPRICE INCLUDES SHIPPING AND TAXES)
debris.
(Price per cubic yard in words)
Decomposed Granite: Stabilized California Gold $
Fines.
!Price oer ton in words)
Redwood Nitrified Sawdust $
(Price per cubic yard in words)
Organic Compost (1/4" minus) Mix must be $
free/screened of rocks, trash, clumps, or other large
debris.
I Price oer cubic vard in words)
Greens Topdress GB Sand
% Sand 98.2
%Silt (.05-.002 mm) <1.3
% Clay (<.002 mm) <1.0
% Retained on USGA mm IUS mesh)
Gravel 2.0 (10) 0.6
Very course sand 1.0 (18) 3.4
Course Sand 0.5 (35) 20.7
Medium sand 0.25 (60) 49.1
Fine sand 0.15 (100) 19.6
Very fine sand 0 05 (270) 5.0
All sand shall be sub-angular with a medium
sphericity
(Price ner ton in words)
PAGE 12OF14
TOTAL ITEM
PRICE
$
$
$
BIDDER (COMPANY): =.,-----------c---,...------------DATE:-----(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
SECTION 111-SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES
BID APPROX. UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT
ITEM QTY. APPROXIMATE ANNUAL USAGE PRICE
<PRICE INCLUDES SHIPPING AND TAXES\
Bid Schedule Total (items B1 through B7, with all applicable taxes included) $
(Total Price in words)
UQon Renewal as gerterms and conditions for B: For Parks FY 14/15
If no price increase is to apply, enter "O."
Escalation Rate for YEAR 2 7/1/15 to 6/30/2016
(if any):
(Blank equals zero)
Escalation Rate for YEAR 3 7/1/16 to 6/30/2017
(if any):
(Blank equals zero)
TOTAL SCHEDULE A {Includes all three years)-------------
TOTAL SCHEDULE B (Includes all three years)-------------
GRAND TOTAL. ________________ _
Optional Bid Items -the haul away should take place after the delivery of new material.
BID APPROX. UNIT
ITEM QTY.
01 1,500 Ton
02 1,500 Ton
03 2,000 Ton
04 2,000 Ton
CITY OF PALO ALTO 154872
Rev. 12/02/10
DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT
(PRICE IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL APPLICABLE TAXES) . PRICE
Clean concrete rubble $
(Price per ton in words)
Clean asphalt grindings $
(Price per ton in words)
Mixed concrete and asphalt rubble $
(Price per ton in words)
Clean fill dirt $
(Price per ton in words)
PAGE 13 OF 14
TOTAL ITEM
PRICE
TOTAL ITEM
PRICE
$
$
$
$
BIDDER (COMPANY): -=:-,------,-----,--------------DATE: ____ _
(Fill in name on each page) (Date On Each Page)
SECTION Ill -SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES
BID APPROX. UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT TOTAL ITEM
ITEM QTY. (PRICE IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL APPLICABLE TAXES) PRICE PRICE
05 3000 Ton Mixed dirt and concrete/asphalt rubble $ $
'
(Price per ton in words)
06 3000 Ton Yard waste and brush material $ $
(Price per ton in words)
"Prices quoted above shall remain firm for the initial period and shall include all applicable taxes,
regulatory fees, environmental fees, dead head fees, fuel charges and all transportation and delivery
charges as necessary to perform the requirements of this RFQ, Pricing shall also include an
allowance for fuel price increase during the c6ntract period. Requests for price adjustments during
the contract period will not be allowed. In the event that your quotation includes a provision for price
adjustments during the two additional contract extensions; the increase shall also include and
allowance for any fuel surcharge during the additional contract periods."
NET TERMS OF SALE: --------
Minimum number of hours' notice required for delivery (state number of hours):----------
Quantities
Material quantities as specified are approximate and no guarantee is implied that the exact amount will be
purchased. Orders will be placed during the contract period on an as needed basis.
Lowest Responsible Bidder
The lowest bid shall be the lowest bid price on the Total of the Bid Schedule. Reference Section I, Contract
Award for additional lowest responsible bidder information.
DELIVERY: Delivery terms shall be F.O.B. Destination, Freight Prepaid in accordance with the
attached terms and conditions.
Deliverv point:
City of Palo Alto
Municipal Service Center
3201 E. Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Signature(s) must be the same signature(s) as appear(s) in Part II, Bidder Information, of this RFQ:
Firm:
Signature:
Name:
(Print or type name}
CITY OF PALO AL TO. 154872
Rev. 12/02/1 O
PAGE 14 OF 14
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5111)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/10/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of Blanket P.O. for Delivery and Off Haul of
Construction Materials for Utl, PWKS & ASD
Title: Request for Approval of a Blanket Purchase Order with TMT Enterprises
in an Amount Not to Exceed of $2,407,850 to be the Primary Supplier of New
Construction Materials and Haul Away of Construction Debris from the
Municipal Service Center to Off-Site Recycling and Disposal for the Utilities,
Community Services and Public Works Department for a Three Year Period
from October 27, 2014 through October 26, 2017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1)Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a
blanket purchase order with TMT Enterprises, Inc. for delivery of new
construction materials and haul away of construction debris in the amount
not to exceed $779,013 for the first year;and
2)Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to authorize a
blanket purchase order for two additional years in the amount not to
exceed $802,383 for the second year, and $826,454 for the third year
based on the proposer’s escalation rate of 3% annually. The total amount
not to exceed for the term of the three year blanket purchase order is
$2,407,850.
Background
The City has three different departments using the various products that were
solicited for in RFQ #154872. The Utilities Department uses construction materials
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto Page 2
such as sand, gravel and asphalt cold mix for back fill and restoration of trenches
while Parks Department purchase top soil, organic compost and infield mix for
landscaping and restoration of playgrounds. The blanket purchase order will also
be used by Public Works and Utilities departments for off hauling construction
debris such as used asphalt, concrete and dirt to a landfill or a recycling center for
proper disposal or reuse.
Discussion
Due to a high volume of construction and maintenance activities that occur
continually throughout the year, it is vital that the City have a reliable supplier of
sand, rock and gravel products year-round. Of equal importance is the ability to
remove unwanted materials for city premises in a timely manner. Doing so frees
up valuable space that is used to store construction material for operational
needs, and also to ensure that adequate materials are on-hand in the event of an
emergency that would require construction work to take place.
Bidding and Selection Process
A Request for Quotation (RFQ) was sent to select vendors and to builder
exchanges on August 6, 2014. Bids were received from six qualified vendors on
August 26, 2014. Only two suppliers bid on all of the requirements of the
solicitation, and TMT Enterprises was determined to be the lowest responsible
bidder.
As shown in Table 1 below, only two suppliers bid on all of the items that were
listed in the bid package.
Table 1
RFQ #154872 Results
Company
Bidding
Bid for
Schedule A
(For Utilities
Department)
Bid for
Schedule B
(For Parks
Department)
Haul-Away
Costs
(Utilities
and Public
Works)
Total Cost
TMT
Enterprises
$188,062.45 $207,951.00 $383,000.00 $779,013.45
LS Trucking $234,240.00 $391,930.00 $586,250.00 $1,212,420.00
City of Palo Alto Page 3
E.J. Pires
Trucking
156,555.55 No Bid $564,120.00 $720,675.55
Quikrete
California
$65,000 (no bid
on multiple
items)
No Bid No Bid $65,000
Lyngso $164,963.25
(no bid on one
item)
$85,065.00
(no bid on
multiple
items)
No Bid $250,028.25
Graniterock $222,461.90 $40,880.00
(bid on one
item only)
No Bid $263,341.90
Staff is recommending that Council approve and authorize the blanket purchase
order for delivery and off haul of construction material to TMT Enterprises. After
evaluation of all the bids, staff chose TMT based on the contractor’s ability to
deliver all raw materials and haul away the construction debris at the lowest cost.
TMT Enterprises has been the City’s supplier of raw construction materials for
several years, and has a proven track record of delivering a quality product in a
timely manner. TMT also has diligently worked with the on-site City staff to
coordinate delivery and pick up time on the same trip, thus shortening the
storage time of construction debris at City facilities.
Resource Impact
Funding for the purchase of material under this purchase order is available in the
FY 2015 Public Works, Utility, and Community Services Department’s operating
and Infrastructure Reserve budget. Funding for contract years two and three are
contingent upon annual appropriation of funds.
Policy Implications
Authorization of the blanket order does not represent any change to the existing
policy.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Environmental Review
The blanket order being supplied is in conformance with all applicable emissions
laws and regulations. This purchase is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act under the CEQA guidelines (Sections 15061 and
15301(c)).
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 1 OF 11
July 14, 2016
The City of Palo Alto, Purchasing and Contract Administration, on behalf of the Utilities Department, WGW
Division, requests a quotation for:
PROJECT TITLE:
On-Call Off-Haul Services
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) NUMBER 164060
RFQ DUE DATE: TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016, 3:00 P.M.
Table of Contents:
SECTION I Cover Page Request for Quotation and Bidder Required Information (including submittal
instructions)*
SECTION II Insurance Requirements Purchase Order Terms and Conditions
SECTION III Specifications and Bidder’s Bid Table*
*Complete, sign and submit forms as instructed in Planet Bids. Failure to complete and/or submitthese forms may cause rejection of your Bid.
FOR BID DOCUMENTS: PLANET BIDS
Documents will not be accepted after 3:00 P.M., Tuesday, July 26, 2016
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 2 OF 11
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION I – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION
July 14, 2016
In response to this Request for Quotation (RFQ), the undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein; that this Bid is made without collusion with any other person,
firm or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the specifications herein referred to; and the Bidder proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, that the Bidder will contract with the City of Palo Alto (City), to provide all necessary materials, and furnish the specified requirements in this RFQ, in the manner herein prescribed and at the prices stated in
the Bid. Prevailing wages apply to these services. Project Title
“OFF-HAUL SERVICES” City of Palo Alto Request for Quotation (RFQ) number: 164060
Quotation Due Date
Quotation acceptance period closes (your quotation must be received by Planet Bids) 3:00 p.m., Tuesday July 26, 2016. Buyer/Contracts Administrator Project Manager
Carolynn Bissett Althea Carter Telephone Number: (650)329-2460 Telephone Number: (650) 496-5976
Specifications The specifications or scope of work included have been prepared to describe the standard quality,
performance, and other characteristics needed to meet city requirements. The city will accept alternate proposals of a designed material, product, thing, service, “or equal”, and will determine if such alternate
proposals are satisfactory in meeting a mandatory requirement or specification and if the proposed alternate meets the intent of the original mandatory requirement.
Term of Agreement
City reserves the right to award multiple Blanket Purchase Orders to provide for the purchase and delivery of On-Call Off-Haul Services as required by the Utilities Department, Water-Gas-Wastewater Division. A City of
Palo Alto representative will issue work orders for services on an as-requested and authorized basis. Quantities specified in the Bidder Bid Pages are approximate and total of the bid will be used for the purpose
of selecting the lowest responsible bidder. The term of the pricing agreement shall be effective on the date of award and shall expire June 30, 2017, and may be extended by City for up to an additional two (2) 12-
month periods for a maximum of 36 months, subject to:
Firm price for the initial term of the pricing agreement; City of Palo Alto City Council’s annual approval of each current year’s budget and appropriation of funds;
The Vendor’s compliance with the terms and conditions as established by this RFQ;
The Vendor’s satisfactory performance, and timely compliance with the requirements of this RFQ; and
Firm pricing for the two optional twelve (12) month term extensions, as set forth herein. (Please check Bid Pages for price escalation clause for 2nd and 3rd year.)
Note: If a price increase is to apply to the City’s optional contract extensions specify such in the space provided on each bid schedule.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, City may terminate the agreement, with or without cause, by providing ten
(10) days written notice.
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 3 OF 11
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION I – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Blanket Purchase Order Award The blanket purchase order, if awarded, shall be awarded to the three lowest responsive and responsible
bidders. The lowest bids shall be the lowest total of the bid prices quoted on the Bid Table. This total is being used for the purpose of determining the lowest bid. City retains to award blanket purchase orders
(BPOs) to multiple contractors. City will award a not-to-exceed amount based on the needs of the department.
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.440, a responsible bidder is a bidder determined by the
awarding authority:
(1) To have the ability, capacity, experience and skill to perform the work, or provide the goods and/or services in accordance with the bid specifications;
(2) To have the ability to perform the contract within the time specified; (3) To have the equipment, facilities and resources of such capacity and location and location to enable
the bidder to perform the contract; (4) To have the ability to provide, as required, future maintenance, repair, parts and service for the use
of goods purchased; (5) To have a record of satisfactory or better performance under prior contracts with the city or others;
and (6) To have complied with applicable laws, regulations, policies (including city council policies),
guidelines and orders governing prior or existing contracts performed by the bidder.
F.O.B. Point
If applicable, prices shall be F.O.B. Palo Alto, 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto. Freight Prepaid. Price shall include all applicable transportation and delivery charges. . Submittal of Documents
In order to submit bids to the City of Palo Alto you must comply with the following:
• The Bidder shall email one (1) Adobe PDF type file of its quote to Planet Bids.
All proposals shall be submitted to: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569
Proposals must be received no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 26, 2016. All proposals received after that time will be returned to the Proposer deemed as disqualified.
Complete, sign and submit the RFQ/Bidder Information, Nondiscrimination Certification, and Bidder Bid Pages with your quotation. Failure to complete and/or submit these forms may cause rejection of your quotation. All quotations must be
submitted on these forms. Delivery Requirements Services are required to be delivered within 48 hours requested and shall be of the essence; therefore, the quote or bid shall include the delivery time. In some instances, the City may specify only a maximum number of days for delivery of services and will use this delivery date as part the criteria to determine the award. The purchase order to be awarded is
for a specific quantity purchased at one time. Decision to Reject The City reserves the right to reject any or all quotations, to waive any informalities contained therein, and to select
quotations on an item-by-item basis. The City reserves the right to award more than one contract from this solicitation. No quotation may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days following the date of bid opening. The terms and conditions (the provisions) that shall govern any resulting agreement between City and the Lowest Responsible Bidder are contained in this RFQ. No charges of any kind will be allowed unless specifically made part of your quotation and are specified in your response.
Exceptions
To the specifications or requirements issued must be itemized and justified in writing and included with proposals or quotations submitted.
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 4 OF 11
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION I – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Taxes Quotations shall include all applicable federal, state and local taxes, import duties, commissions or other
charges.
Bidder Information
Provide the information requested below or indicate “not applicable”, if appropriate:
A. Name and Address of Bidder (Company) – also provide “Remit To” address if different:
Telephone Number: Facsimile number:
E-Mail: Website::
B. Bidder is a: □ California Corporation
□ Corporation organized under the laws of the State of ,
with head offices located at ,
and offices in California at . .
□ Limited Liability Company
List name of managing member(s):
□ Sole Proprietorship proprietor. □ Partnership
□ Limited Liability Partnership
List names of general partners; state which partner or partners are managing partner(s)
□ Other (attach Addendum with explanatory details) C. Have you (or your firm) previously worked for the City of Palo Alto? Yes, or No (if “Yes”, list
above, or if necessary, provide information on additional sheets). D. Contractors license, number/type (if required):
E. The Bidder represents that it has not retained a person to solicit or secure a City contract (upon an
agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee) except for retention of bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business.
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 5 OF 11
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION I – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION
F. During the Quotation process there may be changes to the Quotation documents, which would require
an issuance of an addendum or addenda. City disclaims any and all liability for loss, or damage to any Bidder who does not receive any addendum issued by City in connection with this RFQ. Any Bidder in submitting a Quotation is deemed to waive any and all claims and demands Bidder may have against
City on account of the failure of delivery of any such addendum to Bidder. Any and all addenda issued by City shall be deemed included in this RFQ, and the provisions and instructions therein contained shall be incorporated to any Quotation submitted by Bidder.
To assure that all Bidders have received each addendum, the following acknowledgment and sign-off is required. Failure to acknowledge receipt of addendum/addenda may be considered an irregularity in
the Bid: Addendum number(s) received: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9
Or, No Addendum/Addenda Were Received (check and initial).
G. The firm and individuals listed below, certify that: they do not and in the performance of this
contract they will not discriminate in employment of any person because of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person; and further certify that they are in compliance with all Federal, State and local directives and executive orders regarding
nondiscrimination in employment
Signature must be the same signature as appears in Bidder Bid Pages:
Officer*
(Signature)
(Printed name of signatory)
(Title of signatory)
Or,
The undersigned certifies that the Bidder is not a corporation, and is not subject to the requirements of California Corporations code, and hereby agrees to, and accepts the terms and conditions of this RFQ.
(Signature)
(Printed name of signatory)
(Title of signatory)
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 6 OF 11
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
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
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES
$1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND
EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY
AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 7 OF 11
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:
(Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page)
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT
INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL
PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303.
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:
(Fill in name on each page) SECTION III – SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES (Date on Each Page)
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 8 OF 11
Bidder’s Response and Acceptance
In response to this Request for Quotations (RFQ), the undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein; that this Bid is made without collusion with any other person, firm or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the specifications herein referred to; and the Bidder proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, that the Bidder will contract with the City of Palo Alto (City), to provide all necessary materials, and furnish the specified requirements in this RFQ, in the manner herein prescribed and at the prices stated. Note: Prevailing Wages apply to these services. Project Title: Off-haul Services Request for Quotations (RFQ) number 164060
Quotation Due Date: 3:00 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016
Bid Schedule for Haul Away of Construction Material Debris
BID ITE
M
APPRO X
QTY
UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS (PRICE IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL APPLICABLE
TAXES)
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL ITEM
PRICE
01 1,500 Ton Clean concrete rubble
(Price per ton in words)
$ $
02 1,500 Ton Clean asphalt grindings
(Price per ton in words)
$ $
03 1,000 Ton Mixed concrete and asphalt rubble
(Price per ton in words)
$ $
04 1,000 Ton Clean fill dirt
(Price per ton in words)
$ $
05 5,000 Ton Mixed dirt and concrete/asphalt rubble
(Price per ton in words)
$ $
06 3,000 Ton Yard waste and brush material
(Price per ton in words)
$ $
GRAND TOTAL $
Upon renewal as per terms and conditions (if no price increase is to apply, enter “0”).
Escalation Rate for YEAR 2 for the period 7/1/17 to 6/30/18 (if any):
(Blank equals zero)
Escalation Rate for YEAR 3 for the period 7/1/18 to 6/30/19 (if any):
(Blank equals zero)
BIDDER (COMPANY): DATE:
(Fill in name on each page) SECTION III – SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES (Date on Each Page)
CITY OF PALO ALTO 164060 Rev. 12/02/10 PAGE 9 OF 11
Prices quoted above shall remain firm for the initial period and shall include all applicable taxes, regulatory fees, environmental fees, dead head fees, fuel charges and all transportation and delivery charges as
necessary to perform the requirements of this RFQ. Pricing shall also include an allowance for fuel price increase during the contract period. Requests for price adjustments during the contract period will not be allowed. In the event that your quotation includes a provision for price adjustments during the contract extensions; the increase shall also include an allowance for any fuel surcharge during the additional contract
periods.
Material quantities are approximate and no guarantee is implied that the exact amount will be off-hauled per visit. Requests for service will be placed during the contract period on an as needed basis.
LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER:
The lowest bids shall be the lowest grand total of the bid prices for all three years. This grand total is being
used for the purpose of determining the lowest responsible bidders.
QUANTITIES: Material quantities as specified are approximate and no guarantee is implied that the exact
amount will be purchased.
DELIVERY: Delivery terms shall be F.O.B. Destination, Freight Prepaid in accordance with the attached terms and conditions. Delivery of all off-haul services and accessories shall take place no later than 2 days
after the order for services is placed.
PAYMENT TERMS _ _ DELIVERY ARO: _
Signature must be the same as signature(s) in Section I – Request for Quotation and Bidder Required Information.
Signature:
_ _ (Signature)
_ _ (Print name)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
CITY OF PALO ALTO – SVS Rev. 09/28/2012
ACCEPTANCE. THIS AGREEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE CITY’S STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREOF WHICH INCLUDES ANY EXHIBITS REFERENCED.
GOVERNING LAW. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE SENSE
THAT THE RELATION OF MASTER AND SERVANT EXISTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND UNDERSIGNED. AT ALL TIMES CONTRACTOR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BIND CITY TO ANY CONTRACTS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS. IN EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT, CONTRACTOR
CERTIFIES THAT NO ONE WHO HAS OR WILL HAVE ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF CITY.
INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO PROVIDE THE INSURANCE SPECIFIED IN THE “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS” FORM ISSUED HEREWITH. IN THE EVENT SELLER IS UNABLE TO SECURE A POLICY
ENDORSEMENT NAMING THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER ANY COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY OR COMPREHENSIVE AUTOMOBILE POLICY OR POLICIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL AT A MINIMUM, AND ONLY WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CITY’S RISK MANAGER OR DESIGNEE, CAUSE EACH SUCH INSURANCE
POLICY OBTAINED BY IT TO CONTAIN AN ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING THAT THE INSURER WAIVES ALL RIGHT OF RECOVERY BY WAY OF SUBROGATION AGAINST CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DAMAGE, CLAIM, LIABILITY PERSONAL INJURY, OR WRONGFUL DEATH COVERED BY ANY SUCH POLICY. EACH SUCH POLICY OBTAINED BY CONTRACTOR SHALL
CONTAIN AN ENDORSEMENT REQUIRING THIRTY (30) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE INSURER TO CITY BEFORE CANCELLATION OR CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE, SCOPE OR AMOUNT OF SUCH POLICY.
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CERTIFICATES OF SUCH POLICIES OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE SATISFACTORY TO CITY’S RISK MANAGER, TOGETHER WITH EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, TO CITY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND ON
RENEWAL OF THE POLICY, OR POLICIES, NOT LATER THAN TWENTY (20) DAYS BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THE TERMS OF ANY SUCH POLICY.
TERMINATION. THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE TERMINATED BY CITY UPON TEN (10) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR. MONIES
THEN OWING BASED UPON WORK SATISFACTORILY ACCOMPLISHED SHALL BE PAID TO CONTRACTOR.
CHANGES. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BE ASSIGNED OR TRANSFERRED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CITY. NO
CHANGES OR VARIATIONS OF ANY KIND ARE AUTHORIZED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CITY’S PURCHASING MANAGER.
AUDITS. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO PERMIT CITY TO AUDIT, AT ANY REASONABLE TIME DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT AND FOR THREE (3) YEARS THEREAFTER, CONTRACTOR’S RECORDS PERTAINING TO MATTERS COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT. CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO MAINTAIN SUCH RECORDS FOR
AT LEAST THREE (3) YEARS AFTER THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. 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. CITY’S PROPERTY. TITLE TO CITY’S PROPERTY FURNISHED TO CONTRACTOR SHALL REMAIN IN THE CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ALTER OR USE PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSE, OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED BY CITY, OR FOR ANY OTHER PERSON WITHOUT THE PRIOR
PRESERVE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN SUCH PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE, ALL AT CONTRACTOR’S EXPENSE.
NON-DISCRIMINATION. NO DISCRIMINATION SHALL BE MADE IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT BECAUSE OF THE
RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, ANCESTRY, RELIGION, OR SEX OF SUCH PERSON. WARRANTY. CONTRACTOR EXPRESSLY WARRANTS THAT ALL MATERIALS AND SERVICES COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, INSTRUCTIONS,
OR OTHER DESCRIPTIONS UPON WHICH THIS AGREEMENT IS BASED, SHALL BE FIT AND SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED, OF GOOD MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP AND FREE FROM DEFECT AND THAT
MATERIALS AND SERVICE OF CONTRACTOR’S DESIGN WILL BE FREE FROM DEFECT IN DESIGN, INSPECTION, TEST, ACCEPTANCE, PAYMENT OR USE OF THE GOODS FURNISHED HEREUNDER SHALL NOT AFFECT THE CONTRACTOR’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS WARRANTY, AND SUCH WARRANTIES SHALL SURVIVE INSPECTION, TEST ACCEPTANCE AND
USE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO REPLACE, RESTORE, OR CORRECT DEFECTS OF ANY MATERIALS OR SERVICES NOT CONFORMING TO THE FOREGOING WARRANTY PROMPTLY, WITHOUT EXPENSE TO CITY, WHEN NOTIFIED OF SUCH NONCONFORMITY BY CITY. IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE BY CONTRACTOR TO CORRECT DEFECTS IN OR REPLACE NONCONFORMING GOOD OR SERVICES PROMPTLY. CITY, AFTER
REASONABLE NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR, MAY MAKE SUCH CORRECTIONS OR REPLACE SUCH MATERIALS OR SERVICES AND CHARGE CONTRACTOR FOR THE COST INCURRED BY THE CITY
THEREBY. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, BY EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT, CERTIFIES THAT IT IS AWARE OF THE PROVISION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHICH REQUIRE EVERY
EMPLOYER TO BE INSURED AGAINST LIABILITY FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION OR TO UNDERTAKE SELF-INSURANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF THAT CODE, AND CERTIFIES
THAT IT WILL COMPLY WITH SUCH PROVISIONS BEFORE COMMENCING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK OF THIS AGREEMENT.
PRICE TERMS. (a) EXTRA CHARGES, INVOICES AND PAYMENT. NO EXTRA CHARGES OF ANY KIND WILL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
AGREED TO IN WRITING BY CITY.; ALL STATE AND FEDERAL EXCISE, SALES, AND USE TAXES SHALL BE STATED SEPARATELY ON THE INVOICES. (b) TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. ANY TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONTRACTOR IS ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT SHALL BE ADDED TO CONTRACTOR’S’ INVOICE AS A SEPARATE ITEM, WITH THE RECEIPTED FREIGHT BILL ATTACHED THERETO.
(c) CONTRACTOR WARRANTS THAT THE PRICES FOR MATERIALS OR SERVICES SOLD TO CITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ARE NOT LESS FAVORABLE THAN THOSE CURRENTLY EXTENDED TO ANY OTHER CUSTOMERS OF THE SAME OR LIKE ARTICLES OR SERVICES IN EQUAL OR LESS QUANTITIES. IN EVENT CONTRACTOR REDUCES ITS
PRICE FOR SUCH MATERIALS OR SERVICES DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT, CONTRACTOR AGREES TO REDUCE THE PRICES OR RATES HEREOF CORRESPONDINGLY.
SCHEDULES OR DELIVERY. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFIC
SCHEDULE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OR AGREED UPON HEREIN WITHOUT DELAY AND WITHOUT ANTICIPATING CITY’S REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR ALSO AGREES NOT TO MAKE MATERIAL COMMITMENTS OR SCHEDULING ARRANGEMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OR IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME
NECESSARY TO MEET THE SCHEDULE(S) OF THIS AGREEMENT, IF ANY.
WRITTEN CONSENT OF CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL STORE, PROTECT,
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
CITY OF PALO ALTO – SVS Rev. 09/28/2012
TRANSPORTATION, PACKAGING & LABELING. ALL MATERIALS OR SERVICES ARE TO BE PROVIDED (a) F.O.B. PALO ALTO UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED; (b) WITH A PACKING LIST ENCLOSED IN
CARTONS, WHICH INDICATE THE AGREEMENT NUMBER, EXACT QUANTITY AND DESCRIPTIONS, CONCERNING ANY MATERIAL SHIPMENTS; (c) AND COMPLY WITH CURRENT PACKAGING AND
LABELING REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY D.O.T.
EVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING REQUIREMENTS. Contractor agrees to comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Requirements.
(1) Hazardous Waste: Contractor shall take-back all spent or otherwise discarded hazardous products sold
to the City by the Contractor if the spent or discarded products are classified as hazardous or universal wastes by State or Federal regulations. Contractor shall provide convenient collection and recycling services (or disposal services if recycling
technology is unavailable) for all universal wastes, which originate from the Vendor. Hazardous waste manifests or bills of lading must be provided to City staff upon request. Recycling and reuse of hazardous wastes must occur within the United States. Universal waste lists and information are available www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/UniversalWaste/. A hazardous waste list is available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LEA/Training/wasteclass/yep.htm. Additional information can be obtained by contacting the City of Palo Alto Hazardous Waste Department at (650) 496-6980.
(2) Zero Waste: Contractor shall comply with the waste reduction, reuse and recycling requirements
of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily comply with these requirements, the City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both
extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Therefore, the Contractor agrees that in addition to all other damages to which the City may be entitled, in the event Contractor fails to comply with the below requirements Contractor shall pay City as
liquidated damages the amounts specified below. The liquidated damage amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer as a result of such non-compliance.
• Contractors shall adhere to the standard that all printed materials provided to
the City that are generated from a personal computer and printer including, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials shall be double-sided, printed on a minimum of 50% post-consumer content paper or greater unless otherwise approved by the City’s Environmental Services
Division (650) 329-2117. Materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 50% post-consumer material or greater and printed with vegetable based inks. Liquidated damages of $30 per document will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement.
• All secondary and shipping (tertiary) packaging generated shall first be minimized/reduced to the maximum extent feasible while protecting the product shipped. • All paper packaging must be Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified.
• Expanded plastics (e.g., foam or cushion blocks, trays, packing “peanuts”), such as but not limited to polystyrene (aka Styrofoam™), polypropylene, or polyurethane shall not be used as secondary or tertiary/shipping packaging. Liquidated damages of $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $235 or less will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement.
• All secondary and shipping packaging shall be recyclable in the City’s recycling program. A complete list of items accepted for recycling are found at www.zerowastepaloalto.org or by calling (650) 496-5910. If any portion is received that does not meet this requirement, liquidated damages of $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $235 or less will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement. • If approved by the City’s Environmental Services Division and Administrative Services Department, a packaging takeback program may be proposed by the vendor or manufacturer for City use if the service is provided at no additional cost to the City. Staff will review proposed takeback programs to ensure the program meets City needs.
• If approved by the City’s Environmental Services Division, a packaging requirement may be waived if no other viable alternative exists and not using the current packaging presents the likelihood of product damage.
• Reusable/returnable pallets shall be used and taken back by the Contractor, at no additional cost to the City. Contractor shall provide documentation upon request ensuring reuse of
pallets and/or recycling of broken pallets. Liquidated damages of $262 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $262 or less will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement.
(3) Energy and Water Efficiency: Contractor shall provide products with an ENERGY STAR, Water Sense or State of California standard rating, whichever is more
efficient, when ratings exist for those products. A life cycle cost analysis shall be provided to the City upon request and shall at minimum include: first cost, operating costs, maintenance costs, and disposal costs.
Contacts for additional information about City of Palo Alto Hazardous Waste, Zero Waste and Utilities programs:
Hazardous Waste Program (Public Works) (650) 496-6980 Zero Waste Program (Public Works) (650) 496-5910 Watershed Protection (650) 329-2117 Energy Efficiency (650) 496-2244
(4) Liquidated Damages: Contractor agrees that failure to comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Requirements will result in
Liquidated Damages, according to the table marked Liquidated Damages on page 3 of this P.O.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH EVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING REQUIREMENTS, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: The following table lists the events that constitute breaches of the Agreement’s standard of performance warranting the imposition of liquidated damages; the acceptable performance level, and the amount of liquidated damages for failure to meet the contractually required standards of performance.
Event of Non-Performance Acceptable Performance Level (Allowed events per Fiscal Year)
Liquidated Damage Amount
Recycled Paper Use Failure to use 50% recycled content paper 1 $30 per each document
Recyclable Packaging Materials Failure of Contractor to Use secondary and shipping packaging that is recyclable in the City’s recycling program.
1 $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $250 or less will
be incurred if this is not adhered to.
Expanded Foam Plastics Unapproved use of expanded foam plastics for secondary or shipping
packaging 0 $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined
product and shipping cost is $235 or less
Pallet Use Failure of Contractor to take-back and reuse pallets, recycling only
broken pallets, at no additional cost to the City.
1 $262 or a minimum of $50 if the combined
product and shipping cost is $2 or less
CITY OF PALO ALTO – SVS Rev. 09/28/2012
CITY OF PALO ALTO
SPECIFICATIONS FOR
HAUL AWAY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL DEBRIS
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Request for Quotation (RFQ) is to select a qualified firm to haul away construction
material debris resulting from utility and public works construction activities.
BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto owns and operates all of its utilities and serves over 23,000 customers. The Utilities
Operations Water, Gas, Wastewater Department manages maintenance and operation of gas and water distribution systems and the wastewater collection system.
The City of Palo Alto’s Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance, repair, replacement and construction of City streets and sidewalks. The responsibilities of the Public Works Department,
along with ongoing operation and maintenance in the Utilities operation, generates construction material
debris that must be picked up, hauled away and disposed of at an appropriate location.
SCOPE
The contractor shall furnish all labor and equipment necessary to pick up, haul away and dispose of construction material debris resulting from ongoing utilities and public works construction activities. The
pick-up location is City of Palo Alto Utilities, Municipal Services Center, 3201 E. Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303. As needed, the City will contact the Contractor Monday through Friday, during the hours of 7am and 12 pm, to request off-haul services. The Contractor will provide the off-haul service within
twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the request. The Contractor must comply with all State of California Department of Transportation rules and regulations for truckers, including truck route designations. A
City of Palo Alto employee will load the construction debris onto the off-haul vehicle. The construction
materials to be off-hauled may include clean concrete rubble, clean asphalt grindings, mixed concrete and asphalt rubble, clean fill dirt, mixed dirt and concrete/asphalt rubble and yard waste and brush
material. The contractor will provide the City with written documentation confirming the type of material
being hauled away. The Contractor will also provide the City with a copy of the scale ticket from the weight house at the dump site, including the tare weight and the weight of construction debris delivered
to the dump site for each load off-hauled. The Contractor shall begin off-hauling construction material debris after the contract has been awarded/approved by the City Council and a Notice to Proceed has been issued.
PREVAILING WAGES
Registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to perform public work is
required of all Contractors and subcontractors.
State of California DIR requires private construction contractors to pay prevailing wages to their workers
and requires the construction contractor to follow public works law when working on a project funded by a public entity. Prevailing wages are due, in most instances, if the project costs more than $1,000, and involves the following construction work: new construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair and
maintenance.
Public works contractor registration is required for all contractors who perform construction or construction-related work on public works projects. This work includes tasks such as onsite field
surveying, on/off refuse hauling, onsite soil/material testing and onsite building/construction inspecting. All these activities require companies to be registered with the DIR and pay prevailing wages. All workers employed on public works projects must be paid the prevailing wage determined by the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations according to the type of work and location.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT The City reserves the right to award more than one contract from this solicitation. The contract may be
awarded to up to three responsive and responsible bidders whose price is the lowest. A responsive
bidder is one who responds to all of the significant requirements in the solicitation and a responsible
bidder is one who is deemed to be capable of supplying the services requested.
The City intends to issue a Blanket Purchase Order to provide for the removal and disposal of construction materials for the Water, Gas and Wastewater utilities and Public Works department. A City
of Palo Alto representative will issue a Blanket Purchase Order for each department for the purchase of
services as requested and authorized. The City does not pay fuel surcharge fees or dead-head fees, and all pricing should be inclusive of these fees.
The term of the pricing agreement shall be effective on September 1, 2016 and shall expire June 30, 2019 subject to:
• Authorization by the City of Palo Alto City Council to enter into a contract for off-haul services
• Firm pricing for the initial term of the agreement
• City of Palo Alto City Council’s annual approval of each current year’s budget and appropriation
of funds
• The Vendor’s compliance with the terms and conditions as established by the RFQ
• The Vendor’s satisfactory performance and timely compliance with the requirements of the RFQ
• Firm pricing for the entire term of the contract
Note: If a price increase is to apply to the City’s optional contract extensions specify such in the
space provided on the bid schedule.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7424)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract Amendment and Budget Amendment for
Placeworks and Management Partners for Comp Plan Update
Title: Approval of Amendment 6 to Contract C08025506 with
Placeworks|DCE to Add $410,902 For a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$3,212,059 for the Comprehensive Plan Update and Amendment 1 to
Contract S16163548 with Management Partners to Add $120,000 For a Total
Not to Exceed Amount of $205,000 for Related Project Management Services
and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General Fund
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize City Manager or designee to execute:
1. Amendment No. 6 to contract C08025506 (Attachment A) with Placeworks|DCE,
increasing the amount by $410,902 for a total of $3,212,059 for work on the
Comprehensive Plan Update; and
2. Amendment No. 1 to contract S16163548 (Attachment B) with Management
Partners by $120,000 for a total of $205,000 for related Project Management
Assistance; and
3. Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the General Fund
by:
a. Increasing the Planning and Community Environment Department contract
services by $530,902; and,
b. Decreasing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve by $530,902.
The additional effort covered under the recommended contract amendments is necessary to
complete the analysis of EIR Scenario 6, as directed by the City Council, as well as other work
associated with the current project schedule (Attachment C).
Executive Summary
The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) guides land use and
development decisions in Palo Alto and contains the City’s official policies on land use and
community design, transportation, housing, natural environment, business and economics,
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and community services. Many sections of the plan are required by State law and the State
recommends that local jurisdictions update their plan every ten years. Palo Alto embarked
on an update of its Comprehensive Plan and contracted with the firm DCE (now known as
Placeworks) in 2008. Due to staffing issues, the department also contracted with
Management Partners in April 2016 to provide project management assistance and to help
support the Comp Plan Update Citizen Advisory Committee. Contract amendments are
needed for both firms to allow for the following:
Placeworks
1. Preparation of a Supplement to the Comp Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the analysis of a sixth planning scenario, including a fully-mitigated
Scenario 6. The analysis will include traffic/transportation and air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions impact analysis.
2. Preparation of a Fiscal Analysis for the sixth scenario. The analysis will document
findings on population, housing and employment growth envisioned under the
sixth scenario.
3. Extended staff support for the activities of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
and various subcommittees which will provide suggestions to the City Council
during the Comprehensive Plan update, including drafting staff reports, producing
“Online City Hall” documents used by residents to provide feedback, drafting
preliminary elements to be re-reviewed by the CAC, and staffing all CAC and CAC
planning meetings
4. Drafting of a revised Comprehensive Plan and providing all needed support through
adoption of the plan, including preparation for and attending public and City
Council meetings as needed.
Management Partners
5. Extend the term of the contract from May 2017 to December 2017 to
accommodate the extended timeline and to allow the additional work that is now
anticipated based on the most recent project schedule.
Background & Discussion
The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan’s policies apply to both public and private
properties and its focus is on the physical form of the City. The Plan is used by the City
Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission to evaluate land use changes and
to make funding and budgeting decisions. It is used by City staff to evaluate building and
development and to make recommendations on projects. It is used by citizens and
neighborhood groups to understand the City’s long-range plans and proposals for geographic
areas. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and
the foundation for its capital improvements. The Comp Plan Update process was initiated in
2006 and got underway in 2008 with selection of DCE (now Placeworks) as the City’s primary
planning consultant.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The City has been working with Placeworks to update the Comprehensive Plan since 2008.
Under the initial contract, the firm conducted a preliminary review of each existing
Comprehensive Plan element, provided suggestions for revisions to modernize and
improve elements based on current General Plan/Comprehensive Plan standards, and
recommended the addition of sustainability policies and program concepts that would be
appropriate for each element. Each subsequent amendment reflected the change in direction
that occurred over time with the Comp Plan Update. In March 2014, Staff identified a revised
approach for the Comprehensive Update process (Staff Report 4554) that included community
discussion of alternative development scenarios, along with baseline data, potential impacts
and mitigation. For example, amendments included the preparation of a Citywide Travel
Demand Forecasting Model and of a detailed fiscal analysis. The most recent Amendment was
approved in 2015 to allow for consultant support for the newly established Citizen Advisory
Committee, including management of a robust project website.
Since 2014, the City Council has emphasized the need to bring together a diverse range of
voices from throughout the community to discuss the myriad choices that will define Palo Alto
in the years to come. As part of this effort, “The Summit” was held on May 30th and was
attended by hundreds of Palo Alto residents. The City Council also decided in March to form a
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to inform the ongoing update process and provide a
vehicle for community input to the City Council. The CAC has been meeting and discussing
elements of the existing Comprehensive Plan since the fall of 2015.
As the CAC has been meeting and making substantial process, staff has found that significant
amount of work is required to support these efforts. This includes supporting multiple
subcommittees, which was not originally envisioned or accounted for in the contract budget,
and has added to the timeline. The process for the draft Land Use Element alone has taken 17
meetings with the CAC and various subcommittees. The work has included preparation of
complex staff reports, drafting and revising elements multiple times and staffing a larger
number of meetings. As the CAC process has evolved over time, the CAC has relied on
subcommittees to do a lot of the detailed work on the draft elements.
The CAC and the multiple meetings have altered the timeframe for completion of the
Comprehensive Plan update work, and required a reallocation of funds to support the CAC,
which were not part of the previous contract or subsequent amendments. Resources
reallocated included those originally identified for completion of the update work. The
amendment is needed to provide the resources to help the CAC complete their work and over
the longer time period that is now required for the update.
Staff is requesting an amendment to the Placeworks contract to include funding for the final
phase of the Comprehensive Plan update process. The amendment would allow for the
preparation and full environmental analysis of the Council directed 6th scenario through a
Supplement to the Draft EIR. Support for the CAC and subcommittee meetings is critical, as
their work will be a primary source of public input to the ongoing process. The CAC will also
City of Palo Alto Page 4
need support for the drafting and production of the final work products, including a draft
Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would allow continued support for the CAC and
subcommittee and the longer timeline that has been identified.
Also added to this amendment is funding to allow Placeworks to provide a summary of the
transportation sector 2016 Greenhouse Gas emissions for the City’s annual Earth Day report.
Placeworks will use 2016 data with the travel demand forecasting model that was used with
the Comp Plan Update to estimate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This was already done for
2014 data and the Consultant will update it for the 2016 Earth Day Report.
Following the departure of the previous Long Range Planning Manager at the end of February
2016, the department contracted with Management Partners in April 2016 to provide project
management assistance for the Comp Plan Update due to the staff shortage. Elaine Costello,
the lead consultant, has more than 25 years of local government planning experience, including
holding community development director positions in the cities of Mountain View, South San
Francisco and Belmont. Ms. Costello’s scope of work has included colloborating with staff and
Placeworks in the preparation of materials for the CAC and other public hearings.
A contract amendment is needed for Management Partners to extend the contract terms from
May 2017 to December 2017 to reflect the latest timeline. This change is also required to
reflect the amount of work that will be required for the CAC and various subcommittees. It is
now anticipated that the Comp Plan Update will be completed in October 2017. The contract
is extended to December 2017 to allow flexibility for schedule changes and follow up tasks that
may be needed following adoption of the update.
Resource Impacts
The Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Operating Budget did not anticipate the addition of a 6th scenario.
In order to execute this requested 6th scenario the approval of a contract amendment and a
corresponding increase in appropriated funds in the amount of $530,902 is requested to
provide the necessary funds to cover the costs of this additional work. Additional detail is
provided in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Table 1. Summary of Comp Plan Consultant Costs for Placeworks, Including the Requested
Contract Amendment
Summary Breakdown Cost
Original Contract total w/Contingency
(June 1, 2008)
$849,981
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Summary Breakdown Cost
Amendment #1 w/Contingency which included additional work
(June 28, 2013):
Completion of the Cal Ave Concept Area Plan
Preparation of the Citywide Travel Demand Forecasting
Model
Creation of the Comp Plan Amendment Implementation
Matrix
Additional website administration
$290,019
Amendment #2 (March 3, 2014)
Preparation of “Our Plan so Far” and “Notice of
Preparation”
Scoping and Alternatives Development
Alternatives Evaluation and Selection
Comp Plan Amendment and Finalization
$597,206
Amendment #3 (March 2, 2015)
Fiscal Analysis study
$157,525
Amendment #4 (September 15, 2015)
Citizen Advisory Committee support
Comp Plan Preparation and Adoption
Open Sourcing the Comp Plan
Earth Day Report Consultation
Council meeting support
Contract management support, labor and reimbursable
expenses
$482,612
Amendment #5 w/contingency (May 16, 2016)
Creation and Analysis of the Scenario 5
Quality of Life/Fully Mitigated Scenario 5
Modeling of No-Growth Scenario
Additional Fiscal Analysis
Increased Staff Support
Amendment #5 with Optional Task (Council approved budget)
Optional Task (Infrastructure Financing Expenses)
$394,350, without
Optional task
$423,814, total, with
optional task
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Summary Breakdown Cost
Amendment #6 w/contingency (current recommendation)
Definition of Scenario 6/Fully Mitigated Scenario 6
Incorporation of Sustainability/Climate Action Plan
Supplement to Draft EIR, including the following
o Traffic and Transportation Impact Analysis
o Traffic Projections Modeling for Additional Scenarios
o Traffic Impact Analysis
o Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
Analysis of the 6th Scenario in the Comp Plan Fiscal Analysis
Extended Staff Support, including
o Citizen Advisory Commission Meeting Support,
especially the subcommittee meetings
o Open Sourcing the Comp Plan (online engagement)
o Public Hearing Staffing and Support
Analysis of transportation sector 2016 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for the annual Earth Day Report
$410,902
Revised Contract Grand Total $3,212,059
Source: Planning & Community Environment, October 2016
Table 2. Summary of Comp Plan Consultant Costs for Management Partners, Including the
Requested Contract Amendment
Summary Breakdown Cost
Original Contract total (April 2016) $85,000
Amendment #1
Continued project management services to coordinate the Comp
Plan CAC. Amendment to reflect extended project timeline.
$120,000
Revised Contract Grand Total
$205,000
Source: Planning & Community Environment, October 2016
The Placeworks Amendment Number 6 (Attachment A) requests an addition of $410,902 to
the contract titled “Comprehensive Plan Amendment Services, Contract C08125506.” The
Management Partners Amendment Number 2 (Attachment B) requests an addition of
$120,000 to the contract titled “Contract No. S16163548.” Therefore a total increase in
appropriated funds of $530,902 to the Planning and Community Environment Department’s
Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017 is requested as the FY 2017 Adopted
budget did not assume the addition of a 6th scenario and the necessary resources to
support the increased contract amount. This increase in funding to the Planning and
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Community Environment Departments’ Comprehensive Plan contracts would be offset with a
corresponding reduction to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. Upon approval,
the Department will encumber the funds required for the contract amendment. The total
cost of contracts supporting the project, $3.4 million including Amendment Number 6, is
summarized in the table above.
Comprehensive Plan updates are by definition, costly endeavors and many jurisdictions
spend substantial sums on these types of projects. The time involved in the planning process
is directly related to the cost and Palo Alto’s protracted planning process, with an emphasis
on community input, contributing to a higher cost than is typical. A small fraction of these
costs are offset by the Comprehensive Plan maintenance fee charged on all building permits.
Costs associated with maintaining the Comp Plan are partially off-set via a surcharge on permits
and planning entitlements issued in Palo Alto. In Fiscal Year 2016, these revenues totaled
$209,998. Pursuing a sixth scenario analysis is expensive at more than a half-million dollars and
is further drawing on reserves when it is estimated that the City will face a deficit in FY 2018.
Reduction in reserve balances limits flexibility in addressing the upcoming shortfall.
Policy Implications
Updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan has been identified as a key priority by this Council.
The Placeworks Contract Amendment Number 6 and the Management Partners Amendment
Number 1 do not represent a change to existing policies.
It is worth noting that costs associated with the adoption of a revised Comprehensive Plan will
continue to rise, the longer it takes to complete. These contract amendments, along with all
project timelines, have been designed to allow for the completion of work in 2017, per the City
Council’s direction. The revised cumulative total reflects that the CAC process has required
substantial work that was not anticipated due to the number of meetings, request for
information and the addition of the subcommittee process.
Environmental Review
Work related to the CAC is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The
Supplemental to the Draft Environmental Impact Report published in February 2016 is being
prepared in tandem with the work detailed above as required by CEQA and is already funded in
part by the previous amendment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Placeworks Contract #C08125506 Amendment 6 (PDF)
Attachment B: Management Partners Contract #S16163548 Amendment 1 (PDF)
Attachment C: Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13 (PDF)
1 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO CONTRACT NO. CO8125506
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PLACEWORKS, INC.,
This Amendment No. 6 (“Sixth Amendment”) to Contract No. C08125506 (“Contract”) is
entered into November 28, 2016 (“Amendment Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF
PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and
PLACEWORKS, INC., located at 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100, Santa Ana, California,
92707 (“CONSULTANT”)
R E C I T A L S:
A. The Contract dated effective June 1, 2008 was entered into between the
Parties for Consultant to provide planning services for the development of a work plan to
amend the existing comprehensive plan to a planning horizon no later than year 2020.
B. On May 16, 2016 the parties entered into Amendment No. 5 to extend the
term and increase the compensation by $423,814.00 from $2,377,343.00 to $2,801,157.00 for
additional services as specified in Exhibit “A5” Additional Scope of Services.
C. On September 15, 2015 the parties entered into Amendment No. 4 to
increase the compensation by $482,612.00 from $1,894,731.00 to, 2,377,343.00 for additional
services as specified in Exhibit “A4” Additional Scope of Services.
D. On March 2, 2015 the parties entered into Amendment No. 3 to change
the CONSULTANT’s name from DESIGN COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT, INC., a
California corporation, located 1625 Shattuck Avenue. Suite 300, Berkeley, CA. 94709 to
PLACEWORKS, INC., a California corporation, located at 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100,
Santa Ana, California, 92707. Amendment No. 3 also increased the “Not to Exceed
Compensation” by $157,525.00 from $1,737,206.00 to $1,894,731.00, for additional
services as specified in Exhibit “A3” Additional Scope of Services.
E. On March 3, 2014 the parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to extend the
term to June 30, 2016 and increase the compensation to $1,737,206.00 for additional services as
specified in Exhibit “A1”.
F. On June 28, 2013 the parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to extend the
term to June 30, 2014 and increase the compensation to $1,124,073.00 for additional services as
specified in Exhibit “A1”.
G. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the compensation by
$410,902.00 from $2,801,157.00 to $3,212,059.00 for additional services as specified in Exhibit
“A6” Additional Scope of Services.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
2 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
H. To accomplish this purpose, the Parties wish to amend the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Fourth Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 2. TERM is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 30,
2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.”
SECTION 2. Section 4. COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibits “A”, “A1”, “A2”, “A3”,
“A4”, “A5” & “A6”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable
expenses, shall not exceed Three Million Two Hundred Twelve Thousand Fifty Nine Dollars
($3,212,059.00) The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C6”,
entitled “RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions
of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services
performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any
work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but
which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibits “A”, “A1”, “A2”,
“A3”, “A4”, “A5” & “A6”
SECTION 3. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby amended to read
as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Third Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this
reference:
a.Exhibit “A6” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”
b. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”
c.Exhibit “C6” entitled “RATE SCHEDULE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 6”
SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
3 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
representatives executed this First Amendment on the Amendment Effective Date.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PLACEWORKS, INC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit “A6” “SCOPE OF SERVICES”
Exhibit “C” “COMPENSATION”
Exhibit “C6” “RATE SCHEDULE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
Principal
Steve Noack
Dwayne Mears
Principal, Chairman of the Board
4 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
EXHIBIT A6
ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall prepare an environmental analysis of a sixth planning scenario for the Comprehensive
Plan Update. The analysis will augment the Supplement to the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) published on February 5, 2015. Specifically, CONSULTANT shall:
I. Creation and Analysis of Scenario 6 (Task C.13)
CONSULTANT shall work with CITY staff to define and analyze Scenario 6. CONSULTANT will prepare a
Supplement to the Draft EIR under a previously executed contract amendment. This work will include the
following tasks necessary to include Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6 in the Supplement to the
Draft EIR:
a. Definition of Scenario 6
CONSULTANT shall work with CITY staff to development 2030 population, housing, and
employment projections. This scope of work includes eight (8) hours for buildout projections.
CONSULTANT shall augment the Supplement to the Draft EIR project description, reflecting
input from the City Council received at Council meetings in January through the date of this
contract amendment. This scope of work includes two rounds of revision to incorporate
comments from CITY staff. During each round of review on the project description, CITY staff
shall provide one consolidated set of internally-reconciled. In addition to the overall numbers,
CONSULTANT staff will work closely with City staff to allocate development projections to
traffic analysis zones within the Sphere of Influence (SOI). This step will also account for
development projections in the SOI, outside the city limit, based on potential future projects
that were not known prior to issuance of the NOP for the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIR.
b. Incorporation of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan
CONSULTANT will also incorporate the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) into the
description of Scenario 6.
c. Environmental Setting
This scope of work assumes that the environmental setting (existing conditions and regulatory
framework) information from the Draft EIR will be incorporated by reference in the analysis of
Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6. CONSULTANT will review the Draft EIR to ensure
that the environmental setting is sufficient to analyze the Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated
Scenario 6. This scope of work assumes that the environmental setting of the Draft EIR is
sufficient and CONSULTANT will not conduct new existing conditions or regulatory framework
research.
d. Impact Analysis
The Supplement to the Draft EIR shall cover the same thresholds of significance used in the
Draft EIR. CONSULTANT shall conduct the following tasks for the impact analysis of Scenario 6
and Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6:
i. Traffic and Transportation.
1. Analysis of Four Additional Study Intersections. CONSULTANT will include
the follow four intersections in the Supplement to the Draft EIR:
Middlefield Road and University Avenue
Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
5 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway (CMP)
East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road
The City has already provided recent traffic counts for three of the four
intersections. The fourth intersection, Middlefield and Oregon
Expressway, is a CMP intersection, so CONSULTANT will use counts from
The most recent CMP database for the PM peak hour and will conduct a
new count for the AM peak hour.
CONSULTANT will include motor vehicle level of service calculations for
Existing Conditions and 2030 Conditions for these intersections in all
tables for Scenarios 5 and 6, Fully-Mitigated Scenarios 5 and 6, and the
No-Growth Scenario. CONSULTANT would not revise the analysis of the
four scenarios previously analyzed.
2. Modeling. Using the Palo Alto 2030 travel demand forecasting model,
CONSULTANT will develop traffic projections for the year 2030 under
Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6 using the same methodology
that was used for the four scenarios already included in the
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The following parameters will be
projected for the new scenarios:
a. Mode Share. Trips to be made by Drive Alone, Shared Ride,
Transit, Bicycle, and Walking will be projected.
b. Transit Boardings and Transit Trips.
c. Average Daily Traffic (ADT). CONSULTANT will provide ADT for the
same 13 roadway segments that were included in the previous
draft of the TIA.
d. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by Directional Orientation. This
information will be provided for both Palo Alto only and for Palo
Alto and its Sphere of Influence.
e. Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita. This information will be
provided for both Palo Alto only and for Palo Alto and its Sphere of
Influence.
f. Level of Service Analysis for each of the Study Intersections. This
analysis will be conducted for the same 14 study intersections that
were analyzed in the previous draft of the TIA, plus the four
additional intersections listed above.
g. Additional Trips on the Study Freeway Segments and Ramps. The
additional trips generated by the new scenario on the same
freeway segments and interchange ramps that were included in
the previous draft of the TIA will be projected.
3. Transportation Impact Analysis. Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6
will be presented in comparison to existing conditions and to the other
scenarios on all tables and in the discussion of each potential impact.
Discussion of mitigation measures proposed for significant impacts will
also be revised to incorporate the Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated Scenario
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
6 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
6. Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6 will be evaluated against the
same thresholds of significance used in the Draft EIR TIA.
ii. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. CONSULTANT will use the traffic
modeling and buildout projections to conduct an additional model run to assess
air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Scenario 6 and Fully Mitigated
Scenario 6.
iii. Other CEQA Topics. The new analysis document will also cover the following
environmental topics for Scenario 6. No separate quantitative analysis will be
performed for Fully Mitigated Scenario 6 for these topics.
1. Aesthetics
2. Biological Resources
3. Cultural Resources
4. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
6. Land Use and Planning
7. Population and Housing
8. Public Services
9. Utilities and Service Systems
e. Administrative Draft
CONSULTANT shall augment the Administrative Draft of the Supplement to the Draft EIR to
include Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6. The Administrative Draft document will be
submitted electronically. CITY staff shall provide one consolidated set of internally-reconciled
comments on the Administrative Draft.
f. Screencheck Draft
CONSULTANT shall incorporate comments from CITY staff on the analysis of Scenario 6 and
Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6 to prepare the Screencheck Draft.
g. Public Review Draft
CONSULTANT shall incorporate comments from CITY staff on the analysis of Scenario 6 and
Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6 to prepare the Public Review Draft for publication. This scope of
work includes an expense allowance for the increased cost of production needed to
incorporate Scenario 6 and Fully-Mitigated Scenario 6. If the actual cost of production costs
more than this allowance, the cost of production will be billed at actual expense.
h. Response to Comments and Final EIR
CONSULTANT will respond to comments received on the analysis of Scenario 6 and Fully-
Mitigated Scenario 6. This scope of work includes up to 40 hours to respond to comments on
Scenario 6. If substantial additional time is needed because of an unforeseen volume or
complexity of comments, a contract amendment could be necessary.
II. Additional Fiscal Analysis (Task C.8)
On January 15, 2016, EPS published the Draft Fiscal Analysis of the City of Palo Alto 2030
Comprehensive Plan. On March 15, 2016, EPS presented the analysis, participated in
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
7 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
discussion, and took comments concerning the analysis from the City’s Finance Committee.
Based on comments received on the draft analysis, as well as in response to an evolving
Comprehensive Plan, EPS proposes a number of steps to revise and augment the fiscal
analysis.
CONSULTANT will analyze the fiscal impacts of the sixth scenario and document findings in the
Fiscal Analysis Report. As with other scenarios, the fiscal analysis will be updated to reflect the
population, housing, and employment growth envisioned under the sixth scenario.
Consistent with the Draft Fiscal Analysis, CONSULTANT will continue to document data,
methods, and findings from the fiscal analysis in a clear, well-written report. CONSULTANT will
include findings results from analysis of the sixth scenario in the Second Draft of the Fiscal
Analysis Report, which was included in a separate contract modification.
III. Extended Staff Support (Multiple Tasks)
CONSULTANT will extend the level and duration of support to City staff in the following
previously-authorized tasks, reflecting the extended project schedule as well as the creation
and facilitation of CAC subcommittees, which were not previously addressed in the contract.
Task numbers below are those used in current invoices; funds would be added to these
existing tasks.
C.9 CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SUPPORT
CONSULTANT shall continue to prepare materials for meetings of the full CAC as well as
meetings of the Natural Environment, Safety, Business and Economics, and Government
subcommittees. Materials will primarily include Comp Plan policies and programs, draft
Elements, and staff reports; additional materials will be prepared as needed. CONSULTANT
will attend CAC and subcommittee meetings and present and/or facilitate as requested.
This contract amendment assumes an additional 8 full CAC meetings between October
2016 and May 2017 and an additional 9 subcommittee meetings in the same period.
C.10 OPEN SOURCING THE COMP PLAN
CONSULTANT shall provide technical support and content to enable the City to “open
source” community input on the Comp Plan as it is drafted and reviewed, including
coordinating with Peak Democracy, provider of the City’s Open City Hall tool, providing
content for the Digital Commenter tool, and ongoing coordination with and reporting to
City staff.
C. 11 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUPPORT
CONSULTANT shall support staff in preparing for City Council meetings to discuss Comp
Plan contents and outcomes of the CAC process. CONSULTANT shall attend and present at
meetings as requested by the client. This assumes an additional 5 Council meetings in
addition to the 7 already authorized.
D.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PREPARATION AND ADOPTION
CONSULTANT shall continue to support City staff through the preparation, public review,
and adoption of the Comp Plan, including preparing and revising full Elements based on
CAC input and Council direction.
E. ONGOING PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANT shall continue to participate in regular weekly calls with the City Comp Plan
team to report on progress and resolve any outstanding issues. CONSULTANT shall be
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
8 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
responsible for providing agendas and materials for each meeting in advance.
CONSULTANT shall review and provide input into the project schedule on a regular basis.
IV. Earth Day Report (New Task C.16)
CONSULTANT will provide a summary of transportation sector 2016 GHG emissions for the
City’s annual Earth Day report. As part of this effort, CONSULTANT will prepare a 2016 land use
data by Travel Analysis Zone (TAZ) and then use the Palo Alto travel demand forecasting model
that has been used for the Comprehensive Plan Update to estimate VMT in 2016, based on
land use data for 2016.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
9 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services
performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on
the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit “C6”.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all
services described in Exhibits “A”, “A1”, “A2”, “A3” “A4, “A5” & “A6”
(“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $3,212,059.00.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses,
within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment
would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth
herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word
processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business
expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not
reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following
reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed
are:
A. Travel (including within the San Francisco Bay Area – at actual cost
B. Report printing and reproduction – at actual cost
C. Deliveries – at actual cost
D. Data purchase – at actual cost
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500.00 shall be approved in
advance by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s
request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope
of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum
compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates
set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum
compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for
additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
10 of 11 Revision April 28, 2016
EXHIBIT C6
RATE SCHEDULE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 6
STAFF LEVEL HOURLY BILL RATE
Principal $190–$250
Associate Principal $175–$200
Senior Associate/Senior Scientist $145–$180
Associate/Scientist $110–$150
Project Planner/Project Scientist $90–$115
Planner/Assistant Scientist $75–$95
Graphics Specialist $60–$100
Clerical/Word Processing $40–$110
Intern $50–$70
Subconsultants are billed at cost plus 10%.
Mileage reimbursement rate is the standard IRS-approved rate.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
Amendment No. 6 to Contract No. C08125506
Jansen Goodfellow Mena Vermilion Fitzgerald/
Mantey Rodenbaugh Hass Michener/
Mazur Sotelo James Foley GRAPHICS WP/
CLERICAL HEXAGON EPS
Principal-in-
Charge
Senior
Associate Associate
Assoc.
Principal
(AQ/GHG)
Senior
Engineer/
Noise
Manager
Senior
Scientist
Principal
(Hazards)
Senior
Geologist/
GIS
Senior
Planner
Project
Planner Noise
Hourly Rate:$175 $160 $150 $195 $180 $165 $190 $160 $145 $105 $85 $80 $120
TASK I. Creation and Analysis of Scenario 6 (Task C.13)
a Definition of Scenario 6 2 8 10 $1,550 0 $0 $1,550
b. Incorporate S/CAP 1 2 16 2 21 $3,805 0 $0 $3,805
c.Environmental Setting 1 2 2 5 $685 0 $0 $685
d. Impact Analysis 6 12 24 40 12 10 32 8 24 16 184 $28,770 49,240 $49,240 $78,010
e. Administrative Draft 4 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 38 $5,290 0 $0 $5,290
f.Screencheck Draft 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 2 2 4 30 $4,010 0 $0 $4,010
g.Public Review Draft 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 8 2 4 29 $3,985 0 $0 $3,985
h.Response to Comments and Final EIR 12 32 4 2 1 1 1 16 4 8 81 $11,515 0 $0 $11,515
Task C.13. Subtotal 30 0 70 50 48 17 15 37 13 70 20 10 18 398 $59,610 $49,240 $0 $49,240 $108,850
TASK II. Additional Fiscal Analysis (Task C.8)
Updates to Fiscal Analysis 4 4 8 $1,300 0 4,000 $4,000 $5,300
Task C.8. Subtotal 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 $1,300 $0 $4,000 $4,000 $5,300
TASK III. Extended Support (Multiple Tasks)
C.7 On Site Project Management 158 149 306 $51,363 0 $0 $51,363
C.9 CAC Support 342 450 288 72 1152 $170,730 0 $0 $170,730
C.10 Open Sourcing the Comp Plan 8 16 30 54 $7,110 0 $0 $7,110
C.11 City Council Meeting Support 30 35 40 105 $15,050 0 $0 $15,050
D.3 Comp Plan Preparation 32 48 64 24 168 $22,880 0 $0 $22,880
Task III. Subtotal 570 698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 422 0 0 96 1785 $267,133 $0 $0 $0 $267,133
TASK IV. Earth Day Report (Task C.15)
Updates to Fiscal Analysis 7 4 16 2 29 $5,105 7,500 $7,500 $12,605
Task C.15. Subtotal 7 0 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 29 $5,105 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $12,605
Labor Hours Total 611 698 78 66 48 17 15 37 13 492 20 12 114 2220
Labor Dollars Total $106,838 $111,640 $11,700 $12,870 $8,640 $2,805 $2,850 $5,920 $1,885 $51,660 $1,700 $960 $13,680 $333,148 $56,740 $4,000 $60,740 $393,888
EXPENSES
PlaceWorks Reimbursable Expenses $3,485
Subconsultants' Reimbursable Expenses $721
2% of Labor for Office Expenses (Copies, Faxes, Phone, Misc. Printing)$6,662.95
10% Subconsultant Markup $6,146.10
EXPENSES TOTAL $17,015
GRAND TOTAL $410,902
NOTES
Subconsultant costs are billed at cost plus 10%.
Reimbursable expenses are billed at our current rates plus 2% of PlaceWorks labor
PLACEWORKS
Subconsult
ant Labor
Total
Total Task
Budget
PlaceWorks
Hours
PlaceWorks
Labor Total
Transportation
& Traffic Fiscal
SUBCONSULTANTS
11 of 11
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3AEC291C-4611-4E3B-A472-13A6D37E7E6C
1 Revision July 20, 2016
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. S16163548
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC, INCORPORATED
This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S16163548 (“Contract”) is entered into 28th
day of November, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“CITY”), and MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC, INCORPORATED a Ohio corporation,
located at 2107 N. First Street, STE 470, San Jose, California, 95131 ("CONSULTANT").
R E C I T A L S
A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of to
manage CITY’S comprehensive plan update.
B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the compensation from
$85,000.00 by $120,000.00 to $205,000.00 for additional services as specified in EXHIBIT “A” Scope
of Services
C. The parties wish to amend the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 2. TERM is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through
December 30, 2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.”
SECTION 2. Section 4 COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for
performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional
services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Five Thousand Dollars
($205,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled
“HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”.”
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5F8E68-4261-4CBE-A989-13B6F9A7B417
2 Revision July 20, 2016
SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read
as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this refer-
ence:
a. Exhibit “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”.
b. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”.
c. Exhibit “C1” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including
any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC,
INCORPORATED
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF PROJECT & TIME SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT "C1": RATE SCHEDULE
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5F8E68-4261-4CBE-A989-13B6F9A7B417
President & CEO
Gerald E. Newfarmer
Amy Paul
Amy Paul
3 Revision July 20, 2016
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Understanding of the Engagement
Palo Alto is a charter city and has a comprehensive plan (Comp Plan) that serves as the City’s
general plan. The comprehensive plan meets the requirements of State law while providing a blue
print for land use and development issues in the City. The City’s current Comp Plan, titled
Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010, was adopted in 1998. The City began the process
of updating the Comp Plan in 2008. In early 2014, a broad public engagement process was
initiated, which remains underway. In May 2015, there a community summit was held on the
Comp Plan, which was attended by over 300 people, following which a Comp Plan Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) began meeting to develop recommendations for the City Council’s consideration.
The Comp Plan CAC has over 20 members and meets monthly. The CAC has established
subcommittees for each element and for sustainability. The City Council also has monthly
meetings on Comp Plan-related topics, either providing input to the CAC on draft materials, or
addressing larger policy questions or implementing actions they would like to be reflected in the
final plan. CITY has the consulting firm Placeworks preparing the Comp Plan update and an
environmental impact report (EIR). A sub-consultant to Placeworks, EPS, is preparing a fiscal study,
and an additional sub-consultant, Hexagon is preparing the transportation analysis.
CONSULTANT shall provide project management services to coordinate the Comp Plan Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) process. CITY requires assistance in working with staff and Placeworks
on various work products related to the Comp Plan update. The timeline for City Council
consideration of the proposed Comp Plan update is early 2017, as shown in Attachment “A” City of
Palo Alto Schedule for Comprehensive Plan Update
The scope of work includes the following items:
Meet with CAC members to introduce herself and discuss the project schedule and
objectives;
Be the primary point of contact for CAC members, ensuring a smooth and inclusive process;
Collaborate with and mentor the key department staff assigned to the project;
Assist City staff in preparing for meetings of the Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC), City Council and in other settings as needed;
Participate in weekly meetings with the project team of staff and Placeworks
representatives;
Collaborate with Placeworks and City staff who are staffing subcommittee meetings and
contributing to the project;
Review and comment on draft work products that will be presented to the CAC, as well as
updates on the CAC’s work that will be presented to other bodies, including the PTC and
City Council;
Join the Planning and Community Environment Director at meetings with the City Manager,
City Attorney, and City Council as requested; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5F8E68-4261-4CBE-A989-13B6F9A7B417
4 Revision July 20, 2016
Recommend changes in schedule and/or process as needed to achieve the goal of
completing a draft of the Comp Plan update for City Council review in early 2017, and
securing EIR certification and plan adoption by mid-2017.
City of Palo Alto Schedule for Comprehensive Plan Update
Date* Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC)
Schedule of
Meetings and
Topics
Schedule of Other Events Related to
the Comp Plan Update
City Council
Schedule of Comp Plan
Discussions
Mar 2 CAC Community Services Subcommittee
Mar 9 CAC Sustainability Subcommittee
Mar 15 Land Use &
Community Design
Element Part II Policies &
Programs (Discussion)
City Council Finance Committee: Draft
Fiscal Study
Mar 21
CAC Transportation Subcommittee City Council Discussion of
Housing Sites & Programs
April 13 PTC Draft EIR Hearing
TBD CAC Land Use Subcommittee
TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee
April 18 Earth Day/SCAP Report to the City
Council (Chief Sustainability Officer)
April 19 Land Use &
Community Design
Element Part III Policies &
Programs (Discussion)
Recommendations
on the Transportation
Element & Community
Services Element
Considered on Consent
April 21 ARB Draft EIR Hearing
April 25 City Council Public Hearing on
the Draft EIR
TBD CAC Land Use Subcommittee
April 28 Library Commission Draft EIR Hearing
May 5 End of the Draft EIR Comment Period
TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee
May 16
City Council Review of CAC work
on Transportation Element
May 17 Natural
Environment Element
Policies and Programs
(Discussion)
May 23
City Council “Quality of Life”
Scenario discussion & direction to
staff; Placeworks contract modification
TBD CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee
June 6 City Council Review of CAC work
on Land Use Element & Direction
regarding Policy L-8
June 21 Land Use &
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5F8E68-4261-4CBE-A989-13B6F9A7B417
5 Revision July 20, 2016
Community Design Draft
Element
Recommendations
TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee
July 19 Safety Element
Policies & Programs
(Discussion)
TBD CAC Sustainability Subcommittee
TBD CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee
TBD CAC Safety Subcommittee
Aug 15 City Council Discussion of
Sustainability in the Comp Plan Update
Aug 16 Natural
Environment Draft
Element
Recommendations
Sep 20 Business &
Economics Element
Policies & Programs
(Discussion)
Oct 3
Publish “Quality of Life” Scenario Results
for 45-day public review period (supplement to
the Draft EIR)
City Council Review of CAC work
on Natural Environment & Safety
TBD CAC Business & Economics
Subcommittee
Oct 18 Safety Draft
Element
Recommendations
Nov 7
City Council Discussion &
Direction on Governance &
Implementation
TBD SPECIAL MEETING
– Governance Element
Policies and Programs
(Discussion)
Nov 9 PTC Hearing on “Quality of Life” Scenario
Nov 14
City Council Hearing on “Quality
of Life” Scenario
TBD CAC Governance Subcommittee
Nov 15 Business &
Economics Element
Recommendation
Dec 13 Governance
Element
Recommendation
Implementation
Plan
Putting it all
together, final thoughts
and Recommendations
Dec 31 Revised Draft Comp Plan Update
Disseminated for Public Review
Feb 2017
PTC Review & Recommendation to the
City Council (Multiple meetings)
Final Review of Transportation
Element
March Final Review of Land Use
Element
March
Final Review of Natural
Environment and Safety Elements
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5F8E68-4261-4CBE-A989-13B6F9A7B417
6 Revision July 20, 2016
April
Final Review of Business &
Economics, Community Services &
Facilities Elements
April Review of Implementation Plan
May
Final Review of City Council’s
Changes & Errata
May
Publication of the Final EIR, Mitigation
Monitoring Plan & Draft CEQA Findings
May Updated Comp Plan and Final EIR Adopted
AMENDMENT NO. 1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
CITY has a need for assistance in working with staff and consultant Placeworks pertaining to various
work products related to the Comp Plan update. The scope of work for this contract extension
includes the following items.
Be in regular contact with Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) members and attend CAC
and subcommittee meetings, ensuring a smooth and inclusive process;
Collaborate with and mentor key department staff assigned to the project;
Assist CITY staff in preparing for meetings of the CAC and subcommittees, Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC), CITY Council and in other settings as needed;
Participate in weekly meetings with the project team of staff and Placeworks
representatives;
Collaborate with Placeworks and CITY employees who are staffing subcommittee
meetings and contributing to the project;
Review and comment on draft work products that will be presented to the CAC, as well
as updates on the CAC’s work that will be presented to other bodies, including the PTC
and CITY Council;
Join the Planning and Community Environment Director at meetings with the CITY
Manager, CITY Attorney, and CITY Council as requested; and
Recommend changes in schedule and/or process as needed to achieve the goal of
completing a draft of the Comp Plan update for CITY Council review in mid-2017, and
securing EIR certification and plan adoption in 2017.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5F8E68-4261-4CBE-A989-13B6F9A7B417
7 Revision July 20, 2016
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate
schedule attached as Exhibit C-1.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services,
additional services, and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amount(s) stated in
Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services and Additional
Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this/these amount(s). Any work
performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the
maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the
CITY.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are
included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY
shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $250.00 shall be approved in advance
by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional
services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in
writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the
services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in
this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE5F8E68-4261-4CBE-A989-13B6F9A7B417
Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13, 2016 *
1
Month Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Schedule of Meetings & Topics
Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan
Update
City Council
Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions
October Discussion of the first half of the
Natural Environment Element and
Introductory Discussion of the Safety
Element (October 18)
CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee reviews
revised 1st half of the Natural Environment Element
(October 5)
November Discussion of the second half of the
Natural Environment Element and the
Safety Element ( November 15)
CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee reviews
revised 2nd half of the Natural Environment Element
(November 1)
CAC Safety Subcommittee reviews revised Safety
Element (November 3)
CAC Safety Subcommittee reviews revised Safety
Element ( if needed)
City Council review of CAC
recommended Land Use Element
(November 28)
December Recommendation on Natural
Environment and Safety Elements
(December 13)
January
2017
Discussion of the Business & Economics
Element (January 17)
CAC Business & Economics Subcommittee reviews the
Business and Economic Element
CAC Business & Economics Subcommittee reviews the
revised Business and Economic Element
City Council review of the Revised
Transportation and Land Use
Elements (tentative for January 23)
February Recommendation on Business &
Economics Element (February 21)
CAC Governance & Implementation Subcommittees
review Implementation & Users Guide/Governance
Publish Scenario 5 and 6 Supplement to the Draft EIR
for 45-day public review period
City Council Review of CAC
recommended Natural Environment
and Safety Elements
March Discussion and Recommendation on the
Implementation Plan (March 21)
PTC Hearing on the Scenario 5 and 6 Supplement to the
Draft EIR
City Council Review of CAC
recommended Business & Economics
Element
City Council Hearing on the Scenario 5
and 6 Supplement to the Draft EIR
City Council Selection of a preferred
Alternative for the EIR
April Discussion and Recommendation on the
intro/users guide/governance topics
(April 18)
May Final CAC Session (“Putting it all
Together”) & review for Internal
consistency (May 16)
Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13, 2016 *
2
Month Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Schedule of Meetings & Topics
Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan
Update
City Council
Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions
June, 2017 Revised Draft Comp Plan Update Disseminated for
Public Review
July, 2017 PTC Review & Recommendation to the City Council on
the Draft Comp Plan Update (Multiple meetings)
August Final Review of Transportation & Land
Use Elements
Final Review of Natural Environment
&Safety Elements
September Publication of the Final EIR
Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Plan & CEQA
Findings
Final Review of Business & Economics,
Community Services & Facilities
Elements
Final Review of Users
Guide/Governance & Implementation
Plan
October City Council Final EIR Certification
Hearing
Review of City Council’s Changes &
Errata; Adoption of the Updated
Comp Plan
*All dates and topics subject to change. This schedule assumes that City Council comments on CAC work products will be addressed by staff and
reviewed by the CAC in a final “putting it all together” session in the spring of 2017 once the Council has reviewed all of the elements.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
November 28, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Legal Services
Agreement With the Law Firm of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson by an
Additional $325,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $375,000 for
Litigation Defense Services and Approve a Budget Amendment in the
General Fund
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Increase the existing legal services agreement with the law firm of Jarvis, Fay,
Doporto & Gibson, LLP, Attorneys at Law by an additional $325,000 for a total not to
exceed amount of $375,000; and
2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation Ordinance by:
a. Increasing the Office of the City Attorney’s appropriation for contract
services by $325,000; and
b. Decreasing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve by $325,000.
Background
Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson represents the City in various complex and specialized
transactional and litigation matters in the areas of land use, the California Environmental
Quality Act, construction law and municipal taxes and fees. The existing legal services
agreement with Jarvis Fay, Doporto & Gibson for $50,000 covered pre-litigation and initial
litigation defense services since a claim was filed in the Staats matter in early 2015. Staats is a
tax class action matter that has been designated “complex” by the Santa Clara County Superior
Court.
Discussion
A lawsuit has now been filed and discovery is underway. Additional funding is needed through
the class certification stage. Funding for this amendment will come from the Budget
Stabilization Reserve. If the case continues, the City Attorney’s Office may return to Council for
further funding of this matter.
The City Attorney's Office requests authorization to amend an existing legal services agreement
with the law firm of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP, Attorneys at Law, to add an additional
$325,000 for legal services relating to defense of the City in Staats v. City of Palo Alto, Santa
Page 2
Clara Superior Court, Case No. 1-15-CV-284956. This Amendment 1 brings the total agreement
to an amount not to exceed $375,000.
Resource Impact
The initial $50,000 funding for legal defense in the Staats matter came from the City Attorney’s
Department budget. An additional $325,000 is needed to continue the City’s contract for legal
services. These funds are recommended to be drawn from the General Fund Budget
Stabilization Reserve.
Environmental Review
This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 28, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Approval to Schedule Discussion Regarding Appointments for
Unscheduled Vacant Term on the Planning and Transportation
Commission Ending December 15, 2018; and Appointment of Three
Candidates to the Historic Resources Board and Four Candidates to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for Terms Ending December 15,
2019 in January 2017
Recommended Motion
Direct Staff to: (1) agendize a discussion of the unscheduled vacancy on the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) and; (2) bring back the appointment of three candidates to
the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and four candidates to the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PARC) to the Council for appointment in January 2017.
Discussion
At the meeting in January 2017, the Council could direct Staff to: conduct another recruitment;
schedule interviews with candidates from the last PTC recruitment conducted in the Fall of
2016; or decide to vote on the candidates that have already been interviewed. New Council
Members who did not interview the last candidates are able to watch the recording of the
interviews, review the applications and vote on who they would want to fill the opening from
those candidates. This also applies to the interviews scheduled on November 30, 2016 for the
HRB and PARC.
At the same meeting, Council could appointment three candidates to the HRB and four
candidates to the PARC for terms ending December 15, 2019.
Background
On November 8, 2016, Adrian Fine was elected to the City Council. Pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 2.20.010, Council Member-Elect Fine’s unexpired term on the Planning and
Transportation is made vacant by his election and assumption of office to the City Council on
January 3, 2017. His unexpired term on the PTC expires December 15, 2018.
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 28, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 16
(Building Regulations), Chapters 16.45 (Transportation Impact Fee for
New Nonresidential Development in the Stanford Research Park/El
Camino Real CS Zone), 16.46 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on
Traffic in the San Antonio/West Bayshore Area), 16.47 (Approval of
Projects with Impacts on Housing), 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fee For New
Nonresidential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD)
Zoning District), 16.58 (Development Impact Fees), 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee), 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee), 16.61 (Public Art for
Private Developments), and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions
of Land), Chapter 21.50 (Parkland Dedication or Fees In-Lieu Thereof)
and Adding 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment
Administration) (FIRST READING: November 7, 2016 PASSED: 8-1
Schmid no)
This Ordinance was first heard by Council on November 7, 2016, the Motion is listed below. It is
now before you for the second reading and final adoption.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to:
A. Adopt an Ordinance which implements 2015 Parking Funds Audit recommendations,
and updates and standardizes collection of impact fees by amending Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Titles 16, 18 and 21 including the following changes:
i.Add, “Section 16.64.070(d): the director may elect to appoint a designee to hear
and decide a protest under this section;” and
Page 2
ii. Replace the last paragraph of Section 16.64.110 with, “The existing rate for a fee
shall remain in effect until the recalculated rate is adopted and effective
pursuant to Section 16.64.050;” and
B. Make a finding that the Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Schmid no
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: 0131541 ORD Amending Impact Fee Procedures 11-10-16 (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 3
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 1 Nov. 10, 2016
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building Regulations), Chapters 16.45 (Transportation
Impact Fee for New Nonresidential Development in the Stanford Research Park/El
Camino Real CS Zone), 16.46 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on Traffic in the
San Antonio/West Bayshore Area), 16.47 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on
Housing), 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fee For New Nonresidential Development in the
Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District), 16.58 (Development Impact Fees),
16.59 (Citywide Transportation Impact Fee), 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero
Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee), 16.61 (Public Art for Private
Developments), and Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land), Chapter
21.50 (Parkland Dedication or Fees In-Lieu Thereof) and Adding 16.64
(Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration),
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Subdivision (c) and (d) of Section 16.45.060 Calculation of
Transportation Impact Fee of Chapter 16.45 (Transportation Impact Fee for New Nonresidential
Development in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS Zone) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
16.45.060 Calculation of Transportation Impact Fee.
***
(c) Calculation of Fee. In order for new nonresidential development in the area to bear
proportionately the cost of the identified capacity improvements, such new development shall
pay a fee of $8.20 per gross square foot of development, determined by dividing the total
estimated cost of $14,690,773.00 by the total permitted new development of 1,794,000 square
feet. The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110. This fee shall be adjusted annually on July 1 by an amount equal to the change in the
construction cost index for the preceding year, as determined by the Engineering News Record,
the McGraw Hill Construction Weekly.
(d) Payment. The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Codein full to the city
building inspection division prior to issuance of the building permit for the development. If no
building permit is required for a change of use, the fee shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a
certificate of use and occupancy.
***
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 2 Nov. 10, 2016
SECTION 2. Subdivision (e) of Section 16.45.070 Penalties of Chapter 16.45
(Transportation Impact Fee for New Nonresidential Development in the Stanford Research
Park/El Camino Real CS Zone) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.45.070 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citations for violations of this chapter: development services director, director of planning
and community environment and their designees.chief building official, assistant chief building
official, and ordinance compliance inspector.
SECTION 3. Subdivision (d) of Section 16.46.040 Calculation of Transportation
Impact Fee of Chapter 16.46 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on Traffic in the San
Antonio/West Bayshore Area) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.46.040 Calculation of Transportation Impact Fee.
***
(d) Payment. The traffic impact fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Codein
full to the city of Palo Alto before the first grading or building permit for a project is issued. If no
grading or building permit is required for a conversion of use, the fee shall be paid in full before
a certificate of use and occupancy permit is issued.
***
SECTION 4. Subdivision (e) of Section 16.46.060 Penalties of Chapter 16.46
(Approval of Projects with Impacts on Traffic in the San Antonio/West Bayshore Area) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.46.060 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citation for violations of this chapter: development services director, director of planning
and community environment and their designeeschief building official, assistant chief building
official and ordinance compliance inspector.
SECTION 5. Subdivision (e) of Section 16.47.040 Housing Requirements of Chapter
16.47 (Approval of Projects with Impacts on Housing) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 3 Nov. 10, 2016
amended to read as follows: [Note: This section will be deleted if Council adopts a pending
ordinance consolidating the housing fees into a new Chapter.]
16.47.040 Housing Requirements.
***
(e) The in-lieu payment shallmust be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Codeprior to
issuance of the first grading or building permit for a project. Any permit issued prior to payment
shall be null and void. For a phased project, payments may be made for each portion of a
phased project prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit for that phase.
***
SECTION 6. Subdivision (e) of Section 16.47.050 Penalties of Chapter 16.47
(Approval of Projects with Impacts on Housing) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows:
16.47.050 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citation for violations of this chapter: development services director, director of planning
and community environment and their designeeschief building official, assistant chief building
official, and ordinance compliance inspector.
SECTION 7. Section 16.57.030 Calculation of In-Lieu Payment, 16.57.040 Timing of
Payments and Section 16.57.070 Fee Review of Chapter 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fee For New
Nonresidential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code are amended to read as follows:
16.57.030 Calculation of in-lieu payment.
(a) Initial Fee. The fee for each two hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area in a
development shall equal the sum of the construction, land acquisition, if any, and
administrative costs attributable to the provision of one new parking space, as established by
the city council on the basis of calculations made under this chapterby the chief transportation
official. The fee shall be $30,250.00 per two hundred fifty square feet of gross floor area, and
has been calculated based upon the feasibility study.
(b) Recalculated Fee. In the event the city council approves the construction of a public
parking structure or structures, the citychief transportation official shall adjust the fee as
follows:
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 4 Nov. 10, 2016
(i) At the time the construction contract is awarded, the fee shall be adjusted to reflect the
actual "design costs" incurred by the city for the construction project as of the date the
construction contract is awarded, plus "construction costs" based on the construction contract
award.
(ii) At the time the final payment is made upon completion of the construction project, the
fee shall be adjusted to reflect the actual "design costs" and "construction costs" incurred by
the city for the construction project.
(iii) The fee as recalculated pursuant to subsection (b)(i) or (b)(ii) may be higher or lower
than the initial fee.
(iv) In the event that a construction project involves the construction of more than one
parking structure, the recalculation of the fee shall be based on the structure with the highest
cost per net new parking space.
(c) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110.
The fee, whether calculated in accordance with subsection (a) or subsection (b) shall be
adjusted annually by the chief transportation official, by an amount equal to the change in the
construction cost index for the preceding year, as determined for the San Francisco Bay Area by
the "Engineering News Record," the McGraw Hill Construction Weekly.
If the fee is recalculated during the year, the next annual adjustment shall be prorated
based on the change in the construction cost index between the date the fee was recalculated
and the date of the annual adjustment.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(i) "Construction costs" shall mean and include the construction costs, as bid, including any
authorized contingency or as paid, based upon actual construction. "Construction costs" shall
not include bond financing costs, if applicable.
(ii) "Design costs" shall mean and include architect fees, engineering fees and other
consultant fees, as proposed or as paid, based upon actual performance. "Design costs" shall
not include bond financing costs, if applicable.
(iii) "Feasibility study" shall mean and refer to the study entitled "Downtown Parking
Structure Feasibility Study, dated January 16, 1997.
(iviii) "Net new parking space" cost shall mean the cost to provide one new parking space in
a public parking structure, and shall equal the sum of the construction, land acquisition, if any,
and administrative costs of the structure attributable to each space in the structure.
16.57.040 Timing of Payments.
The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Code. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 16.57.010, the obligation to pay the fee established by this chapter shall
accrue as of the date the first discretionary approval is given for the development, or if no
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 5 Nov. 10, 2016
discretionary approval is required, as of the date a complete application is submitted for a
building permit for the development. Fees shall be due and payable to the City of Palo Alto at
the transportation division prior to issuance of a building permit for the development, and shall
be calculated at the rate of the fee in effect as of the date the obligation to pay the fee accrued.
Payment of the fee may be deferred to the date of final building inspection approval of the
development, provided the owner of the real property for which the fee has been required
enters into an agreement with the city prior to issuance of the building permit for the
development.
The agreement shall provide that the amount of the fee shall be calculated at the rate of the
fee in effect on the date the deferred payment is actually made. The agreement shall further
provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the fee is paid. The agreement
shall also provide that in any action to collect the fee or any portion thereof the city shall be
entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection, including reasonable attorneys fees.
The director of planning and community environment shall be authorized on behalf of the city
to execute the agreement described in this section, in a form acceptable to the city attorney
16.57.070 Fee review.
The uses proposed for expenditure of the moneys in the fund shall be reviewed annually by the
city council along with its review of the city's capital improvement program, and the moneys
from the fund shall be appropriated for such expenditure in the manner provided by the Palo
Alto City Charter and Municipal Code for adoption of the annual budget.
On an annual basis following the enactment of this chapter, the chief transportation official
shall review the estimated cost of the described parking, the continued need for that parking
and the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of pending or anticipated
nonresidential development within the assessment district. The chief transportation official
shall report his or her findings to the city council at a noticed public hearing and recommend
any adjustment to these requirements as may be needed.
SECTION 8. Section 16.58.030 Exemptions and 16.58.040 Timing of Payments of
Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
16.58.030 Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following:
* * *
(g) Any residential subdivision for which land dedication or fees in lieu thereof are required
pursuant to Chapter 21.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This exemption shall only apply to
the park development fee described in Section 16.58.020(a).
16.58.040 Timing of Payments.
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 6 Nov. 10, 2016
The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Code. (a) The obligation to pay the
fees established by this chapter shall accrue as of the date the first discretionary approval is
given for the development, or if no discretionary approval is required, as of the date a complete
application is submitted for a building permit for the development. Fees shall be due and
payable as of the date a complete application is submitted for a building permit for the
development. Fees shall be due and payable to the City of Palo Alto prior to issuance of a
building permit for the development, and shall be calculated at the rate of the fees in effect as
of the date the obligation to pay the fees accrued.
(b) Payment of the fees may be deferred, for residential development only, to the date of
final building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property
for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to
issuance of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall
constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the
property owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given
until the fees are paid. The agreement shall also provide that in any action to collect the fees or
any portion thereof the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection,
including reasonable attorneys fees. The director of planning and community environment shall
be authorized on behalf of the city to execute the agreement described in this section, in a form
acceptable to the city attorney.
SECTION 9. Section 16.58.090 Annual Rate Adjustment is added to Chapter 16.58
(Development Impact Fees) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
16.58.090 Annual Rate Adjustment.
The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110.
SECTION 10. Section 16.59.050 Timing of Payments of Chapter 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.59.050 Timing of Payments.
(a) The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this CodeExcept as otherwise
required by Government Code Section 66007, the fee shall accrue when the first discretionary
approval is given for a new development after the effective date of this section, or if no such
discretionary approval is required subsequent to the effective date of this section, when an
application is submitted for a building permit for that new development. In either case, the fee
shall be payable when an application is submitted for a building permit for the new
development. A fee shall be calculated at the rate in effect when the fee accrues.
(b) Payment of the fee may be deferred, for residential development only, to the date of
final building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property
for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 7 Nov. 10, 2016
issuance of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall
constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the
property owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given
until the fees are paid. The agreement shall also provide that, in any action to collect the fees or
any portion thereof, the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection,
including reasonable attorney's fees. The director of planning and community environment may
execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney. Any
deferral granted pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with the requirements of
Government Code Section 66007.
(cb) A credit against the fee may be given for dedications of eligible citywide transportation
capacity enhancements constructed or provided at private expense and for the value of land
dedicated to the city that is necessary or useful to an eligible citywide transportation capacity
enhancement. Such credit will be granted only if the city council determines that: (i) the city will
experience a substantial cost savings or service quality improvement as a result of private
construction or provision of the capacity enhancement or the dedication of land, (ii) the
capacity enhancement can be expected to immediately and significantly relieve citywide traffic
congestion, and (iii) the grant of the credit, in lieu of the fee, will not cause the city to delay the
implementation of elements of the city's transportation plan that are of higher priority, in the
judgment of the city council, than the land or capacity enhancement that will be dedicated. The
credit shall be applied at the time the city accepts the land or capacity enhancement. Where
the city council has made the determinations required by this subdivision, payment of a portion
of the fee equal to the amount of an expected credit against the fee may be deferred to the
date of final building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real
property for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior
to issuance of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation,
shall constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to
the property owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be
given until the fees are paid or the credit issued. The agreement shall also provide that, in any
action to collect the fees or any portion thereof, the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of
enforcement and collection, including reasonable attorney's fees. The director of planning and
community environment may execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable
to the city attorney. Any deferral granted pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with
the requirements of Government Code Section 66007. Where a credit is given for the provision
of a service that is an eligible capacity enhancement, the deferral of the fee, and the application
of the credit, may be according to a schedule set forth in the recorded agreement, which
schedule shall be designed to ensure that no credit is applied in advance of the provision of
services for which the credit is made.
SECTION 11. Section 16.59.060(f) Calculation of Fee of Chapter 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.59.060 Calculation of Fee.
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 8 Nov. 10, 2016
***
(f ) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110. Beginning July 1, 2005, and on each July 1 thereafter, the rate of the fee shall be
automatically adjusted according to the following formula:
Council-Approved Rate = Most Recent ENR / ENR at Council-Approval
Where the "Council-Approved Rate" is the rate most recently set by resolution or ordinance
of the city council, "Most Recent ENR" is the most recently published construction cost index
when the calculation is made and "ENR at Council-Approval" is the construction cost index
published for the month in which the council approved the "Council-Approved Rate."
***
SECTION 12. Section 16.59.090(e) Penalties of Chapter 16.59 (Citywide
Transportation Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.59.090 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citation for violations of this chapter: development services director, director of planning
and community environment and their designeeschief building official, assistant chief building
official, and ordinance compliance inspector.
SECTION 13. Section 16.60.050 Timing of Payments of Chapter 16.60 (Charleston
Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
16.60.050 Timing of Payments.
(a) The fee shall be paid as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this CodeExcept as otherwise
required by Government Code Section 66007, the fee shall accrue when the first discretionary
approval is given for a new development after the effective date of this section, or, if no such
discretionary approval is required subsequent to the effective date of this section, when an
application is submitted for a building permit for that new development. In either case, the fee
shall be payable when an application is submitted for a building permit for the new
development. A fee shall be calculated at the rate in effect when the fee accrues.
(b) Payment of the fee may be deferred, for residential development only, to the date of final
building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property for
which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to issuance
of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall constitute
a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 9 Nov. 10, 2016
owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the
fees are paid. The agreement shall also provide that, in any action to collect the fees or any
portion thereof, the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection,
including reasonable attorney's fees. The director of planning and community environment may
execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney. Any
deferral granted pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with the requirements of
Government Code Section 66007.
(c) A credit against the fee may be given for dedications of eligible safety enhancements
constructed or provided at private expense and for the value of land dedicated to the city that
is necessary or useful to an eligible safety enhancements. Such credit will be granted only if the
city council determines that: (i) the city will experience a substantial cost savings or service
quality improvement as a result of private construction or provision of the eligible safety
enhancements or the dedication of land, (ii) the eligible safety enhancements can be expected
to immediately and significantly improve bicyclist or pedestrian safety, and (iii) the grant of the
credit, in lieu of the fee, will not cause the city to delay the implementation of elements of the
Program that are of higher priority, in the judgment of the city council, than the land or eligible
safety enhancement that will be dedicated. The credit shall be applied at the time the city
accepts the land or eligible safety enhancement. Where the city council has made the
determinations required by this subdivision, payment of a portion of the fee equal to the
amount of an expected credit against the fee may be deferred to the date of final building
inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property for which the
fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to issuance of the
building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall constitute a lien
on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property owner.
The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the fees are
paid or the credit issued. The agreement shall also provide that, in any action to collect the fees
or any portion thereof, the city shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection,
including reasonable attorney's fees. The director of planning and community environment may
execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney. Any
deferral granted pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be consistent with the requirements of
Government Code Section 66007. Where a credit is given for the provision of a service that is an
eligible safety enhancement, the deferral of the fee, and the application of the credit, may be
according to a schedule set forth in the recorded agreement, which schedule shall be designed
to ensure that no credit is applied in advance of the provision of services for which the credit is
made.
SECTION 14. Section 6.60.060(e) Calculation of Fee of Chapter 16.60 (Charleston
Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian And Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
16.60.060 Calculation of Fee.
***
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 10 Nov. 10, 2016
(e) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to Section
16.64.110. Beginning July 1, 2006, and on each July 1 thereafter, the rate of the fee shall be
automatically adjusted according to the following formula:
Council-Approved Rate = Most Recent ENR / ENR at Council-Approval
Where the "Council-Approved Rate" is the rate most recently set by resolution or ordinance of
the city council, "Most Recent ENR" is the most recently published construction cost index
when the calculation is made and "ENR at Council-Approval" is the construction cost index
published for the month in which the council approved the "Council-Approved Rate."
***
SECTION 15. Section 16.60.090(e) Penalties of 16.60 (Charleston Arastradero
Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
16.60.090 Penalties
***
(e) Persons employed in the following designated employee positions are authorized to
exercise the authority provided in the California Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to
issue citation for violations of this chapter: development services director,chief building
inspector, chief transportation official, and director of, planning and community environment
director and their designeeschief building official, assistant chief building official, and ordinance
compliance inspector.
SECTION 16. Section 16.61.090 Developer’s Option to Pay Fees to Public Art Fund
In-Lieu of Providing On-Site Art of Chapter 16.61 (Public Art for Private Developments) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
16.61.090 Developer’s option to pay fees to public art fund in-lieu of providing on-site art.
In lieu of installation of on-site public art, the developer may elect to make a monetary
contribution to the Palo Alto Public Arts Fund. The amount of the contribution shall be the cost
of the public art required by Section 16.61.040. A developer who elects to satisfy the
requirements of this chapter through a contribution to the Fund must complete the payment
in-lieu prior to the issuance of any building permit for the development project. The payment
shall be made as set forth in Chapter 16.64 of this Code.
SECTION 17. Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration)
is added to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER 16.64 DEVELOPMENT FEE AND IN-LIEU PAYMENT ADMINISTRATION
Sections:
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 11 Nov. 10, 2016
16.64.010 Applicability
16.64.020 Due Date
16.64.030 Deferred Payment
16.64.040 Calculation of Fees
16.64.050 Adoption of Fee Schedule
16.64.060 Notice of Protest Rights
16.64.070 Informal Hearing
16.64.080 Appeal of Director’s Determination
16.64.090 Cost of Protest
16.64.100 Administration
16.64.110 Inflation Adjustment
Section 16.64.010 Applicability
This Chapter 16.64 applies to any fee or in-lieu payment imposed under any provision of this
code that states that that payment of the fee or in-lieu payment shall be made pursuant to this
Chapter 16.64. For purposes of this chapter the term “fee” shall be used to refer to any such
fee or in-lieu payment, regardless of how denominated elsewhere in this code.
Section 16.64.020 Due Date
A fee shall be paid on or before the issuance of the first building permit for the project. For a
phased project, payments may be made for each portion of a phased project prior to issuance
of the first building permit for that phase. If there is no building permit for the project, the fee
shall be paid upon issuance of the first city permit or other approval. If no city permit or other
approval is required, and the obligation to pay the fee is triggered by a change in use, payment
of the fee must be made before the change in use occurs.
Section 16.64.030 Deferred Payment
For residential development only, payment of a fee may be deferred to the date of final
building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property for
which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to issuance
of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall constitute
a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property
owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the
fees are paid. The director of planning and community environment may execute the
agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney.
Section 16.64.040 Calculation of Fee
A fee shall be payable at the rate specified in the council-adopted Municipal Fee Schedule in
effect on the date the fees are paid, except that the applicant for a vesting tentative map for a
development project shall pay the fees in effect on the date the application for the vesting
tentative map is deemed complete.
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 12 Nov. 10, 2016
Section 16.64.050 Adoption of Fee Schedule
The City Council can revise the rate of any fee by amending, by ordinance or resolution, the rate
set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. Any inflation-adjustment provided in this code with
respect to a fee shall go into effect upon approval by the city council of a change to the
Municipal Fee Schedule reflecting the adjusted amount of the fee.
Section 16.64.060 Notice of Protest Rights
(a) Each applicant is hereby notified that, in order to protest the imposition of any impact fee
required by this chapter, the protest must be filed in accordance with the requirements of this
chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. Failure of any person to comply with the protest
requirements of this chapter or the Mitigation Fee Act shall bar that person from any action or
proceeding or any defense of invalidity or unreasonableness of the imposition.
(b) On or before the date on which payment of the fee is due, the applicant shall pay the full
amount required by the city and serve a written notice to the director of planning and
community environment with all of the following information: (1) a statement that the required
payment is tendered, or will be tendered when due, under protest; and (2) a statement
informing the city of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis
for the protest.
(c) The applicant shall bear the burden of proving, to the satisfaction of the director,
entitlement to a fee adjustment.
Section 16.64.070 Informal Hearing
(a) The director shall schedule an informal hearing regarding the protest, to be held no later
than 60 days after the imposition of the impact fees upon the development project, and with at
least 10 days’ prior notice to the applicant (unless either dates are otherwise agreed by the
director and the applicant).
(b) During the informal hearing, the director shall consider the applicant’s protest, relevant
evidence assembled as a result of the protest, and any additional relevant evidence provided
during the informal hearing by the applicant and the city. The director shall provide an
opportunity for the applicant to present additional evidence at the hearing in support of the
protest.
(c) The director shall issue a written determination regarding the protest. The director’s
determination shall support the fee imposed upon the development project unless the
applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the director, entitlement to an adjustment to the
fee.
(d) The director may elect to appoint a designee to hear and decide a protest under this
section.
Section 16.64.080 Appeal of Director’s Determination
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 13 Nov. 10, 2016
(a) Any applicant who desires to appeal a determination issued by the director shall submit a
written appeal to the director and the city manager. A complete written appeal shall include a
complete description of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the
basis for the appeal of the director’s determination. An appeal received by the city manager
more than 10 calendar days after the director’s determination may be rejected as late. Upon
receipt of a complete and timely appeal, the city manager shall appoint an independent hearing
officer to consider and rule on the appeal.
(b) The independent hearing officer shall, in coordination with the applicant and the director,
set the time and place for the appeal hearing, and provide written notice thereof. The
independent hearing officer shall consider relevant evidence, provide an opportunity for the
applicant and the city to present additional noncumulative evidence at the hearing, and
preserve the complete administrative record of the proceeding.
(c) Within 30 days after the independent hearing officer closes the hearing and receives post-
hearing briefs (if any), the independent hearing officer shall issue a written decision on the
appeal hearing which shall include a statement of findings of fact in support of the decision. The
independent hearing officer’s discretion shall be limited to a determination that either supports
the director’s determination or orders the city to refund all or a portion of the impact fees to
the applicant. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving entitlement to a fee adjustment.
The decision of the hearing officer is final and conclusive, and is subject to judicial review.
Section 16.64.090 Cost of Protest
The applicant shall pay all city costs related to any protest or appeal pursuant to this chapter, in
accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the city. At the time of the applicant’s protest,
and at the time of the applicant’s appeal, the applicant shall pay a deposit in an amount
established by the city to cover the estimated reasonable cost of processing the protest and
appeal. If the deposit is not adequate to cover all city costs, the applicant shall pay the
difference within 20 days after receipt of written notice from the director.
Section 16.64.100 Administration
The City Manager, or her/his designee, is authorized to adopt administrative regulations or
guidelines that are consistent with and that further the terms and requirements set forth in this
Code. All such administrative regulations or guidelines must be in writing. Such regulations or
guidelines may interpret any provision of this chapter, as well as any provision of this code
relating to the calculation of a fee.
Section 16.64.110 Inflation Adjustment
Where it is indicated in this code that a fee is subject to inflation adjustment pursuant to this
section, on each July 1, the amount of the fee shall be recalculated according to the following
formula:
Adjusted Rate = Prior Rate * Most Recent ENR / ENR for Prior Rate
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 14 Nov. 10, 2016
Where the "Prior Rate" is the rate in effect prior at the time this adjustment is calculated,
"Most Recent ENR" is the most recently published construction cost index when the adjustment
is calculated and "ENR at Council-Approval" is the construction cost index (i) used to calculated
the Prior Rate when it was set pursuant to this section or (ii) published for the month in which
the council approved the "Prior Rate." "Construction cost index" means the construction cost
index for the San Francisco Bay Area set forth in the Engineering News Record published by
McGraw Hill and Associates. In the event the Engineering News Record ceases to calculate and
publish this index, then the city manager may designate a comparable, alternative index to
serve as the construction cost index.
The existing rate for a fee shall remain in effect until the recalculated rate is adopted and
effective pursuant to Section 16.64.050.
SECTION 18. Sections 21.50.060 Procedure and 21.50.070 Calculation of fair
market value of Chapter 21.50 (Parkland Dedication or Fees In-Lieu Thereof) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code are added to read as follows:
21.50.060 Procedure.
(a) Payment of fees: Any fee due under this Chapter shall be paid as set forth in Chapter
16.64 of this Code.
(b) Land dedications. At the time of the filing of the final or parcel map, the subdivider
shall dedicate the land to the City by a grant deed or other form acceptable to the City
Attorney.The director of public works, director of planning and community environment or city
council as appropriate, shall, upon approving a subdivision map, determine the conditions
necessary to comply with the requirements for parkland dedication or fees in lieu thereof as set
forth in this chapter, and said conditions shall be attached as conditions of approval.
21.50.070 Calculation of fair market value.
. . .
(c) The rate of the fee shall be subject to annual adjustment for inflation pursuant to
Section 16.64.110. Beginning July 1, 2009, and on each July 1 thereafter, the dollar amount set
forth in this section shall increase without further action by the city according to the following
formula:
Most Recent ENR
Council-Approved Rate*
ENR at Council Approval
*Where the "Council-Approved Rate" is the rate set forth in subsection (b).
NOT YET APPROVED
160802 jb 0131541 15 Nov. 10, 2016
SECTION 19. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a 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 and adopted this Ordinance, and each and all
provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more provisions may be declared invalid.
SECTION 20. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption
of this ordinance.
SECTION 21. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of
the sixtieth day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
_____________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 28, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Resolution 9579 to Update the Fiscal Year 2017
Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust the Planning and Community
Environment Fees by Fiscal Year 2017 Adjustments to Salaries and
Benefits (FIRST READING: November 14, 2016 PASSED: 7-0 Berman,
Kniss absent)
This Ordinance was first heard by the City Council on November 14, 2016, where no changes
were made to the Ordinance. It was passed with a vote of 7-0 with Council Members Berman
and Kniss absent. The Motion is listed below.
PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year 2017 Municipal Fee
Schedule to Adjust Planning and Community Environment Fees to Reflect Adjustments to
Salaries and Benefits Included in the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget.
Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 9:51 P.M.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to:
A. Find the Project exempt under Section 15273 of the California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines; and
B. Adopt an Ordinance approving amendments to the Planning and Community
Environment Section of the Municipal Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2017 to adjust fees
based on a 5.5 percent adjustment for average salary and benefits increases.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Ordinance (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
Not Yet Approved
161011 jb 0131556 1 October 2016
Ordinance No. ____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution 9579 to
Update the Fiscal Year 2017 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust the Planning and
Community Environment Fees by Fiscal Year 2017 Adjustments to Salaries and
Benefits
The Council does hereby ORDAIN as follows:
A. In spring 2016, the Planning and Community Environment Department completed a
fee study to update fees for services. Due to the timing of the fee study, the updated fees were
based upon Fiscal Year 2015 cost information, the most recent completed fiscal year
information available at the time.
B. On March 28, 2016, the City Council accepted the fee study and approved a
resolution adjusting fees and hourly staff rates charged for services.
C. On June 13, 2016, Council adopted changes to the Fiscal Year 2017 Municipal Fee
Schedule, applying a 5.5 percent average salary and benefits adjustment to most City fees.
Fees for the Planning and Community Environment Department did not capture these salary
and benefits adjustments.
D. This issue was raised during the Fiscal Year 2017 budget adoption process. Staff
committed to return to Council with a 5.5 percent increase to Fiscal Year 2017 fees resulting in
fee increases effective January, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto adopts the changes to the Municipal
Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit "A" and “B” and incorporated here by reference. When
effective, such fees shall supersede any prior inconsistent fees charged by the Planning and
Community Environment Department.
SECTION 2. The amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than
necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and the manner in which
those costs are allocated to a payer bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer's
burden on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.
SECTION 3. Fees in the Municipal Fee Schedule are for government services provided
directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged. The amount of this fee does
not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the services. Consequently, pursuant to
Art. XIII C, Section l(e)(2), such fees are not a tax.
161011 jb 0131556 2 October 2016
SECTION 4. Effective Date. The fee increases proposed for FY 2017 described in
Exhibit A and the changes to the hourly billing rates described in Exhibit B shall become
effective no sooner than sixty (60) days from the date of adoption of this ordinance. The fee
increases proposed for FY 2018 described in Exhibit A and the changes to the 2018 hourly billing
rates described in Exhibit B shall become effective on July 1, 2018.
SECTION 5. CEQA. The adoption of user fees is exempt from environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15273.)
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Architectural Review
Architectural Review ‐ Major
Project
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$10,264 initial deposit plus
legal review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
$10,829 initial deposit plus legal
review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$10,264 initial deposit plus legal
review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$10,829 initial deposit plus
legal review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
Architectural Review ‐ Minor
Project (ARB Review)
$4,982 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$5,256 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$6,860 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$7,343 plus applicable
Other Application fees
Architectural Review ‐ Minor
Project (Staff Review)
$2,112 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,228 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,672 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$2,819 plus applicable
Other Application fees
Design Enhancement Exception
$3,623 plus applicable
Other Application fees +
$3,822 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$5,544 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$5,849 plus applicable
Other Application fees
Preliminary Review
$3,371 plus applicable
Other Application fees +
$3,556 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$5,451 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$5,751 plus applicable
Other Application fees
Signs ‐ (ARB Review)
$2,261 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,385 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$3,491 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$3,683 plus applicable Other
Application fees
Signs ‐ (Exceptions)
$2,653 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,799 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$3,753 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$3,959 plus applicable Other
Application fees
Signs, Minor Facade Changes,
Landscaping, Accessory
Structures, or Similar Minor
Changes to a Building Exterior ‐
(Staff Review)/Master sign
program
$611 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$645 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$835 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$881 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Temporary Sign Permit
$110 per 15 days plus any
applicable Other Application
fees +
$116 per 15 days plus any
applicable Other Application
fees +
$154 per 15 days plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$162 per 15 days plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
Comprehensive Plan Change
Comprehensive Plan Change
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$6,118 initial deposit $6,454 initial deposit $6,118 initial deposit $6,454 initial deposit
Comprehensive Plan
Maintenance Fee
Note: Collected at Building Permit
issuance.
$0.55 per $1,000 of
construction valuation
$0.55 per $1,000 of construction
valuation
$0.55 per $1,000 of construction
valuation
$0.55 per $1,000 of
construction valuation
Development Agreement
Development Agreement
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$7,058 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
$7,446 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable
Other Application fees
$7,058 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$7,446 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
Development Agreement ‐
Annual Review
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered.
$2,471 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
$2,607 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable
Other Application fees
$2,471 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$2,607 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
Planning and Community Environment
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
EXHIBIT A
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Development Projects Preliminary Review
Development Projects ‐
Prescreening (PTC & CC Review)
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$3,671 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
$3,873 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable
Other Application fees
$3,671 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$3,873 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
Director's Approval
Home Improvement Exception $2,070 +$2,184 +$3,109 $3,280
Director's hearing requested ‐
per hearing $280+$280+$280+$280+
Documents and Photocopies
Administrative Extensions and
Zoning Letters
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Applicable hourly rate/1
hr. mininum
Comprehensive Plan $90 plus $4 if mailed $95 plus $4 if mailed $90 plus $4 if mailed $95 plus $4 if mailed
Copy from Optical Disk $28 minimum plus $0.50 per
page
$28 minimum plus $0.50 per
page $28 minimum plus $0.50 per page $28 minimum plus $0.50 per
page
Tree Manual or Other Bounded
Documents $33 plus $4 if mailed $33 plus $4 if mailed $33 plus $4 if mailed $33 plus $4 if mailed
Zoning Map Booklet $98 plus $4 if mailed $98 plus $4 if mailed $98 plus $4 if mailed $98 plus $4 if mailed
Property Research requiring
more than 30 minutes
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum Applicable hourly rate/1 hr. mininum Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Environmental Impact Assessment
CEQA Categorical Exemption $400 +$422 +$451 $476
Environmental Impact
Assessment ‐ Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Initial deposit of 100 percent
of estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent of
estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent of
estimated costs due upon application
plus 25% for contract administration
and applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent
of estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Environmental Document
(Consultant Prepared)
Note: If estimated costs eceed
$100,000, alternative deposit and
payment schedule arrangements may
be made at the discretion of the
Director of Planning and Community
Environment. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered.
Initial deposit of 100 percent
of estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent of
estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent of
estimated costs due upon application
plus 25% for contract administration
and applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent
of estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Environmental Document:
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any other
entitlements necessary to complete the
project, whether indicated as 100
percent cost recovery in this schedule or
not.
$5,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees.
$5,275 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees.
$5,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees.
$5,275 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees.
Mitigation Monitoring ‐
Environmental Impact Report
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered, including any charges
for specialized consultants.
$3,671 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$3,873 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$3,671 initial deposit plus applicable
Legal Review and Other Application
fees
$3,873 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Mitigation Monitoring ‐
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered, including any charges
for specialized consultants.
$1,224 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$1,291 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$1,224 initial deposit plus applicable
Legal Review and Other Application
fees
$1,291 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Historic Resource
Demolition Application for
Historic Buildings $1,001 $1,056 $1,001 $1,056
Historic Resource Review ‐
Major Project
$1,502 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$1,585 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$1,502 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$1,585 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Historic Resource Review ‐
Minor Project (Staff Review)
$855 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$902 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$1,001 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$1,056 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Historic Resource Review of
Individual Review Application
$250 plus Individual Review
fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$264 plus Individual Review fees
and applicable Other Application
fees
$250 plus Individual Review fees and
applicable Other Application fees
$264 plus Individual Review
fees and applicable Other
Application fees
Mills Act Contract ‐ Establish or
Withdraw
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered.
$1,835 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$1,936 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$1,835 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees
$1,936 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees
Transfer of Development Rights
Projects
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$611 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$645 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$611 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees
$645 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
Williamson Act Contract ‐
Establish or Withdraw
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$1,929 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$2,035 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$1,929 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees
$2,035 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees
Individual Review
Expansion of Existing Two‐Story
greater than 150 sq. ft.
$4,310 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to
complete the project,
including historic review +
$4,547 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to
complete the project, including
historic review +
$5,641 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to complete
the project, including historic review
$5,951 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any
other entitlements
necessary to complete the
project, including historic
review
Individual Review ‐ Minor
Revisions to Approved Projects
$2,320 plus cost of notices +$2,448 plus cost of notices + $2,931 plust cost of notices $3,092 plust cost of notices
New Two‐Story Addition or New
Two‐Story Home
$5,679 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to
complete the project,
including historic review +
$5,991 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to
complete the project, including
historic review +
$7,046 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to complete
the project, including historic review
$7,434 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any
other entitlements
necessary to complete the
project, including historic
review
Preliminary Individual Review
with Architect $245 +$258 +$375 $396
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Appeals and Legal Review Fees
Legal Review for Additional
hearings
Note: Legal review fees cover up to 3
public hearings. Additional hearings are
charged at 1/3 of the applicable fee.
Additional hearings are
charged at 1/3 of the
applicable fee.
Additional hearings are charged
at 1/3 of the applicable fee.
Additional hearings are charged at
1/3 of the applicable fee.
Additional hearings are
charged at 1/3 of the
applicable fee.
Request for Hearing by City
Council or Planning &
Transportation Commission
Note: This fee is refunded if the City
Council chooses not to hear an
appeal. Also, this fee shall not be
charged if a fee for Director's
hearing has been paid.
$280 +$280 +$280 +$280 +
Appeal costs exceeding appeals
filing fee
Note: All costs will be recovered from
applicant in the event that an appeal is
filed by a third party and the appeal is
upheld and in the event that the
applicant files an appeal that is denied.
$3,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees.
$3,165 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees.
$3,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees.
$3,165 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees.
Legal Review ARB Major $2,749 +$2,606 +$5,211 $5,498
Legal Review (legislative review,
zone change, plan amendment,
etc.)
$5,278 +$5,003 +$10,006 $10,556
Legal Review Environmental $4,720 +$4,980 +$9,439 $9,958
Legal Review Mitigation
Monitoring Report $500 $528 $500 $528
Other Application Fees
Public Noticing ‐ 150 ft. Radius
Note: If noticing is required. Covers cost
of up to three rounds of noticing.
$484 +$511 +$529 $558
Public Noticing ‐ 600 ft. Radius
Note: If noticing is required. Covers cost
of up to three rounds of noticing.
$825 +$870 +$927 $977
Public Noticing beyond 600 ft.
Radius
Note: If noticing is required
$931 +$982 +$1,236 $1,304
Record Management Fee $26 per file $26 per file $26 per file $26 per file
Recording Fee with County County cost of recording, if
required
County cost of recording, if
required County cost of recording, if required County cost of recording, if
required
Records Retention $4.00 per plan sheet $4.00 per plan sheet $4.00 per plan sheet $4.00 per plan sheet
Pre‐screening fee
Note: All costs will be recovered for the
prescreening of applicants proposing
rezoning, zoning text amendments,
development agreements, Comp Plan
amendments, or specific plans.
$3,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$3,165 initial deposit plus any
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$3,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Legal Review and Other
Application fees
$3,165 initial deposit plus
any applicable Legal Review
and Other Application fees
Planning Compliance Fee
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
Initial deposit equal to 3 hrs of
applicable staff rate
Initial deposit equal to 3 hrs of
applicable staff rate
Initial deposit equal to 3 hrs of
applicable staff rate
Initial deposit equal to 3 hrs
of applicable staff rate
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Contract Administration
Note: 25% Contract Administration and
project management costs are in
addition to direct cost of consultant
services and will be charged to deposit‐
based fees.
25% of direct cost 25% of direct cost 25% of direct cost 25% of direct cost
Site & Design
Site and Design Major
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$22,523 initial deposit plus
any Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
Fees
$23,762 initial deposit plus any
Legal Review fees and applicable
Other Application Fees
$22,523 initial deposit plus any Legal
Review fees and applicable Other
Application Fees
$23,762 initial deposit plus
any Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
Fees
Subdivision ‐ Five or More Parcels
Subdivision Final Map $4,140 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$4,368 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$4,663 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$4,919 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Tentative Map
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$8,622 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$9,096 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$8,622 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees
$9,096 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees
Subdivision (Minor)
Parcel Map $2,527 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$2,666 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$3,899 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$4,113 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Preliminary Parcel Map, Minor
$3,738 plus any applicable
Other Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees +
$3,944 plus any applicable Other
Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees +
$4,671 plus any applicable Other
Application fees and Environmental
Impact Assessment fees
$4,928 plus any applicable
Other Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees
Subdivision (Minor) with Exceptions
Parcel Map, Minor with
Exception
$2,098 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$2,213 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,855 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$3,012 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Preliminary Parcel Map, Minor
with Exception
$6,464 plus any applicable
Other Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees +
$6,820 plus any applicable Other
Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees +
$7,388 plus any applicable Other
Application fees and Environmental
Impact Assessment fees
$7,794 plus any applicable
Other Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees
Subscriptions
Board or Commission Agendas $112 annually per board or
commission
$112 annually per board or
commission
$112 annually per board or
commission
$112 annually per board or
commission
Board or Commission Minutes $224 annually per board or
commission
$224 annually per board or
commission
$224 annually per board or
commission
$224 annually per board or
commission
Use Permit
Day Care Center
$186 plus any applicable
Other Application fees plus
Environmental Document fees
+
$186 plus any applicable Other
Application fees plus
Environmental Document fees
+
$186 plus any applicable Other
Application fees plus Environmental
Document fees +
$186 plus any applicable
Other Application fees plus
Environmental Document
fees +
Temporary Use Permit ‐ Minor
Note: Does not include hearing.
$674 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$711 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$1,143 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$1,206 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Conditional Use Permit ‐
Director level
$4,914 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$5,184 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$5,754 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$6,070 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2018 *
Conditional Use Permit ‐
additional upon hearing request
Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*
$4,650 plus any applicable $4,906 plus any applicable
Other Application fees + Other Application fees +
$9,645 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
New FY 2018 Rate*
$10,175 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Wireless ‐ Tier 1: Minor AR $2,672 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$2,819 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$2,672 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$2,819 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Wireless ‐ Tier 2: Conditional
Use Permit
$5,754 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$6,070 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$5,754 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$6,070 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Wireless ‐ Tier 3: Major ARB $6,109 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$6,445 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$6,109 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$6,445 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Variance
Variance ‐ Director's level $3,144 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$3,317 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$3,675 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$3,877 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Variance ‐ additional upon
hearing $4,823 +$5,088 +$9,645 $10,175
Zone Change
Planned Community Zone
Change
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered
$7,341 initial deposit $7,745 initial deposit $7,341 initial deposit $7,745 initial deposit
Planned Community Zone
Change ‐ Minor Change
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered
$1,500 initial deposit $1,583 initial deposit $1,500 initial deposit $1,583 initial deposit
Zone Change Regular
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered
$6,118 initial deposit $6,454 initial deposit $6,118 initial deposit $6,454 initial deposit
* Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Staff Rates Adopted for Fiscal Year 2017 New for January, 2017 New for Fiscal Year 2018
Administrative Assistant $130.87 $138.07 $138.07
Administrative Associate I $112.19 $118.36 $118.36
Administrative Associate II $123.62 $130.42 $130.42
Administrative Associate III $132.50 $139.79 $139.79
Assistant Director Planning &
Community Environment $292.56 $308.65 $308.65
Associate Engineer $177.57 $187.34 $187.34
Associate Planner $161.83 $170.73 $170.73
Building/Planning Technician $130.12 $137.28 $137.28
Business Analyst $188.78 $199.16 $199.16
Chief Planning Official $260.15 $274.46 $274.46
Chief Transportation Official $227.16 $239.65 $239.65
City Legal Counsel $273.64 $288.69 $288.69
Code Enforcement Officer $158.53 $167.25 $167.25
Code Enforcement Lead $175.56 $185.22 $185.22
Coordinator Transit
Management Systems $160.38 $169.20 $169.20
Director of Planning and
Community Environment $316.95 $334.38 $334.38
Management Analyst $168.48 $177.75 $177.75
Planning Manager $205.91 $217.24 $217.24
Planner $169.62 $178.95 $178.95
Project Engineer $208.21 $219.66 $219.66
Senior Management Analyst $195.46 $206.21 $206.21
Senior Planner $195.61 $206.37 $206.37
* Includes salary and benefits plus citywide and department overhead, as applicable.
Hourly cost recovery rates *
EXHIBIT B
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Architectural Review
Architectural Review ‐ Major
Project
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$10,264 initial deposit plus
legal review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
$10,829 initial deposit plus legal
review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$10,264 initial deposit plus legal
review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$10,829 initial deposit plus
legal review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
Architectural Review ‐ Minor
Project (ARB Review)
$4,982 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$5,256 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$6,860 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$7,343 plus applicable
Other Application fees
Architectural Review ‐ Minor
Project (Staff Review)
$2,112 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,228 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,672 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$2,819 plus applicable
Other Application fees
Design Enhancement Exception
$3,623 plus applicable
Other Application fees +
$3,822 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$5,544 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$5,849 plus applicable
Other Application fees
Preliminary Review
$3,371 plus applicable
Other Application fees +
$3,556 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$5,451 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$5,751 plus applicable
Other Application fees
Signs ‐ (ARB Review)
$2,261 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,385 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$3,491 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$3,683 plus applicable Other
Application fees
Signs ‐ (Exceptions)
$2,653 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,799 plus applicable Other
Application fees +
$3,753 plus applicable Other
Application fees
$3,959 plus applicable Other
Application fees
Signs, Minor Facade Changes,
Landscaping, Accessory
Structures, or Similar Minor
Changes to a Building Exterior ‐
(Staff Review)/Master sign
program
$611 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$645 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$835 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$881 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Temporary Sign Permit
$110 per 15 days plus any
applicable Other Application
fees +
$116 per 15 days plus any
applicable Other Application
fees +
$154 per 15 days plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$162 per 15 days plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
Comprehensive Plan Change
Comprehensive Plan Change
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$6,118 initial deposit $6,454 initial deposit $6,118 initial deposit $6,454 initial deposit
Comprehensive Plan
Maintenance Fee
Note: Collected at Building Permit
issuance.
$0.55 per $1,000 of
construction valuation
$0.55 per $1,000 of construction
valuation
$0.55 per $1,000 of construction
valuation
$0.55 per $1,000 of
construction valuation
Development Agreement
Development Agreement
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$7,058 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
$7,446 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable
Other Application fees
$7,058 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$7,446 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
Development Agreement ‐
Annual Review
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered.
$2,471 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
$2,607 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable
Other Application fees
$2,471 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$2,607 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
Planning and Community Environment
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Development Projects Preliminary Review
Development Projects ‐
Prescreening (PTC & CC Review)
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$3,671 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
$3,873 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable
Other Application fees
$3,671 initial deposit plus Legal
Review fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$3,873 initial deposit plus
Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
fees
Director's Approval
Home Improvement Exception $2,070 +$2,184 +$3,109 $3,280
Director's hearing requested ‐
per hearing $280+$280+$280+$280+
Documents and Photocopies
Administrative Extensions and
Zoning Letters
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Applicable hourly rate/1
hr. mininum
Comprehensive Plan $90 plus $4 if mailed $95 plus $4 if mailed $90 plus $4 if mailed $95 plus $4 if mailed
Copy from Optical Disk $28 minimum plus $0.50 per
page
$28 minimum plus $0.50 per
page $28 minimum plus $0.50 per page $28 minimum plus $0.50 per
page
Tree Manual or Other Bounded
Documents $33 plus $4 if mailed $33 plus $4 if mailed $33 plus $4 if mailed $33 plus $4 if mailed
Zoning Map Booklet $98 plus $4 if mailed $98 plus $4 if mailed $98 plus $4 if mailed $98 plus $4 if mailed
Property Research requiring
more than 30 minutes
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum Applicable hourly rate/1 hr. mininum Applicable hourly rate/1 hr.
mininum
Environmental Impact Assessment
CEQA Categorical Exemption $400 +$422 +$451 $476
Environmental Impact
Assessment ‐ Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Initial deposit of 100 percent
of estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent of
estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent of
estimated costs due upon application
plus 25% for contract administration
and applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent
of estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Environmental Document
(Consultant Prepared)
Note: If estimated costs eceed
$100,000, alternative deposit and
payment schedule arrangements may
be made at the discretion of the
Director of Planning and Community
Environment. 100 percent of processing
costs will be recovered.
Initial deposit of 100 percent
of estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent of
estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent of
estimated costs due upon application
plus 25% for contract administration
and applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Initial deposit of 100 percent
of estimated costs due upon
application plus 25% for
contract administration and
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Environmental Document:
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any other
entitlements necessary to complete the
project, whether indicated as 100
percent cost recovery in this schedule or
not.
$5,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees.
$5,275 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees.
$5,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees.
$5,275 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees.
Mitigation Monitoring ‐
Environmental Impact Report
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered, including any charges
for specialized consultants.
$3,671 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$3,873 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$3,671 initial deposit plus applicable
Legal Review and Other Application
fees
$3,873 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Mitigation Monitoring ‐
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered, including any charges
for specialized consultants.
$1,224 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$1,291 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$1,224 initial deposit plus applicable
Legal Review and Other Application
fees
$1,291 initial deposit plus
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
Historic Resource
Demolition Application for
Historic Buildings $1,001 $1,056 $1,001 $1,056
Historic Resource Review ‐
Major Project
$1,502 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$1,585 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$1,502 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$1,585 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Historic Resource Review ‐
Minor Project (Staff Review)
$855 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$902 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$1,001 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$1,056 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Historic Resource Review of
Individual Review Application
$250 plus Individual Review
fees and applicable Other
Application fees
$264 plus Individual Review fees
and applicable Other Application
fees
$250 plus Individual Review fees and
applicable Other Application fees
$264 plus Individual Review
fees and applicable Other
Application fees
Mills Act Contract ‐ Establish or
Withdraw
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered.
$1,835 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$1,936 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$1,835 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees
$1,936 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees
Transfer of Development Rights
Projects
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$611 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$645 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$611 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees
$645 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
Williamson Act Contract ‐
Establish or Withdraw
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$1,929 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$2,035 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$1,929 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees
$2,035 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees
Individual Review
Expansion of Existing Two‐Story
greater than 150 sq. ft.
$4,310 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to
complete the project,
including historic review +
$4,547 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to
complete the project, including
historic review +
$5,641 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to complete
the project, including historic review
$5,951 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any
other entitlements
necessary to complete the
project, including historic
review
Individual Review ‐ Minor
Revisions to Approved Projects
$2,320 plus cost of notices +$2,448 plus cost of notices + $2,931 plust cost of notices $3,092 plust cost of notices
New Two‐Story Addition or New
Two‐Story Home
$5,679 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to
complete the project,
including historic review +
$5,991 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to
complete the project, including
historic review +
$7,046 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any other
entitlements necessary to complete
the project, including historic review
$7,434 plus applicable Other
Application fees and any
other entitlements
necessary to complete the
project, including historic
review
Preliminary Individual Review
with Architect $245 +$258 +$375 $396
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Appeals and Legal Review Fees
Legal Review for Additional
hearings
Note: Legal review fees cover up to 3
public hearings. Additional hearings are
charged at 1/3 of the applicable fee.
Additional hearings are
charged at 1/3 of the
applicable fee.
Additional hearings are charged
at 1/3 of the applicable fee.
Additional hearings are charged at
1/3 of the applicable fee.
Additional hearings are
charged at 1/3 of the
applicable fee.
Request for Hearing by City
Council or Planning &
Transportation Commission
Note: This fee is refunded if the City
Council chooses not to hear an
appeal. Also, this fee shall not be
charged if a fee for Director's
hearing has been paid.
$280 +$280 +$280 +$280 +
Appeal costs exceeding appeals
filing fee
Note: All costs will be recovered from
applicant in the event that an appeal is
filed by a third party and the appeal is
upheld and in the event that the
applicant files an appeal that is denied.
$3,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees.
$3,165 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees.
$3,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees.
$3,165 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees.
Legal Review ARB Major $2,749 +$2,606 +$5,211 $5,498
Legal Review (legislative review,
zone change, plan amendment,
etc.)
$5,278 +$5,003 +$10,006 $10,556
Legal Review Environmental $4,720 +$4,980 +$9,439 $9,958
Legal Review Mitigation
Monitoring Report $500 $528 $500 $528
Other Application Fees
Public Noticing ‐ 150 ft. Radius
Note: If noticing is required. Covers cost
of up to three rounds of noticing.
$484 +$511 +$529 $558
Public Noticing ‐ 600 ft. Radius
Note: If noticing is required. Covers cost
of up to three rounds of noticing.
$825 +$870 +$927 $977
Public Noticing beyond 600 ft.
Radius
Note: If noticing is required
$931 +$982 +$1,236 $1,304
Record Management Fee $26 per file $26 per file $26 per file $26 per file
Recording Fee with County County cost of recording, if
required
County cost of recording, if
required County cost of recording, if required County cost of recording, if
required
Records Retention $4.00 per plan sheet $4.00 per plan sheet $4.00 per plan sheet $4.00 per plan sheet
Pre‐screening fee
Note: All costs will be recovered for the
prescreening of applicants proposing
rezoning, zoning text amendments,
development agreements, Comp Plan
amendments, or specific plans.
$3,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$3,165 initial deposit plus any
applicable Legal Review and
Other Application fees
$3,000 initial deposit plus any
applicable Legal Review and Other
Application fees
$3,165 initial deposit plus
any applicable Legal Review
and Other Application fees
Planning Compliance Fee
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
Initial deposit equal to 3 hrs of
applicable staff rate
Initial deposit equal to 3 hrs of
applicable staff rate
Initial deposit equal to 3 hrs of
applicable staff rate
Initial deposit equal to 3 hrs
of applicable staff rate
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*Adopted for FY 2018 * New FY 2018 Rate*
Contract Administration
Note: 25% Contract Administration and
project management costs are in
addition to direct cost of consultant
services and will be charged to deposit‐
based fees.
25% of direct cost 25% of direct cost 25% of direct cost 25% of direct cost
Site & Design
Site and Design Major
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$22,523 initial deposit plus
any Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
Fees
$23,762 initial deposit plus any
Legal Review fees and applicable
Other Application Fees
$22,523 initial deposit plus any Legal
Review fees and applicable Other
Application Fees
$23,762 initial deposit plus
any Legal Review fees and
applicable Other Application
Fees
Subdivision ‐ Five or More Parcels
Subdivision Final Map $4,140 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$4,368 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$4,663 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$4,919 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Tentative Map
Note: 100 percent of processing costs
will be recovered plus any
Environmental Impact Assessment and
any other entitlements necessary to
complete the project, whether indicated
as 100 percent cost recovery in this
schedule or not.
$8,622 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$9,096 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application
fees
$8,622 initial deposit plus any
applicable Other Application fees
$9,096 initial deposit plus
any applicable Other
Application fees
Subdivision (Minor)
Parcel Map $2,527 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$2,666 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$3,899 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$4,113 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Preliminary Parcel Map, Minor
$3,738 plus any applicable
Other Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees +
$3,944 plus any applicable Other
Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees +
$4,671 plus any applicable Other
Application fees and Environmental
Impact Assessment fees
$4,928 plus any applicable
Other Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees
Subdivision (Minor) with Exceptions
Parcel Map, Minor with
Exception
$2,098 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$2,213 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$2,855 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$3,012 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Preliminary Parcel Map, Minor
with Exception
$6,464 plus any applicable
Other Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees +
$6,820 plus any applicable Other
Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees +
$7,388 plus any applicable Other
Application fees and Environmental
Impact Assessment fees
$7,794 plus any applicable
Other Application fees and
Environmental Impact
Assessment fees
Subscriptions
Board or Commission Agendas $112 annually per board or
commission
$112 annually per board or
commission
$112 annually per board or
commission
$112 annually per board or
commission
Board or Commission Minutes $224 annually per board or
commission
$224 annually per board or
commission
$224 annually per board or
commission
$224 annually per board or
commission
Use Permit
Day Care Center
$186 plus any applicable
Other Application fees plus
Environmental Document fees
+
$186 plus any applicable Other
Application fees plus
Environmental Document fees
+
$186 plus any applicable Other
Application fees plus Environmental
Document fees +
$186 plus any applicable
Other Application fees plus
Environmental Document
fees +
Temporary Use Permit ‐ Minor
Note: Does not include hearing.
$674 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$711 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$1,143 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$1,206 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Conditional Use Permit ‐
Director level
$4,914 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$5,184 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$5,754 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$6,070 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Fee Title Adopted for FY 2018 *
Conditional Use Permit ‐
additional upon hearing request
Adopted for FY 2017* New January 2017 Rate*
$4,650 plus any applicable $4,906 plus any applicable
Other Application fees + Other Application fees +
$9,645 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
New FY 2018 Rate*
$10,175 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Wireless ‐ Tier 1: Minor AR $2,672 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$2,819 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$2,672 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$2,819 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Wireless ‐ Tier 2: Conditional
Use Permit
$5,754 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$6,070 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$5,754 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$6,070 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Wireless ‐ Tier 3: Major ARB $6,109 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
$6,445 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$6,109 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$6,445 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Variance
Variance ‐ Director's level $3,144 plus any applicable
Other Application fees +
$3,317 plus any applicable Other
Application fees +
$3,675 plus any applicable Other
Application fees
$3,877 plus any applicable
Other Application fees
Variance ‐ additional upon
hearing $4,823 +$5,088 +$9,645 $10,175
Zone Change
Planned Community Zone
Change
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered
$7,341 initial deposit $7,745 initial deposit $7,341 initial deposit $7,745 initial deposit
Planned Community Zone
Change ‐ Minor Change
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered
$1,500 initial deposit $1,583 initial deposit $1,500 initial deposit $1,583 initial deposit
Zone Change Regular
Note: 100 percent of processing and
legal costs will be recovered
$6,118 initial deposit $6,454 initial deposit $6,118 initial deposit $6,454 initial deposit
* Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Reflects total estimated cost of providing service unless noted with a +
Staff Rates Adopted for Fiscal Year 2017 New for January, 2017 New for Fiscal Year 2018
Administrative Assistant $130.87 $138.07 $138.07
Administrative Associate I $112.19 $118.36 $118.36
Administrative Associate II $123.62 $130.42 $130.42
Administrative Associate III $132.50 $139.79 $139.79
Assistant Director Planning &
Community Environment $292.56 $308.65 $308.65
Associate Engineer $177.57 $187.34 $187.34
Associate Planner $161.83 $170.73 $170.73
Building/Planning Technician $130.12 $137.28 $137.28
Business Analyst $188.78 $199.16 $199.16
Chief Planning Official $260.15 $274.46 $274.46
Chief Transportation Official $227.16 $239.65 $239.65
City Legal Counsel $273.64 $288.69 $288.69
Code Enforcement Officer $158.53 $167.25 $167.25
Code Enforcement Lead $175.56 $185.22 $185.22
Coordinator Transit
Management Systems $160.38 $169.20 $169.20
Director of Planning and
Community Environment $316.95 $334.38 $334.38
Management Analyst $168.48 $177.75 $177.75
Planning Manager $205.91 $217.24 $217.24
Planner $169.62 $178.95 $178.95
Project Engineer $208.21 $219.66 $219.66
Senior Management Analyst $195.46 $206.21 $206.21
Senior Planner $195.61 $206.37 $206.37
* Includes salary and benefits plus citywide and department overhead, as applicable.
Hourly cost recovery rates *
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
November 28, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Section 4.39.080 (False Alarm Service
Charges) and Section 4.39.090 (Revocation of Alarm Registration) of
Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to Update the False Alarm Program (FIRST READING: November
14, 2016 PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Kniss absent)
This Ordinance was heard by Council on the Consent Calendar on November 14, 2016. There
were no changes to the Ordinance, and thus is before you for a second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Alarm Ordinance (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 4.39.080 (False Alarm Service Charges) and Section
4.39.090 (Revocation of Alarm Registration) of Chapter
4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Update the False Alarm Program
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) That the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary to update the false alarm
program to be consistent with common practice and how the current alarm software calculates
penalties.
SECTION 2. Section 4.39.080 (False alarm service charges) of Chapter 4.39 (Private
intrusion alarms) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.39.080 False alarm service charges.
(a) There is imposed upon every alarm user whose alarm system causes three or more
false alarms within twelve months a false alarm service charge. A separate charge shall be
imposed for each false alarm in excess of two as set forth in the municipal fee schedule,
provided that the alarm user is given notice by first-class mail of each false alarm prior to the
occurrence of the next false alarm for which a service charge is imposed.
(b) Service charges shall be due and payable and are delinquent after thirty days of the
mailing of a bill from the city. Penalties for delinquency in remittance of any service charge or
any deficiency in remittance shall attach and be paid by the person required to remit at the rate
of ten percent each month on the base false alarm charge, but such penalty shall not be
compounded.
(c) Debt to City. All fees and charges levied pursuant to this chapter shall constitute a
valid and subsisting debt in favor of the city and against the alarm user for whom services were
rendered. If the amount remains unpaid, a civil action may be filed with the appropriate court
for the amount due together with any penalties, any related charges and fees accrued due to
nonpayment and all fees and charges required to file and pursue such civil action.
(d) An alarm user may appeal any alarm service charge under this section by submitting
a letter of appeal to the chief of police explaining the basis for the appeal within fifteen days of
the mailing of the bill for that service charge. While the appeal is pending, the bill shall not be
due and payable. An administrative hearing officer shall set a time and place for a hearing on
the appeal within fifteen forty-five days after receipt of the letter of appeal. Failure to file a
timely letter of appeal shall be a waiver of the alarm user's right to a hearing; however, the
administrative hearing officer may set a date for a hearing if there is cause to believe that it
might encourage substantial cooperation from the alarm user. At the time and place set for the
hearing upon the appeal, the administrative hearing officer shall hear evidence as to whether
the alarm service charge should be imposed in whole or in part. The burden of proof shall be
1
160809 sh 0200003
NOT YET APPROVED
upon the appellant to show that there was no substantial evidence that the alarm service
charge was properly imposed as provided in this chapter. Within forty-eight hours 10 days
after the conclusion of the hearing, the administrative hearing officer shall render a decision
on the appeal. The decision shall be final. Notification of the decision shall be mailed to the
appellant within three days of the decision. If the appeal is denied, the notification shall
inform the alarm user of the exact date that the alarm service charge shall become due and
payable, which date shall in no event be sooner than five days after notice of the decision has
been mailed. SECTION 3. Section 4.39.090 (Revocation of alarm registration) of Chapter 4.39 (Private
intrusion alarms) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.39.090 Revocation of alarm registration.
(a) After the police department has recorded more than four five false alarms on any
specific premises within any twelve-month period, and after the alarm user has been notified
by first-class mail that the false alarms have been activated, the chief of police shall notify the
alarm user by first class mail of a pre-revocation hearing to discuss the cause of the false alarms
and to remind the alarm user that the registration will be subject to revocation if two more
false alarms occur within the following six months the police department has recorded seven
false alarms occur within any twelve-month period. The hearing will be within fifteen forty-five
days from the date of mailing of the notification. Following a pre-revocation hearing, if the
police department has recorded an additional two false alarms within six months seven false
alarms in any twelve-month period, the chief of police shall revoke the alarm user's registration
and from that time on the police department will not respond to any alarm from that alarm
user's premises for a period of six months and until such time as the alarm user submits a new
alarm registration application and the chief of police determines to issue an alarm registration
upon proof that adequate measures have been taken to correct any problem causing the false
alarms.
SECTION 4. 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.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
2
160809 sh 0200003
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 5. 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.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Principal City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Police Chief
3
160809 sh 0200003
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7304)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Discuss and Approve S/CAP Framework, Principles &
Guidelines
Title: Discuss and Approve Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)
Framework, Principles & Guidelines
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council
1) Discuss and adopt the attached (Attachment A) Sustainability/Climate Action Plan
Framework (S/CAP Framework), including its Guiding Principles, Decision Criteria and
Design Principles as the road map for development of subsequent S/CAP
Implementation Plans (SIPs); and
2) Direct Staff to return to Council with S/CAP Implementation Plans, possibly in phases,
early in 2017.
Executive Summary
On April 18, 2016, Council reviewed the Draft Palo Alto Sustainability/Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP), provided comments to Staff, and adopted the S/CAP’s Primary Goal: The achievement
of an 80% reduction in Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) below 1990 levels by 2030. Staff is now
returning to Council with a revised document to reflect Council guidance from the April 18
meeting.
This document is called the S/CAP “Framework” because it provides an overall perspective on
the City’s 2030 climate strategy, Guiding principles and Design principles, and Decision criteria,
along with Strategies and Targets (with GHG estimates) from the April Draft S/CAP, and a road
map for a more detailed implementation plan(s). Its significance is that it has been streamlined
by moving the “action items” included in the April 2016 report into more detailed Sustainability
Implementation Plans (SIPs), under development. This has allowed staff to reshape the action
items from the draft S/CAP into new implementation plans with a near term, 2020 horizon.
This will allow easier and more accurate assessment of the costs and ROI on recommended
actions to make progress towards our 2030 goal.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Staff envisions a new SIP to be developed every following five years to guide our S/CAP efforts
and inform annual budget decisions. It also allows staff to return to Council to meet your
directive (C) from the April meeting, supporting the General Framework of the S/CAP. Staff
thought that this bifurcation would make it clearer about support for the General Framework,
understanding that some of the most intensive discussion about the S/CAP will occur during
review of the specific actions in the Implementation Plans to come to Council next year. Staff
appreciates that discussion on those plans could engender or require subsequent changes to
the Strategies and Targets in this Framework.
In the coming months, staff will refine the S/CAP Implementation Plans, solicit community
input, and bring them for review and adoption by the City Council. Staff recommends that
Council adopt the S/CAP Framework now, and direct Staff to bring the Sustainability
Implementation Plans (Sips) back to Council in early 2017. The initial plans are organized into
seven areas, and staff may bring them back in phases.
Background
On 4/18/16 City Council received and discussed the draft Sustainability/Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP), and unanimously (8-0) approved the following resolution1:
A. Adopt a goal of 80% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction by 2030, calculated utilizing the
1990 baseline;
B. Direct staff to return within two months with a process for integration of the
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) with the Comprehensive Plan Update;
C. Support the general framework of the S/CAP;
D. Support the S/CAP Guiding Principles, which are to be reviewed and formally adopted
within six months.
In response to these directives:
(B.) Staff have developed and have begun implementing a process for integration of the
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) with the Comprehensive Plan Update
(C.) Staff have formed seven inter-departmental teams to develop “Sustainability
Implementation Plans” (SIPs) covering the key S/CAP sections: Mobility, Efficiency and
Electrification, Water, Zero Waste, Municipal Operations, Natural Environment, and
Adaptation/Sea Level Rise.
(D.) The Framework document before the Council tonight includes the Guiding
Principles
1 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52025
City of Palo Alto Page 3
In the context of Council’s directive supporting the general framework of the S/CAP, since
Council reviewed the draft in April, relevant developments in the City have included:
Development of a Carbon Neutral Natural Gas strategy (which moves City the next step
along the trajectory from Carbon Neutral Electricity to Carbon Neutral Utility to Carbon
Neutral City);
Adoption of an advanced Green Building Ordinance and Energy Reach Code;
Continued analysis of electrification options;
Exploration of Zero Net Energy buildings and districts.
Since Council reviewed the draft in April, relevant developments in the world have included:
Paris climate agreement entered into November 4 by 195 countries;
Governor Brown signed SB32, requiring California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
40% below 1990 levels by 2030;
Many more cities have committed to 100% renewable electricity.
Discussion
Staff has divided the draft S/CAP Council reviewed in April into two elements:
A "Framework" document, including narrative, Guiding principles, Design principles and
Decision criteria, and Goals and Strategies and Targets, as the base document of the
S/CAP (with Action steps that were listed under strategies in the April 2016 Draft
removed). The Framework document, and its 2030 trajectory, is the focus of discussion
tonight.
"Sustainability Implementation Plans” (SIPs) covering each section of the S/CAP
Framework. These rework the Actions steps from the April draft (and removed from the
Framework document before you). These SIPs—focused on the 2020 time frame—will
include more detail than the initial lists of Action steps, including prioritized actions
needed to accomplish S/CAP goals, as well as budget and staffing estimates as needed.
In some cases, they also include further elaboration or clarification of goals and
strategies in the April S/CAP draft.
(Staff is completing SIPs covering the seven program chapters of the S/CAP, including
mobility, efficiency and electrification, municipal operations, water, zero waste, natural
environment, adaptation/sea level rise. Staff will bring these to Council for review in a
series of decisions beginning in early in 2017. Staff will develop implementation plans
for the other S/CAP chapters—Community Behavior and Culture Change, Utility of the
Future, Information Systems, and Funding Strategies—in future work phases.)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The S/CAP Framework differs from the April draft in several ways (key changes are highlighted
in Attachment A):
Most sections have had minor modifications to goals and strategies.
Several sections (Water, Adaptation/Sea level Rise, Natural Environment) have been
substantially expanded with additional and/or modified goals, and a number of new
strategies.
The goals and strategies in the Efficiency and Electrification section have been modified
and reorganized.
The action Items have been removed and redeployed to the SIPs.
The S/CAP Framework document includes Guiding Principles, Design Principles and Decision
Criteria (see Attachment C), all intended to provide a clear, shared, common platform to help
Council, staff, and community stay on course as we address the dozens and ultimately
hundreds of decisions that will need to be made over the coming decade in order to realize Palo
Alto's 2030 sustainability and climate goals:
The Guiding Principles provide a durable foundation "for effective and sustainable
decision-making" as the City navigates the inevitable twists and turns that will arise as
we implement.
The Design Principles provide guidance to staff, Council and community in "developing
and evaluating future programs" to implement the S/CAP;
The Decision Criteria will guide Council and staff in "selecting specific programs and
policies to pursue, and in allocating public resources to support them."
(Note that while Council previously called out the Guiding Principles in April, Council should pay
special attention to the Decision Criteria, which can serve as a hedge against concerns about
the impacts of Council’s decisions.)
Staff will continue to report progress to Council annually (or more often as warranted), and
anticipates updating the SIPs and the S/CAP in 2020 and 2025.
Resource Impacts
Revisions to the Framework and development of the SIPs has required an estimated 300 hours
of staff time to date; resource requirements to complete the SIPs will depend on Council
guidance. Recalibration of GHG reduction estimates, if desired, will require an extension of the
contract with the consultants that prepared the S/CAP.
Policy Implications
As indicated above, the City Council has embraced the S/CAP goal of reducing Palo Alto’s GHG
emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030, which will also be the horizon year of the updated
Comprehensive Plan. The S/CAP also addresses a number of other sustainability topics that
City of Palo Alto Page 5
overlap and complement the updated Comprehensive Plan, making coordination between the
two planning efforts a critical exercise. Staff has been working to ensure this integration, has
conducted a “cross-walk” analysis of both plans, assisted by a sustainability subcommittee of
the Comprehensive Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC).
While this effort is not yet complete, the two planning efforts are proceeding in parallel,
including:
Incorporation of key S/CAP goals and strategies into the Comp Plan as Comp Plan
policies and programs;
“Cross-walk” and identification and resolution of potential conflicts between the drafts;
Incorporation of the entire S/CAP into the Comp Plan "by reference," acknowledging
that the S/CAP will be a living document which is likely to be revised and updated more
frequently than the Comp Plan.
Exploration of Comp Plan references within the S/CAP as well.
Attachment B includes the handout prepared for the sustainability summit that summarized
our initial approach to the integration of these two planning efforts.
(Note: As part of the Council’s parallel discussion of the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, it
may be helpful to discuss the value of formally aligning more of the City’s planning efforts like
the S/CAP, the Urban Forest Master Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and detailed
area plans with the General Plan (after its adoption) that forms the core of our current
Comprehensive Plan.)
Environmental Review
Plans like the S/CAP are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) if they establish mandatory policies or implementation actions that may have a
significant environmental impact (good or bad). This evening’s recommended action would
involve adoption of a policy “framework” and direction that is viewed as non-binding and thus
would not be subject to CEQA. Following Council consideration of the SIPs, environmental
review (potentially in the form of a separate “negative declaration” or relying on the Comp Plan
EIR) would have to occur if Council chooses to adopt the S/CAP with mandatory policies,
principles and actions.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A: SCAP "Framework" (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B: Handout Regarding SCAP & Comp Plan Relationship (PDF)
ATTACHMENT C: S/CAP Framework Excerpt: Guiding Principles, Decision Criteria, and
Design Principles Summary (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 1 of 52
Framework, Principles, Guidelines,
Goals & Strategies
November 2016
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 2 of 52
FORWARD .........................................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................5
A ROADMAP: TOWARD A CARBON NEUTRAL CITY..............................................................................6
PALO ALTO’S GREENHOUSE GAS BASELINE AND TRENDS ..................................................................................6
A ROADMAP FOR “80 X 30” .....................................................................................................................9
GUIDING PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................. 18
1. MOBILITY .................................................................................................................................. 20
1.1 GOAL: EXPAND NON-AUTO MOBILITY OPTIONS ................................................................................... 20
1.2 GOAL: CREATE THE RIGHT INCENTIVES FOR MOBILITY ............................................................................ 22
1.3 GOAL: SEEK BALANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 22
1.4 GOAL: REDUCE THE CARBON INTENSITY OF VEHICULAR TRAVEL ............................................................... 23
2. BUILDING ENERGY, EFFICIENCY AND ELECTRIFICATION ............................................................... 25
2.1 GOAL: REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN BUILDINGS THROUGH ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
DESIGN .............................................................................................................................................. 26
2.2 GOAL: USE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS AND TRANSPARENCY TO DRIVE LEARNING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
AROUND BUILDING EFFICIENCY................................................................................................................. 27
2.3 GOAL: REDUCE NATURAL GAS USE IN BUILDINGS THROUGH ELECTRIFICATION.............................................. 28
2.4 GOAL: REDUCE THE CARBON INTENSITY OF NATURAL GAS USE ................................................................ 29
3. ZERO WASTE AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ............................................................................. 30
3.1 GOAL: DIVERT 95% OF WASTE FROM LANDFILLS BY 2030, AND ULTIMATELY ACHIEVE ZERO WASTE TO LANDFILLS
30
3.2 GOAL: MINIMIZE ENERGY USE AND POLLUTANT FORMATION FROM WASTE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION AND
PROCESSING ........................................................................................................................................ 30
4. WATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 32
4.1 GOAL: REDUCE CONSUMPTION OF WATER ......................................................................................... 32
4.2 GOAL: UTILIZE THE RIGHT WATER SUPPLY FOR THE RIGHT USE ................................................................. 32
4.3 GOAL: ENSURE SUFFICIENT WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY ................................................................... 32
4.4 GOAL: PROTECT THE BAY, OTHER SURFACE WATERS, AND GROUNDWATER ................................................ 32
4.5 GOAL: LEAD IN SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 32
5. MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS – LEADING THE WAY .......................................................................... 34
5.1 GOAL: CREATE ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENT CITY BUILDINGS ............................................................... 34
5.2 GOAL: MINIMIZE EMISSIONS AND MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY OF THE CITY FLEET ............................................... 35
5.3 GOAL: “DEFAULT TO GREEN” PROCUREMENT FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ............................................. 35
5.4 GOAL: EMBED SUSTAINABILITY IN CITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PROCESSES AND OPERATIONS ...................... 36
6. ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE & SEA LEVEL RISE .................................................................... 37
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR SEA LEVEL RISE RESPONSE .................................................................................... 39
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 3 of 52
6.1 GOAL: PLAN FOR COMING CHANGES IN OUR CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT ................................................. 40
6.2 GOAL: PROTECT THE CITY FROM CLIMATE CHANGE INDUCED HAZARDS ...................................................... 40
6.3 GOAL: ADAPT TO CURRENT AND PROJECTED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ............................................... 40
6.4 GOAL: EMPOWER THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND FOSTER REGIONAL COLLABORATION .................................... 40
7. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 42
7.1 GOAL: RENEW, RESTORE AND ENHANCE RESILIENCE OF OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .................................. 42
7.2 GOAL: ALIGN S/CAP PLANNING FOR THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT WITH OTHER CITY PLANS ........................ 42
7.3 GOAL: MAXIMIZE CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND STORAGE IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ........................ 42
8. PALO ALTO’S UTILITY OF THE FUTURE ........................................................................................ 43
8.1 GOAL: ADVANCE SMART GRID STRATEGIES ......................................................................................... 43
8.2 GOAL: EVALUATE AND ADAPT THE CPAU BUSINESS MODEL ................................................................... 43
8.3 GOAL: CONTINUE TO ADVANCE CARBON NEUTRALITY ........................................................................... 43
9. COMMUNITY BEHAVIOR, CULTURE & INNOVATION ................................................................... 45
9.1 GOAL: PROVIDE A PLATFORM FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE IN CULTURE, BEHAVIOR AND INNOVATION ................. 45
10. FINANCING, FUNDING AND INVESTMENTS ............................................................................... 47
10.1 GOAL: UTILIZE DIVERSE FINANCIAL PATHWAYS TO DRIVE S/CAP IMPLEMENTATION ................................... 48
11. IMPLEMENTATION: TURNING VISION INTO ACTION ................................................................. 49
MONITORING AND TRACKING PROGRESS ................................................................................................... 49
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 51
GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................... 52
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 4 of 52
FORWARD
We live in a time of challenge and change. The California economy, powered by the innovation engine of Silicon
Valley, anchored in Palo Alto, has transformed the world. Companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have
transformed the way we live and work. Now the world threatens to transform California. The drought—or, as
some suggest, the “multi-decadal mega-drought”1—challenges not just our lawns, agriculture and hydroelectric
power supplies, but the premise on which California civilization was built. Climate chaos may not devastate us the
way that it threatens to devastate coastal regions from Bangladesh to south Florida, but heat, flooding and super
storms will take their toll, and will take hundreds of billions of dollars to adapt to.
And yet… this cloud presents a silver lining. Perhaps a golden one. For in the challenge of responding to climate
change, we find ourselves facing what Pogo called insurmountable opportunities, what those wild-eyed radicals at
Goldman Sachs see as the massive economic opportunity of a new energy economy–once again anchored here.
We are called upon to lead. Many would say the United States has lagged in response to climate challenge,
compared to Europe, or China, though President Obama’s recent Executive Orders on emissions and energy has
called the federal government to the challenge. Many would say that California has led in response to climate
challenge–from revolutionizing utility regulation in the 1970s to driving the market for clean energy to our world-
leading climate goals–now ratcheted up again by Governor Brown's recent Executive Orders on emissions, energy
and water. Many would say that Palo Alto has been a leader in this process, with our early climate action plan, our
carbon neutral electricity, and our actions to support green buildings and electric vehicles. Well, it's time for us to
lead again, with a new sustainability and climate action plan that sets a new bar for leadership, that builds quality-
of-life, prosperity and resilience for this community, and that sets an example once again for other communities to
emulate.
We must understand and prepare for the risks ahead: climate change, with hotter and drier weather, combined
with sea level rise and flooding; disruptions in resource flows and human migrations; the rise and collapse of
companies and even industries; and the challenge of reinventing a way of life that was based on conditions that we
may never see again.
This plan identifies a pathway to reduce our emissions 80% by 2030. Governor Brown has proposed 40% emissions
reductions for California by 2030. Palo Alto is already at 36%. But achieving that next 40% will not be easy, since it
will require transforming transportation and dramatically reducing the climate impact of our use of natural gas for
heating our buildings and water.
Because we can do this. Here.
1 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/is-the-wests-dry-spell-really-a-megadrought-16824
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 5 of 52
INTRODUCTION
As the heart of the region that drives the eighth largest economy in the world, what is created in Palo Alto has
influence far beyond its borders. Palo Alto has made impressive—and in some cases remarkable—progress toward
reducing its carbon impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource consumption since establishing its first
Climate Protection Plan in 2007.
While cities around the world ratchet up their own sustainability initiatives, Palo Alto will need to act boldly in
order to maintain its legendary leadership position—and to ensure the wellbeing of this community in the face of
the challenges ahead.
In the nine years since Palo Alto created one of the first climate protection plans in United States, the world has
gotten hotter, the west has gotten dryer, and more cities have stepped into the ranks of climate leadership.
Palo Alto is poised to take the next step in climate and sustainability leadership. The Sustainability and Climate
Action Plan (S/CAP) is Palo Alto’s ambitious plan to create a prosperous, resilient city for all residents. To support
Palo Alto’s leadership position on climate protection, the S/CAP provides a roadmap for how the City will continue
its environmental stewardship, and exceed state requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions.
The Framework is intended as a strategic plan that sets direction and overall goals, suggests initial priority actions
and proposes high-level implementation pathways to achieve them. This document—a subset of the draft S/CAP
presented to Council in April—provides the overall strategic framework for the SCAP, including goals, key strategic
initiatives to meet those goals, and principles, guidelines and criteria to guide Council, staff and community in the
development of implementation plans to fulfill these goals. Staff will bring initial 2016-2020 implementation
plans—including both actions from the April draft that have been removed from this Framework, and additional
actions that have been developed by staff teams over the last six months—to Council for view and action in the
coming months.
The S/CAP presents a scenario, not a prediction. It presents a clear direction—move rapidly toward deep de-
carbonization through a suggested portfolio of measures that show net positive financial benefit, and an estimate
of the upfront investment required to generate those benefits. The specific measures, rates of adoption and
impacts presented here are best estimates based on currently available information in a rapidly changing
technology landscape; in order to be agile, adaptive and effective in the face of these changes, Palo Alto will
update the S/CAP every five years, and develop more granular five-year work plans and short-term programs,
rather than attempt to build a detailed 14-year work plan.
The time to act is now. In this new climate action plan, we identify a roadmap to move from carbon neutral
electricity to a carbon neutral utility—and ultimately towards a carbon neutral city.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 6 of 52
A ROADMAP:
TOWARD A CARBON NEUTRAL CITY
Palo Alto’s Greenhouse Gas Baseline and Trends
By 2015, Palo Alto had already reduced GHG emissions an estimated 36% since 19902—a remarkable achievement
in 24 years, with most of it accomplished in the ten years since 2005—largely as a result of the leadership of Palo
Alto Utilities and the City Council’s 2013 commitment to carbon neutral electricity. Palo Alto’s largest remaining
sources of greenhouse gas emissions are road transportation (approximately 65%) followed by natural gas use
(approximately 26%). Figure 2 illustrates this trend, and Figure 3 provides another view of the relative size of Palo
Alto’s emissions sources in 2015.
The estimated 36% GHG reductions to date were achieved through building efficiency measures and introduction
of carbon neutral electricity (as well as societal trends such as more efficient appliances, not shown explicitly here).
Over the next 13 years, a variety of external trends (designated in this Plan as “business as usual 1” or BAU1),
including Federal and state policy (such as building efficiency and vehicle efficiency standards) and demographic
changes, are expected to reduce Palo Alto emissions to an estimated 45% below 1990 emissions by 20303—in line
with the State of California’s recently approved 2030 reduction target of 40%. Initiatives that the City has already
approved or set in motion (such as existing City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) efficiency incentive programs, Palo
Alto’s existing Green Building Ordinance and Reach Code, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan), will bring emissions
down to an estimated 52% of 1990 levels—provided Council maintains support for existing programs and approves
these programs when they come before them. This reflects Palo Alto’s longstanding commitment and initiatives
already underway to drive deep carbon reductions ahead of the state or those being pursued by most other cities.
Even though these Palo Alto plans are both aggressive and innovative, for the purpose of this report we categorize
them as “business as usual “—since these efforts are already in the queue.
The additional GHG reduction between those already “in-the-pipeline” reductions and the 80% reduction target
for 2030 is about 224,600 MT CO2e4, and is Palo Alto’s target “GHG reduction budget.” The Draft S/CAP projects
that 117,900 MT CO2e, or more than half of the needed additional reductions, can come from mobility related
measures, 97,200 MT CO2e, or just under half from efficiency and fuel switching measures (largely in buildings),
and 9,500 MT CO2e, or 4% from continuation and extension of Palo Alto’s zero waste initiatives. The Draft S/CAP
also proposes other sustainability measure that don’t have direct or easy to determine GHG impacts but that are
important for other reasons, such as water sustainability, health of the natural environment and community
resilience.
2 Palo Alto emissions in the 1990 baseline year are estimated at 780,119 MTCO2e, a restatement of prior estimates
based on revised analyses using updated emissions models. Most emissions noted in this report as called
“estimates,” since only utility consumption (electricity, natural gas and water) are measured. Transportation
emissions are modeled every few years; solid waste related emissions are calculated using established EPA
protocols. Solid waste related emissions were not included in the CompPlan DEIR. 3 Based on the “business as usual” analysis conducted for the CompPlan DEIR. 4 MT CO2e = metric tons of CO2 equivalent
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 7 of 52
Figure 1. Palo Alto Community-wide GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
Figure 2. Palo Alto 2015 Community-wide GHG Emissions Sectors
A detailed emissions analysis can be found in Appendix D.
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1990 2005 2012 2013 2014 2015
Landfilling Recyclable Material
Lifecycle Emissions From Annual
Waste to Landfill
Wastewater Process Emissions
Landfill Fugivitive Emissions
Natural Gas Leakage
Electricity
Natural Gas
Road Travel
Road Travel
65%
Natural Gas
27%
Natural Gas
Leakage
1%
Landfill Fugivitive
Emissions
2%
Wastewater
Process Emissions
1%
Lifecycle Emissions
From Annual
Waste to Landfill
1%
Landfilling
Recyclable
Material
3%
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 8 of 52
Figure 3. Overview of Palo Alto GHG Reduction Target relative to Business-as-Usual (MT CO2e)
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 9 of 52
A Roadmap for “80 x 30”
Palo Alto has substantially exceeded the 20% reduction goals set by Council in 2007 Climate Protection Plan, and is
positioned to establish new goals for Palo Alto to continue its global leadership, commit to a low- or zero-carbon
future, and create a roadmap to that future.
This plan focuses on pathways to a low-carbon future, and initiatives addressing water, green infrastructure,
adaptation and regeneration as part of a holistic framework for sustainability. Specifically, it contains Goals
and Strategies for reducing Palo Alto’s GHG emissions from the current level of 36% below 1990 levels to 80%
below 1990 levels by 2030 (“80x30”), 20 years ahead of the State of California 80x50 target. This represents a
GHG reduction “budget” of 260,000 tons (as shown in Figure 5 and detailed below), and will be possible only if
Palo Alto continues its longstanding commitment to sustainability and if a number of assumptions that are
outside the City’s control come to fruition.
Figure 4: 80x30 GHG Reduction Budget (MT CO2e)
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change is a key driver
for the S/CAP, but it is not the only indicator for sustainability. Therefore, the S/CAP is organized around
seven sustainability chapters, including some without direct quantifiable impacts on greenhouse gas
emissions, but which are central to a holistic approach for sustainability in Palo Alto that protects and
enhances our natural resources for generations to come. These are summarized below, and described in
more detail in the chapters that follow.
Chapters for Sustainability and Climate Action
S/CAP’s Goals and Strategies for GHG reduction are summarized here:
• Mobility:
o Make it more convenient not to drive by developing responsive, multimodal, service-focused
transportation services
o Shift subsidies from free parking to support non-SOV travel
o Encourage land use patterns that reduce both congestion and climate impacts.
153,400
97,200
117,900
48,500
80,800
272,800
780,119
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1990 2030
Baseline emissions
GHG reductions achieved
through 2014
BAU1 - State measures
through 2030
BAU2 - Existing Palo Alto
initiatives
S/CAP measures (Mobility)
S/CAP measures (Energy in
Buildings)
S/CAP measures (Waste)
Remaining emissions
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 10 of 52
o Support policy changes that promote EV charging infrastructure in public and private
development and that encourage EV use by residents and commuters
• Building Energy Efficiency & Electrification:
o Pursue large gains in energy, and materials efficiency in buildings and operations
o Pursue the adoption of an Energy Reach Code that drives energy efficiency through our building
codes
o Emphasize integrative design and streamlined policy approaches
o Explore building stock upgrades to Zero Net Energy or Net Positive through design, efficiency,
renewables and bundled services packages
o Encourage all-electric new construction (if technically and legally feasible, cost effective and
directed by City Council)
o Rapidly upgrade existing building stock resource efficiency (residential and commercial)
o Support a systematic shift from natural gas to all-electric systems5 and/or renewable natural
gas (if technically and legally feasible, cost-effective and directed by City Council)
• Zero Waste and the Circular Economy
o Divert 95% of Waste from Landfills by 2030, and ultimately achieve Zero waste
o Minimize Energy and Pollution from waste collection, transportation and processing
• Water Management:
o Reduce Water Use
o Utilize the right water quality for the right use
o Ensure sufficient water quality and quantity
o Protect the Bay, other Surface Waters, and Groundwater
o Lead in Sustainable Water Management
• Sea Level Rise Response:
o Plan for the Coming Changes in our Climate and Environment
o Protect the City from Climate Change-Induced Hazards
o Adapt to Current and Projected Environmental Conditions
o Empower the Local Community and Foster Regional Collaboration
• Municipal Operations – Leading the Way o Create Energy and Water Efficient City Buildings
o Minimize City Fleet Emissions and Maximize its Efficiency
o “Default to Green” purchasing for products and services
o Embed sustainability in city procurement, operations and management
o Set targets and tracking performance metrics for City sustainability performance
o “Walk the talk” by ensuring the City goes first on any sustainability actions requested or required
of the community
• Natural Environment Protection:
o Renew, Restore, and Enhance resilience of our natural environment
o Align Planning for Management of our Natural Environment with the S/CAP and other key City
Plans
o Maximize Carbon Sequestration and Storage in the Natural Environment
• Utility of the Future:
o Adapt CPAU offerings and business model to potentially disruptive challenges facing the utility
industry, including distributed generation & storage, and “grid defection”
o Explore micro-grids, nano-grids and other resilience strategies
• Community Behavior and Culture Change
o Challenge community to consider the impact on future generations of choices in lifestyle,
purchases and investment.
o Engage and support community through neighborhood initiatives, interactive tools, etc.
• Information systems:
5 See analysis of electrification strategies, Staff Report 5971, August 2015
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 11 of 52
o Advance “smart city” platforms for transportation, utilities, buildings, operations, finance, etc.
o Provide transparent reporting and open data to track performance, build knowledge and fuel
innovation
• Financing Strategies:
o Finance cost-effective initiative through multi-channel, non-general fund, local and external
investment in support of these goals, to the extent permitted by existing legal and regulatory
framework applicable to the City.
These measures will require strategies that address three domains of action (shown in Figure 5), all of which
are critical to realizing the sustainability vision:
• institutions that form the structure of policies and programs,
• behavioral change to modify mindsets and personal actions, and
• financial considerations that drive markets.
Figure 5. S/CAP Three Domains of Action
A few core moves
Palo Alto’s sustainability strategies ultimately rely on a few “core moves” for reducing impact on the environment
and GHG emissions, and doing so in ways that improve the quality of life of our community:
• Reducing resource use, for example through energy efficiency measures;
• Shifting resource use impacts, for example by electrification;
• Transforming systems, for example by outcompeting single occupancy driving with mobility services.
REDUCE SHIFT TRANSFORM
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 12 of 52
• Energy efficiency
• Water conservation
• Walking/biking instead of
driving
• Zero waste
• Convert to electric vehicles
• Electrify water and space
heating
• Greywater or rainwater
instead of potable water
• Mobility as a Service
instead of individual car
ownership
• Walkable/bikeable
neighborhoods and Transit-
oriented development
• Utility of the Future
Zones of Control and Influence
Palo Alto’s ability to enact these core moves throughout the community is embedded within a regional, state and
global context of regulatory and jurisdictional boundaries. Figure 6 illustrates Palo Alto’s levels of control and
influence.
• City government has control over its own operations, including municipal buildings, fleet, procurement
and service delivery—for example, environmentally preferable purchasing.
• It can establish policies, codes, mandates, regulations and standards that drive the GHG emissions
reductions of our residents and workforce—for example, our photovoltaic (PV) readiness requirements
for new construction and major renovations.
• It can influence community behavior through education, outreach and voluntary programs—such as
CPAU’s incentive programs.
• And it can work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional authorities to develop collaborative
initiatives—such as regional transportation initiatives— and to influence regional, state and national
policy.
Figure 6. Palo Alto Jurisdictional Influence and Control
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 13 of 52
Levers, Goals, Strategies and Actions
Figure 7 presents the key components of Palo Alto’s path to further GHG reductions:
• The primary levers with which we can shift emission trends
• The goals we will establish to activate those levers
• The strategies and actions by which we will achieve those goals
Figure 8 summarizes the emissions reduction potential of the proposed strategies, and the key players responsible
for implementation, and Figure 9 shows this summary by goal. For several strategies, Palo Alto will need to work
with regional and state entities to advocate for policies and programs to support Palo Alto efforts and initiatives.
The levers, goals, strategies and actions are based on Palo Alto’s baseline emissions sources, existing and planned
initiatives and a literature review of best practices for city climate action planning for effective new GHG reduction
opportunities. (Note: Not all the strategies and actions in this Plan are summarized here, since some don’t have
direct GHG reduction impacts, or those impacts are impossible to estimate at this time.)
Figure 7. Overview of 3 Key Levers, Goals and Strategies for GHG Reductions
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 14 of 52
Figure 8. S/CAP Strategies to Achieve 80 x 30 Goal6
Lev
ers
Goals Strategy Jurisdiction
PA = Palo Alto
R = Regional
S = State
GHG
Avoided in
2030
(MT CO2e)
Percent of Total
S/CAP Emissions
Reductions
Percent of Reductions
from 1990 Baseline
Re
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
Expand
non-auto
mobility
options
T-FAC-1. Expand bicycle
infrastructure PA
8,400
4% 1%
T-FAC-2. Expand transit
options PA, R
19,200
9% 2%
T-FAC-3. Grow ridesharing
services and mobility apps
PA
6,400
3% 1%
Create
right
financial
incentives
T-INC-1. Provide universal
transit passes PA
7,600
3% 1%
T-INC-2. Implement parking
pricing and feebates
PA
18,400
8% 2%
Adapt land
use
patterns
T-LU-1. Increase zero-impact,
mixed use housing
PA
2,900
1% 0.5%
Reduce
carbon
intensity of
vehicles
T-EV-1. Electrify Palo Alto-
based vehicles
PA
25,200
11% 3%
T-EV-2. Electrify inbound
vehicles
PA, R
29,800
13% 4%
El
e
c
t
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
o
u
r
C
i
t
y
Reduce use
in existing
businesses
NG-COMM-1. Electrify water
heating in businesses
PA, S
21,200
9% 3%
NG-COMM-2. Electrify space
heating in businesses
PA, S
15,900
7% 2%
NG-COOK-1. Electrify
commercial cooking
PA, S
11,300
5% 1%
Reduce use
in existing
homes
NG-RES-1. Electrify
residential water heating
PA, S
13,600
6% 2%
NG-RES-2. Electrify
residential space heating
PA, S
23,300
10% 3%
Reduce use
in new
buildings
NG-GAS-1. Encourage all-
electric new buildings
PA, S
11,900
5% 2%
Z
e
r
o
W
a
s
t
e
Enhance
programs
and
infrastructu
re
SW-1. Achieve zero waste PA
9,500
4% 2%
6 The figures in this table are estimates based on staff and consultant analyses of the estimated GHG reductions
from each strategy. These estimates are built on documented assumptions, and are subject to many factors
(including technology and costs) that could change over the 2030 horizon.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 15 of 52
TOTAL 224,600 100% 29%
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 16 of 52
Figure 9. Summary of Anticipated S/CAP Emissions Reductions
Key assumptions
The key assumptions underlying the projections for the impacts of these initiatives are shown in Table 8. Some are
controversial, but will hopefully provoke a grounded exploration of options and consequences.7 Many are
ambitious, and will require rapid rates of uptake of new technologies. For example, S/CAP projects that 90% of
vehicles owned in Palo Alto will be EVs by 2030. Is that possible? We don’t know, given that the State projects only
30%. More useful questions might be “What measures could we undertake to accelerate that change, or to take
advantage of potential market changes that move more quickly than projected (as we have seen for years with PVs,
EVs and other technologies)?” and “What policies could we pursue that might eliminate barriers that would
otherwise hinder the rapid expansion and proliferation of Electric Vehicles in Palo Alto?”
The relative GHG reduction impacts (in metric Tons CO2e) and associated “mitigation costs” (in $/mT) are shown in
Figure 10. (The measures further to the right indicate greater impact; the measures higher on the chart indicate
more favorable economics.)
7 Note that in all these scenarios, reductions are partially driven by factors outside our control, including Federal
and state policy, legal and regulatory constraints, cost-effectiveness of measures and technology, the pace of
technology innovation, and behavioral changes by our population. In this way, the S/CAP may be similar to
California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) update to the State’s scoping plan, which suggests that near-term actions
and targets need to be specific, quantifiable, and within an agency’s control, while longer term actions and targets may
require changes in technology and/or actions by others, and could be less precise. It should be noted, however, that
the Draft S/CAP in some cases builds on the assumptions in the State’s Scoping Plan, suggesting – for example –
that the City seek to achieve a level of Electrical Vehicle (EV) ownership (for residents and commuters) three times
what the CARB is targeting state-wide for 2030.
Expand non-auto
mobility options
15%
Create right
financial incentives
for non-auto
12%
Adapt land use
patterns
1%
Reduce carbon
intensity of
vehicles
25%
Reduce use in
existing homes
16%
Reduce use in
existing businesses
22%
Reduce use in new
buildings
5%
Zero waste
4%
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 17 of 52
Figure 10. Prioritizing Actions by GHG Impact & Mitigation Cost8
The Power of “Unreasonable” Goals
The SCAP goals are ambitious, as called for by the Paris climate agreement. They also may be uniquely achievable
by Palo Alto, because of the city’s significant head start, its carbon neutral electricity platform and its control of
Palo Alto Utilities. They are in any event not certain to be successfully accomplished, since they depend on many
variables, both within our control—such as the desirability of CPAU services and incentives and the effectiveness of
City programs—and many factors outside our control—such as the pace of price/performance improvement of
electric vehicles and the effectiveness of State climate programs.
Despite that uncertainty, stretch goals drive innovation better than safe ones. Setting a big goal and perhaps not
fully reaching will likely get us farther than setting a safe goal and reaching it, especially in a time of rapid change.
Our key question should not be “Are we confident we can achieve it?” No one knows if ambitious climate goals are
achievable, based on today’s know how and experience; Johanna Partin, Director of the Carbon Neutral Cities
Alliance, observes that "most of the CNCA cities…have a pretty good sense of how they're going to get to
somewhere between 25-70% of their target by 2020/25/30, but no one yet knows exactly how they're going to get
to 100% of their goal.” We only know that we must do our best to find ways to achieve them.
Better questions might be: Is the goal worthy? Is the strategic direction right? Are the first steps right? If so, then
let's get going, and re-evaluate goals and progress in five years; let’s support proposed goals with bottom up
8 This chart presents a synthesis of staff and consultant analyses of the “marginal abatement costs” of key GHG
reduction strategies, based in the estimated GHG reductions from each strategy and the estimated investments
that would be required to achieve them.
($700)
($600)
($500)
($400)
($300)
($200)
($100)
$0
$100
$200
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Ma
r
g
i
n
a
l
A
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
C
o
s
t
(
$
/
M
T
C
O
2
e
)
Emissions Avoided in 2030 (MT CO2e) Expand bicycle infrastructure
Expand transit options
Grow ridesharing services and
mobility apps
Provide universal transit passes
Implement parking pricing
Electrify Palo Alto-based
vehicles
Electrify inbound vehicles
Electrify water heating in
businesses
Electrify space heating in
businesses
Electrify commercial cooking
Electrify residential water
heating
Electrify residential space
heating
Encourage all-electric new
buildings
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 18 of 52
analyses, assessing "what combination of measures might make it possible to meet that specific goal?" As General
(and later, President) Dwight D. Eisenhower observed, “Plans are useless. Planning is essential.”
Guiding Principles
The Vision Statement for the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Governance Element declares that:
“Palo Alto will maintain a positive civic image and be a leader in the regional, state, and national policy
discussions affecting the community. The City will work with neighboring communities to address
common concerns and pursue common interests. The public will be actively and effectively involved in
City affairs, both at the Citywide and neighborhood levels.”9
S/CAP builds on that vision with these guiding principles as a basis for effective and sustainable decision-making:
• Consider “sustainability” in its broadest dimensions, including quality of life, the natural environment and
resilience, not just climate change and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
• Address the sustainability issues most important to the community and select most cost-effective
programs and policies—recognizing that this will entail moral and political, as well as economic, decision
factors.
• Seek to improve quality of life as well as environmental quality, economic health and social equity.
• Foster a prosperous, robust and inclusive economy.
• Build resilience—both physical and cultural—throughout the community.
• Include diverse perspectives from all community stakeholders, residents, and businesses.
• Recognize Palo Alto’s role as a leader and linkages with regional, national and global community.
Design Principles
In both evaluating this S/CAP, and in developing and evaluating future programs guided by it, Palo Alto is guided by
these design principles:
• Focus on what’s feasible—recognizing that technology and costs are shifting rapidly.
• Prioritize actions that are in the City’s control – recognizing that we can urge others to join us, but leading
by example is most effective
• Be specific about the actions and costs to achieve near-term goals, while accepting that longer-term goals
can be more aspirational
• Use ambient resources: Maximize the efficient capture and use of the energy and water that fall on Palo
Alto.
• Full cost accounting: Use total (life cycle) cost of ownership and consideration of externalities to guide
financial decisions, while focusing on emission reductions that achievable at a point in time (i.e. not on life
cycle emissions).
• Align incentives: Ensure that subsidies, if any, and other investment of public resources encourage what
we want and discourage what we don’t want.
• Flexible platforms: Take practical near term steps that expand rather than restrict capacity for future
actions and pivots.
Decision Criteria
In selecting specific programs and policies to pursue, and in allocating public resources to support them, Palo Alto
will be guided by these decision criteria:
9 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/plan-contents/governance-element/
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 19 of 52
• Greenhouse gas impact
• Quality of life impact
• Mitigation cost
• Return on investment (ROI)
• Ecosystem health
• Resilience
• Impact on future generations
Overarching Policies and Legal Issues
The proposals set forth in the draft S/CAP will need to be specifically analyzed in the context of applicable local,
state and federal legal requirements, policy tradeoffs, budget and cost considerations, technological feasibility and
economic impacts to the City prior to any adoption. Implementation of any of the new policies and programs
described in the draft S/CAP will also be subject to the same considerations, as determined periodically by the Palo
Alto City Council, and will continue to take into account existing local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and
programs to avoid unnecessary duplication, minimize uncertainty, and maximize predictability.
Measures presented here constitute a preliminary menu of options for Council to consider as potential methods
for achieving greenhouse gas reduction goals adopted by Council; the proposals set forth in the draft S/CAP are for
discussion and the City of Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 20 of 52
1. MOBILITY
Road transportation represents about 61% of Palo Alto’s carbon
footprint—and a congestion headache for everyone. Palo Alto’s
existing Comprehensive Plan calls for reducing reliance on the
automobile, and we've made some progress, with reductions in
commute trips by Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV) from 75% to 62%
between 2000 and 2014 and to 55% for commuters to Downtown.
We’ve also dramatically reduced car trips to Palo Alto schools, with 44% of high school students commuting by
bicycle. Beyond our borders, federal CAFE standards have reduced the carbon intensity of the US vehicle fleet. But
congestion continues unabated, and the majority of Palo Altans, and commuters to Palo Alto still make SOV trips in
fossil fuel powered vehicles.
GHGs from road travel are a function of two factors: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and the carbon intensity of that
travel (GHG/VMT). Reducing GHG/VMT is largely a function of vehicle technology, driven for example by Federal
CAFE standards, state policy, improved fuel efficiency, electrification and customer adoption. Most of these factors
are outside the purview of cities, but Palo Alto has some ways to influence VMT, by developing attractive
alternatives to SOV trips, and GHG/VMT, largely by encouraging electrification of City, resident and commuter
fleets.
Traditional approaches to transportation—adding capacity by building roads and parking—send the wrong signals,
encourage SOV travel and add pain. But what if we asked a different question: How could we make it more
convenient for anyone, anywhere, anytime to not have to get into a car and drive?
The key tools the City has for doing so include:
• Optimizing transit
• Electrifying Vehicles
• Incentivizing People to change their travel modes
• Integrating Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and
Autonomous Vehicles
• Implementing land use policies that support these shifts.
1.1 Goal: Expand non-auto mobility
options
This goal focuses on improving alternative modes of transportation to support
non-automobile based mobility. The key: making it more convenient for
anyone, anywhere, at any time, not have to drive by
• Expanding existing initiatives (such as bike infrastructure)
• Targeting specific populations with relevant non-SOV services that
they can afford
• Developing advanced, software-based solutions (MaaS)
• Continually tracking performance of these programs overtime
“Mobility as a Service” (MaaS) is an integrative approach that proposes to shift
the traditional focus from fixed transportation to flexible, responsive
transportation services designed to meet people’s diverse and changing needs
TDM/TMA: The City supports a number
of emerging transportation demand
management (TDM) initiatives including
its first Transportation Management
Association (TMA), which will develop,
manage, and market transportation
programs to reduce single occupancy
vehicle trips in the Downtown Core
area. The Comprehensive Plan Update
also provides an opportunity to
establish policies that outline when
TDM should be applied and programs
that specify how compliance will be
periodically measured and enforced.
TDM plans for individual development
projects can establish TDM
requirements and set enforceable SOV
mode-share targets. TDM plans would
establish a list of acceptable TDM
measures that include transit use,
prepaid transit passes, commuter
checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking
cash-out, bicycling, walking, and
education and outreach to support the
use of these modes. They should
provide a system for incorporating
alternative measures as new ideas for
TDM are developed.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 21 of 52
by providing seamless regional multi-modal mobility services, including improved transit, and bike share; dynamic,
on-demand shuttles; flexible first & last mile solutions; walkable/bikeable communities; and smart apps that
provide convenient access to all of these.
Figure 11. Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Schematic
Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction
T-FAC-1. Expand bicycle
infrastructure
Increase bike boulevard miles to 26
miles
Increase bike mode share, including
work commute trips, from 7% to 25%
8,400 MTCO2e
T-FAC-2. Expand transit options Increase transit ridership by 60% 19,200 MTCO2e
T-FAC-3. Grow ridesharing
services and mobility apps Increase in rideshare mode 6,400 MTCO2e
1.1.1 Strategy: Expand bicycle infrastructure (T-FAC-1)
1.1.2 Strategy: Expand transit options (T-FAC-2
1.1.3 Strategy: Grow ridesharing services and mobility apps (T-FAC-3)
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 22 of 52
1.2 Goal: Create the right incentives for mobility
Despite the goal in Palo Alto’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan to reduce dependence on the private automobile, the City
provides free parking in public lots and garages—thus incentivizing driving to the tune for $3600/year10—and has
plans to build additional parking capacity. Instead, Palo Alto will identify ways (starting with a paid parking study
this spring) to phase out automobile subsidies by charging for parking—ideally in coordination with neighboring
jurisdictions—and investing the proceeds (as Stanford has successfully done11) in alternatives like transit, bicycle
infrastructure, ride sharing, walkable neighborhoods, etc.
Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction
T-INC-1. Provide universal transit
passes
75% of residents and employees have
universal transit passes
7,600 MTC02e
T-INC-2. Implement parking
pricing
100% of City sites and 50% of private
sites have parking pricing
18,400 MTCO2e
1.2.1 Strategy: Provide universal transit access (T-INC-1)
1.2.2 Strategy: Implement parking pricing (T-INC-2)
1.3 Goal: Seek balanced development
Palo Alto can potentially reduce commute-related VMT though development patterns that support shorter
commutes and complete neighborhoods, by enabling people to live closer to where they work. This is a sensitive
and controversial topic, but its impact is so significant that it must be included here, and discussed and resolved in
the community.
Palo Alto has long had an imbalance between jobs and housing, with almost three times as many jobs as employed
residents in 2014. This imbalance between jobs and employed residents contributes to local and regional traffic,
greenhouse gas emissions, and other impacts, as some workers travel long distances between their residence and
workplace. The imbalance is projected to grow if the City does not take affirmative steps to address the issue
through the Comprehensive Plan Update. These steps could include:
• Increased housing densities
• Increased areas under existing maximum zoning rules
• Additional regulation of employment densities
• Additional commercial downzoning
This strategy would include adopting a land use and transportation scenario to enable additional growth and
development in transit accessible areas, provided that all such development was designed for low
traffic/energy/carbon/water impact and would be approved only with an integral plan resulting in no net increase
in vehicle trips to/from Palo Alto. (Mitigation Measure Trans1a in the Comprehensive Plan EIR would provide this
type of requirement.)
10 Amortized cost of providing parking spaces at investment of ~$60,000 per space. 11 Stanford’s program has reduced SOV rates from 72% to 42%, and avoided $107 million in capital expenditures
for parking structures that were no longer needed. See, for example, http://bit.ly/1RCmSS2
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 23 of 52
Vehicle Trip Cap:
Mountain View sets maximum parking requirements and eliminates
minimum off-street requirements, and targets 30-45% single-occupancy
vehicle mode share, depending on the density of employment within
buildings. One employer faces penalties of $100K for each 1% over the cap.
Similar caps are in place in Sunnyvale, Menlo Park and Cupertino.
A mitigation measure in the Comp Plan Draft EIR suggests a similar
approach, requiring aggressive TDM plans, with quantitative performance
measures and enforcement, as well as requirements to off-set any new
trips that cannot be reduced through TDM.
Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction
T-LU-1. Develop zero-impact,
mixed-use housing
Target 2.95 jobs-housing ratio12
2,900 MTCO2e
1.3.1 Strategy: Increase zero-impact, mixed-use, “transit-oriented” housing (T-
LU-1)
1.4 Goal: Reduce the
carbon intensity of
vehicular travel
Expanding the percentage of trips taken in EVs
would have the largest impact on emissions
from road transportation, which is in turn the
largest category of Palo Alto emissions. Since
the city’s electricity is 100% from renewable
resources, taking steps to encourage all new
vehicles purchased to be EVs or other zero
emissions technology would significantly
reduce emissions associated with on-road vehicles.
Palo Alto already has one of the highest rates of EV ownership in the country (estimated by staff at 3-4% of
registered vehicles), but several factors limit EV adoption, including price (which is dropping rapidly), total cost of
ownership (often poorly understood), and vehicle performance— especially “range anxiety.”
Initiatives to overcome these barriers, and keep Palo Alto’s EV adoption well ahead of the State’s aggressive goals,
could include: public education, target incentives and charging infrastructure development.
Based on the ratio of jobs to employed residents and an analysis of VMT, approximately 93% of Palo Alto’s
transportation-related emissions are estimated to be related to trips into or out of Palo Alto for work, shopping
and other purposes (i.e. the VMT is not associated with trips that are internal to Palo Alto). An estimated 78% of
the total vehicle trips have origins or destinations external to Palo Alto. 13
Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction
T-EV-1. Electrify Palo Alto-based
vehicles
90% of vehicles in Palo Alto are zero
emission
22,900 MTCO2e
12This jobs-housing ratio is expressed as the ratio between jobs and employed residents. Staff has analyzed the
GHG impacts of various job housing ratios. We have included a moderately aggressive option here, recognizing
that Council will determine appropriate targets; the alternate scenarios are available for Council’s consideration. 13 Estimated 95,742 jobs and 34,428 employed residents. (Source: 2016 Official City Data Set.) Estimates of
Internal, Internal-External, and External-Internal VMT and vehicle trips are from the Comp Plan Draft EIR p. 4.13-45.
S/CAP allocates road emissions differently than the Comp Plan analysis, where emissions from all trips, which are
assumed to be round trips, are equally split between inbound and outbound. Since potential strategies available to
Palo Alto to affect those trips are different for inbound vehicles than for those based in Palo Alto, the S/CAP
allocates these emissions based on trip origination.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 24 of 52
T-EV-2. Electrify inbound vehicles 50% of inbound vehicles (non-Palo Alto
based) are zero emission
27,000 MTCO2e
1.4.1 Strategy: Explore ways to expand charging infrastructure across Palo Alto
(T-EV-0)
1.4.2 Strategy: Electrify and decarbonize Palo Alto-based vehicles (T-EV-1)
1.4.3 Strategy: Electrify and decarbonize inbound vehicles (T-EV-2)
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 25 of 52
2. BUILDING ENERGY,
EFFICIENCY and
ELECTRIFICATION
Palo Alto has made remarkable progress in advancing energy
efficiency, through CPAU’s incentive programs and the City’s nation-leading Green Building Ordinances and Energy
Reach Codes, and in decarbonizing its electricity sector, through CPAU’s carbon neutral electricity (CNE) initiative,
which is largely responsible for Palo Alto’s remarkable 36% GHG emissions reduction to date. The CNE Resource
Plan, adopted in 2013, directed CPAU to eliminate fossil-generated electricity by (1) expanding purchases of long-
term renewable energy contracts to about half of Palo Alto’s electricity needs by 2017, (2) relying on existing
carbon-free hydroelectric resources for the other half of electric supply needs, and (3) purchasing short-term
renewable resources and/or renewable energy credits (RECs) to counterbalance emissions from remaining “brown”
or “market power purchases until those long-term renewable energy contracts are in the place.
Emissions from natural gas use currently represent ~25% of Palo Alto’s remaining carbon footprint.14 CNE opens to
opportunity reduce natural gas use through electrification—“fuel switching” various natural gas uses to
electricity—in addition to continued efficiency measures.
The vast majority of natural gas usage is related to today’s building stock (existing buildings), with commercial and
industrial buildings accounting for 63% of natural gas usage in the City. Palo Alto will first seek to reduce natural
gas usage through energy efficiency and conservation, followed by electrification of water heating, space heating
and cooking where cost effective. Figure 12 illustrates the estimated distribution of natural gas usage in Palo Alto.
14 Natural Gas (i.e., methane) is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) at least 23
times that of CO2. Recent research suggests that the climate impacts may be 80-100% higher.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 26 of 52
Figure 132: Summary of Natural Gas Usage in Palo Alto Buildings
The S/CAP roadmap is based on six leverage points:
• Tenant improvement pathway: energy efficiency upgrades, and electrification requirements
• Voluntary retrofit pathway: Palo Alto Utilities incentive programs (point-of-sale/distributors and
contractors), education/outreach
• Predictive failure analysis: to anticipate potential equipment replacement opportunities…
• Replace-on-burnout: develop programs to quickly retrofit with efficient electric equipment, particularly
for small businesses.
• Time-of-sale pathway: energy efficiency upgrades and electrification requirements
• Institutional pathway: removing barriers by streamlining permitting, advocating at the state level to
address California Energy Commission (CEC) requirements for cost-effectiveness (so we can require
electric equipment), making it easier to “do the right thing” (service and convenience)
2.1 Goal: Reduce GHG emissions and energy consumption in
buildings through energy efficiency and design
Efficiency comes first. More efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas and water, ultimately reducing
carbon emissions while minimizing demand on CPAU purchases and saving customers money. Reduced
electrical demand from efficiency—even of Palo Alto’s already carbon neutral electricity—provides more capacity
to meet electricity needs generated by the EV growth and the fuel switching initiatives described below.
New construction offers a unique opportunity to build zero net energy buildings with low or no incremental costs,
while existing buildings offer the largest opportunity to reduce total GHG emissions by improving their
efficiency over the lifecycle of the building. In parallel, measurement and verification are key to ensure
we meet the emission goals we have targeted. Finally, to achieve our emission goals we need to pursue
Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Buildings and Districts that focus on offsetting building energy needs through on-
site renewables at the building and district scale. California is requiring “net zero energy” for all new
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 27 of 52
residential construction by 2020, and all new commercial construction by 2030. Palo Alto is currently considering
whether and how to accelerate those deadlines in future Building Code cycles.
2.1.1 Strategy: Require advanced efficiency standards that exceed state
minimum requirements. (NG-EE-1.1, NG-EE-1.2)
2.1.2 Strategy: Examine the life cycle of buildings and determine appropriate
triggers in the permitting process to mandate deeper efficiency retrofits for
existing buildings.
2.1.3 Strategy: Require Net Zero (or Net Positive) buildings in advance of State
standards.
2.1.4 Strategy: Participate in the formation of Zero Net Energy District(s) in
collaboration with industry stakeholders.
2.1.5 Strategy: Ensure residents and businesses are well-informed about
advanced efficiency and electrification options.
2.1.6 Strategy: Accelerate new and existing CPAU programs to encourage
building efficiency and electrification.
2.2 Goal: Use performance requirements and transparency
to drive learning and accountability around building efficiency
In order to understand how new and existing building are operating before and after construction we
need benchmark and commissioning data. Transparent performance tracking can be an unusually
effective and economical tool for driving and ensuring improved building performance, and focusing
awareness on progress and opportunities.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 28 of 52
2.2.1 Strategy: Ensure buildings perform as designed, through commissioning
programs and other post-occupancy performance tracking and regulatory
processes.
2.2.2 Strategy: Drive performance improvement through benchmarking
programs that collect and report sustainability performance data on buildings in
Palo Alto.
2.3 Goal: Reduce natural gas use in buildings through
electrification
Reduce natural gas usage through energy efficiency and conservation, followed by electrification of
water heating, space heating and cooking where cost effective. Find ways to reduce or eliminate gas
use by encouraging the more efficient gas or all electric appliances such as cook tops and clothes driers.
2.3.1 Strategy: Periodically evaluate electrification of water heating and space
heating for cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility, and identify barriers and
policy levers.
2.3.2 Strategy: Incentivize all-electric new buildings. (NG-GAS-1)
2.3.3 Strategy: Incentivize electrification of existing buildings. (NG-RES, NG-
COMM, NG-COOK)
2.3.4 Strategy: Facilitate deployment of local distributed energy resources (PV,
demand response, energy storage, optimal EV charging, etc.)
2.3.5 Strategy: Develop retail rate design options and new customer financing
options to spur new efficiency and electrification investments
2.3.6 Strategy: Advocate for regulatory changes to accelerate efficiency and
electrification
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 29 of 52
2.4 Goal: Reduce the carbon intensity of natural gas use
Palo Alto will continue to explore opportunities to procure biogas and/or carbon offsets in the short
term, while working towards reduced natural gas consumption.
2.4.1 Strategy: Eliminate natural gas emissions with carbon offsets or biogas
(NG-OFF-1)
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 30 of 52
3. ZERO WASTE AND
THE CIRCULAR
ECONOMY
Reducing the amount of waste discarded in landfills is an
important strategy for both greenhouse gas reductions and
overall sustainability. Diverting waste from landfills occurs through product changes, material use reduction, reuse,
recycling and composting. .Equally important, these diversion strategies will create a “circular economy” where
materials, water and energy do not create waste or pollute, but rather contribute their value back into a
sustainable, circular cycle of human and ecosystem activity.
Achieving “zero waste” will require reducing the overall amount of waste generated within the City—through
purchasing decisions and material use reduction (and ultimately product design), as well as more effective sorting,
recovery and recycling.
In 2007, the City completed a Zero Waste Operational Plan established a goal of 73% diversion by 2011 and 90% by
2021— well beyond state requirements15. This new S/CAP sets a new goal of 95% Diversion by 2030.
3.1 Goal: Divert 95% of waste from landfills by 2030, and
ultimately achieve Zero Waste to landfills
3.1.1 Strategy: Perform new waste characterization and establish new
programs to reduce waste
3.1.2 Strategy: Improve existing programs to reduce waste
3.1.3 Strategy: Utilize the City’s Municipal Code and support State Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws to require more diversion, reuse and salvage
3.2 Goal: Minimize energy use and pollutant formation from
waste collection, transportation and processing
3.2.1 Strategy: Change waste collection fleet to lower carbon-use vehicles
3.2.2 Strategy: Use local and more efficient processing facilities
15 California Assembly Bill 939 was passed in 1989, and mandated local jurisdictions to meet a solid waste diversion
goal of 50% by 2000. Furthermore, each jurisdiction was required to create an Integrated Waste Management Plan
that looked at recycling programs, purchasing of recycled products and waste minimization.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 31 of 52
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 32 of 52
4. WATER
MANAGEMENT
Palo Alto has done an outstanding job of meeting annual water
use reduction requirements of the current “drought.” But both
potable water supplies and hydroelectric needs could be
challenged by long-term shifts in California’s precipitation
regime.
With shifting climate patterns16, significant uncertainty exists about whether drought conditions are the “new
normal” for California, with a possible “new normal” of less (and less reliable) precipitation. Moreover, most
climate projections show increases in average temperatures and reduced snowpack where Palo Alto sources much
of its water—which could impact Palo Alto’s hydroelectric power and thus its carbon neutral electricity strategy.
Given current climatic projections, long-term increases in water supplies from San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC) appear highly unlikely. It would be prudent to reduce water consumption while exploring
ways to increase the availability and use of recycled water.
4.1 Goal: Reduce consumption of water
CPAU water demand management measures (DMMs) have supported customers in reducing water use 27%
between 2000 and 2010. CPAU’s drought response programs have enabled the City to reduce water use by 24% in
2015 compared with 2013 levels, far ahead of the State’s mandated reduction requirements. Long-term water
reduction strategies should focus not only on implementing these procedures during times of drought, but rather
using the incentives and policy drivers listed in the water management plan to drive sustained water consumption
reduction.
4.2 Goal: Utilize the right water supply for the right use
4.3 Goal: Ensure sufficient water quantity and quality
4.4 Goal: Protect the Bay, other surface waters, and
groundwater
4.5 Goal: Lead in sustainable water management
(NOTE: The strategies that follow apply to multiple goals.)
16 The California Department of Water Resources (http://www.sei-international.org/news-and-media/3252), the
Association of California Water Agencies (http://www.acwa.com/events/2016-executive-briefing-defining-new-
normal) and others are examining the potential impacts of Climate Change on Hydrologic Trends and Water
Management.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 33 of 52
4.5.1 Strategy: Verify ability to meet City’s long term water needs
4.5.2 Strategy: Encourage water conservation for existing infrastructure
4.5.3 Strategy: Improve Palo Alto’s recycled water quality
4.5.4 Strategy: Investigate all potential uses of recycled water
4.5.5 Strategy: Investigate ways to reuse non-traditional water sources
4.5.6 Strategy: Minimize water use in new buildings, renovations, and
landscaping
4.5.7 Strategy: Continue to improve quality of storm water
4.5.8 Strategy: Capture and infiltrate storm water; maintain hydrologic cycle
4.5.9 Strategy: Convert the RWQCP to a beneficial resource recovery facility
4.5.10 Strategy: Support both regional and building-level net-zero water efforts
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 34 of 52
5. MUNICIPAL
OPERATIONS –
LEADING THE
WAY
The City of Palo Alto has long demonstrated its commitment to sustainability and reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions through its municipal operations. Palo Alto city government’s
environmental footprint is small—3.1% of citywide electricity use, 2.9% of natural gas use and 5.3%
of water use in FY 2014. But resource efficiency, low carbon and other sustainability initiatives can
save money, improve operating performance, reduce emissions, and provide leadership for the
community. And the City’s important role in leading by example has a powerful impact, both by
providing a governing framework that supports sustainability throughout the community and
inspiring within our community and to neighboring communities. The city government’s
commitment: “We walk the talk, and we go first.”
5.1 Goal: Create energy and water efficient City buildings
The City spends approximately $6 million annually on utilities; “typical” 10-20% potential efficiency savings could
result in more than $600,000 saved per year. The City requires LEED certification for all new City buildings over
10,000 square feet, and assessment of “green building” potential for substantial renovations and additions over
5,000 square feet. These requirements may not have captured all opportunities, and advances in green building
design and technology continually open new ones.
5.1.1 Strategy: Use existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects as
mechanism to implement feasible electrification, efficiency and advanced
technology opportunities
5.1.2 Strategy: Use city buildings as demonstration projects for advanced
building Technologies
5.1.3 Strategy: Strengthen the current energy efficiency and sustainability
requirements (including LEED requirements) for City building projects
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 35 of 52
5.1.4 Strategy: Develop energy efficiency and electrification plans for City
buildings
5.1.5 Strategy: Track and report energy use by City buildings
5.2 Goal: Minimize emissions and maximize efficiency of the
City fleet
5.2.1 Strategy: Continue to electrify City fleet vehicles wherever possible
5.2.2 Strategy: Explore new models for City fleet vehicle operations
•
5.3 Goal: “Default to Green” Procurement for Products and
Services
In 2007, the City authorized the implementation of a green purchasing program, and subsequently adopted a
Green Purchasing Policy (GPP) in 2008, which supports existing environmental policies and Council direction to
reduce GHG, pesticides and mercury, and achieve Zero Waste and pollution prevention goals. In 2015, the City
Manager established a “default to green” strategy that makes the greener product the norm rather than the
exception. Staff will always have the option to purchase alternative products, wherever cost or performance
requirements make the green product inappropriate, but by making the greener purchase easier, and supported
by tools that assist staff in choosing the best option, the City hopes to embed greener purchasing into City
processes. (This has been accomplished for paper and toner purchases, and is underway for fleet purchases.)
[A 2014 OSS analysis showed that the Scope 3 GHG impacts of City purchases would add an estimated 25% to City
government emissions.]
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 36 of 52
5.3.1 Strategy: Establish Green Purchasing criteria in all priority categories
5.3.2 Strategy: Fund Green Purchasing programs, products and services
5.3.3 Strategy: Embed Green Purchasing into City procedures
5.3.4 Strategy: Educate staff about Green Purchasing policies
5.3.5 Strategy: Track and report progress
5.4 Goal: Embed sustainability in City management systems,
processes and operations
Wherever possible, the City will embed sustainability criteria in City management systems processes and
Operations, to ensure that the programs identified in this Plan are addressed early, as part of standard operating
procedure rather than special “sustainability add-ons.”
5.4.1 Strategy: Infuse sustainability throughout City operations
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 37 of 52
6. ADAPTING TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
& SEA LEVEL RISE
The first imperative of climate change planning is mitigation,
the reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases so that
the impacts can be kept as small as possible. However, even if
all carbon emissions were stopped today, some of these effects are likely to continue for decades into the future.
Palo Alto’s greatest climate change risks are a product of the City’s bayside setting, the inherent sensitivities of its
Mediterranean climate, and its dependence on imported water from the distant Sierra Nevada mountains as its
primary water and hydro- electric supply.
Sea-level rise is expected to affect low-lying areas of Palo Alto surrounding the San Francisco Bay with more
frequent and severe flooding. The State of California has adopted guidance and planning sea level rise projections
for the San Francisco Bay region from the National Research Council (NRC, 201217) of projected 11 inches of sea
level rise by 2050 (with a range of 5 to 24 inches) and 36 inches by 2100 (with a range of 17 to 66 inches by 2100.18
Figure 16 and Figure 17 provide an overview (leveraging Silicon Valley 2.0, a regional planning effort to minimize
the anticipated impacts of climate change) of community assets identified at risk of sea level rise/flooding and fire
risk. (See detailed assessment of risks and potential responses in Appendix F.) City staff have several related work
streams underway.
17 National Research Council (NRC), 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past,
Present, and Future. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389
18 California, via the Ocean Protection Council, (OPC, 201318), has adopted the San Francisco Bay region sea level
rise projections from the National Research Council (NRC, 201218), which includes an allowance for vertical land
motion.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 38 of 52
Figure 14. Palo Alto Community Assets at Risk from Sea Level Rise and Associated Flooding
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 39 of 52
Guiding Principles for Sea Level Rise Response
Recognizing the most immediate risks related to sea level, particularly for critical facilities along the San
Francisco Bay Shoreline, Palo Alto has identified six guiding principles:
(1) For city of Palo Alto capital projects, use sea level rise assumptions consistent with the State of
California adopted guidance, with a minimum of 55 inches based on Bay Conservation Development
Corporation (BCDC) numbers.
(2) Continue to monitor latest climate change and sea level rise science and adapt as needed if sea level
rise occurs at a more rapid pace and/or higher levels than projected
(3) Ensure engineering solutions are adaptable to changing climate predictions
(4) Consider tools to protect, adapt and retreat as appropriate and cost-effective
(5) For areas that are to be protected, consider additional tools in case severity and speed of sea level rise
increase, such as designing structure that can get wet and locating sensitive equipment higher in a
building
(6) Continue to collaborate with regional planning efforts on studies of climate impacts and strategies to
respond to sea level rise
Figure 15. Change in Fire Exposure Risk, Showing Community Asset Locations
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 40 of 52
6.1 Goal: Plan for coming changes in our climate and
environment
6.1.1 Strategy: Ensure appropriate water and energy forecasting and Supply
6.2 Goal: Protect the City from climate change induced
hazards
6.2.1 Strategy: Build resiliency into City planning and CIP projects
6.2.2 Strategy: Protect existing public & private infrastructure and critical
services
6.2.3 Strategy: Optimize and preserve ecosystem services as protections from
the sea
6.2.4 Strategy: Implement County Hazard Mitigation Plan
6.2.5 Strategy: Secure funding for coastal protection projects
6.3 Goal: Adapt to current and projected environmental
conditions
6.3.1 Strategy: Strengthen City building requirements and buildings
6.3.2 Strategy: Adopt policies to support adaptation
6.3.3 Strategy: Consider and plan for managed retreat where needed
6.4 Goal: Empower the local community and foster regional
collaboration
6.4.1 Strategy: Participate in regional alliances
6.4.2 Strategy: Improve governance of SLR issues
6.4.3 Strategy: Strengthen communications with local corporations
6.4.4 Strategy: Strengthen neighborhood connections
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 41 of 52
6.4.5 Strategy: Encourage residents to participate in the City’s Storm Water
Incentive Programs
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 42 of 52
7. NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
Sustainability is not only about mitigation and resiliency to
change, but also about regeneration and identifying
opportunities for renewal, restoration and growth of our
natural resources and environment. Green infrastructure
management provides one of the rare opportunities to enhance ecosystem positives such as sequestration of
carbon, recharge of groundwater reserves, local food, walk-ability and bike-ability, and improved human health
rather than solely reduction of negative impacts such as pollution and waste. Sequestering and storing carbon in
trees, vegetation and soil will be an increasing part of climate solutions. The urban forest also shades, cools, slows
water evaporation from soils and has many contributions to other non-carbon aspects of sustainability which are
addressed in the S/CAP framework below.
Palo Alto will continue to build the natural resources, “common wealth” and biocapacity that sustains it: soils,
vegetation, tree canopy, biodiversity, water and many other critical components. Green infrastructure refers to
natural areas and systems to provide habitat, flood protection, storm water management, cleaner air and cleaner
water.
7.1 Goal: Renew, restore and enhance resilience of our
natural environment
7.1.1 Strategy: Adapt canopy, parklands, biodiversity, soil health to changing
climatic regimes
7.1.2 Strategy: Value and enhance the common wealth for future generations.
7.1.3 Strategy: Deploy Green Infrastructure.
7.2 Goal: Align S/CAP planning for the Natural Environment
with other City Plans
7.2.1 Strategy: Reference, Summarize and Interpret Relevant Plans
7.3 Goal: Maximize Carbon Sequestration and Storage in the
Natural Environment
7.3.1 Strategy: Manage Soil, Plants, and Trees to Maximize Carbon Benefits and
Other Ecosystem Services
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 43 of 52
8. PALO ALTO’S
UTILITY OF THE
FUTURE
The utility industry is changing. Rapidly dropping costs of
renewable and distributed power sources, energy storage, electric vehicles and energy-related
telecommunications are combining to challenge the traditional utility framework and business. CPAU is tracking
these trends, has begun piloting residential “smart meters” in a few hundred locations and begun assessing the
load and storage impacts of electric vehicles on the grid. These trends intersect sustainability and climate action
concerns, and raise both significant challenges and opportunities for CPAU.
CPAU will explore and evaluate the “Utility of the Future” concept—including potentially moving from a
centralized utility provisioning model to a more agile one of greater embracing distributed energy generation and
storage, an increased focus on energy services in addition to energy generation and distribution.
8.1 Goal: Advance smart grid strategies
Smart grid strategies connect to Palo Alto’s existing, smart city and open data strategies, and offer the promise of
more responsive and efficient energy systems, and more connected and satisfied customers.,
8.1.1 Strategy: Deploy Smart Grid as key part of “smart and connected city”
8.1.2 Strategy: Evaluate and advance appropriate distributed generation and
storage strategies
8.2 Goal: Evaluate and adapt the CPAU business model
The utility industry faces a potentially disruptive future—driven by changing technology, economics and customer
expectations, as well as policy changes—that could include the challenge of “grid defection” as customers become
their own providers, and of new regulatory models and new competitors that shift revenues from utilities to other
participants in the energy system. Few utilities have begun to consider how to adapt to the creative destruction in
by the proliferation of distributed generation and energy efficiency; many are actively resisting the transition.
CPAU, small and locally controlled, has the capabilities to rapidly evolve the business models these trends are
demanding.
8.2.1 Strategy: Consider long-term CPAU strategy in light of rapidly changing
technology
8.2.2 Strategy: Leverage the resiliency and potential cost benefits of distributed
energy resources (e.g., solar, storage, microgrids)
8.3 Goal: Continue to advance carbon neutrality
CPAU will continue to play a central role in Palo Alto’s carbon neutrality trajectory.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 44 of 52
8.3.1 Strategy: Continue to support electrification programs and requirements,
including restructuring rates and upgrading grid, as warranted
8.3.2 Strategy: Develop hydroelectric power contingency plans
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 45 of 52
9. COMMUNITY
BEHAVIOR,
CULTURE &
INNOVATION
Ultimately the way individuals and businesses act dictates our consumption patterns and thus our impact on
natural resources. To truly address the challenges of climate change and sustainability, individual behavior will
have to continue to change. In fact, the GHG impact of individual purchasing decisions—not reflected in Palo Alto’s
GHG inventory, above—is significant. (See Figure 16, below.) Achieving that change will require broad community
engagement, participation, guidance— and individual initiative. To support that, the City will actively inform &
convene stakeholders, support individual & collaborative action, and disclose and report impacts of both City and
community-wide initiatives and impacts.
9.1 Goal: Provide a platform for community change in culture,
behavior and innovation
9.1.1 Strategy: Shift cultural norms to encourage supportive change in behavior,
lifestyle, purchasing and investment
9.1.2 Strategy: Facilitate personal and neighborhood action
Figure 17: Palo Alto Per Capita GHG emissions, including "Scope 3" Impact of Purchases
•
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 46 of 52
9.1.3 Strategy: Develop Smart City and Power of Open Data
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 47 of 52
10. FINANCING,
FUNDING AND
INVESTMENTS
The total financial impact of the goals and strategies identified
in this plan is estimated to result in a net present value of
$400 million generated by estimated City investments of $10 million combined with investments across the Palo
Alto economy of approximately $760 million over the next 14 years. (These are best estimates in the face of rapidly
evolving technologies and rapidly improving price/performance ratios in energy, mobility and other sectors; they
should be revised regularly.)
This return on investment may seem surprising that reducing GHG emissions are estimated to provide a net
positive economic benefit, since most people have long thought that environmental quality costs money. But
efficiency has long delivered good return on investment, and renewable energy is becoming increasingly
competitive compared to fossil fuels. This makes carbon neutrality a good investment seen in the light of
alternative costs if Palo Alto were to continue to source its energy from fossil fuels. Additionally, the levers and
strategies identified in this plan also contribute to improving the health and quality of life for Palo Alto residents
and businesses by reducing congestion, noise and local pollution.
Financing these pathways
Staff has identified a variety of potential sources of funds to finance the S/CAP; all of these sources (including
private financial vehicles) need a more complete assessment of applicable legal and regulatory requirements and
the risks and obligations associated with the various approaches.19 These include operating savings, parking
feebates, utility rates, revolving loan funds, local offsets, carbon tax or fee, voluntary contributions, green bonds,
transfer taxes, public/private partnerships and private financial vehicles.20 There is evidence that market demand
exceeds supply for well-constructed sustainability and climate related investment opportunities; as a result some
initiatives discussed here may be financeable through private investors.
Capital formation
People—and companies—sometimes resist environmental improvements for fear they are too expensive, or say
we’ll do as much as we can afford. But as the late Ray Anderson, founder and CEO of Interface, would say, “If you
think sustainability is expensive, you’re doing it wrong.”
Analysis shows that sustainability can be a good investment. But it is an investment—and like any other can be
structured in many ways
Many funding options are available and new forms are continually emerging. In most cases, innovation comes from
combining instruments in creative ways to achieve specific goals rather than creating entirely new mechanisms.
The “best” choice of funding vehicle for a particular entity is one that compliments the current political and
cultural context of a region by allocating costs and benefits equitably. Figure 18 summarizes key financing options
and their estimated scale.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 48 of 52
Figure 198: Potential Financing Sources and Amounts
STRATEGIES DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL
FUNDS
COMMENTS
Utility Costs Operating Savings
Allocate 50% of cost savings from retrofit of City buildings
$0.6m/yr Current spend ~$6m/year; estimated 10% savings
Parking Feebates Phase out free parking; apply revenues to commute alternatives $10-20m/yr (Modeled on the Stanford engine)
Utility Reserve Apply 10% of Utility Reserve to finance low-carbon initiatives
$5m/yr
Revolving Loan Fund
Establish bond-funded low-interest revolving loan fund for on-bill
financing of efficiency projects
TBD
Green Bonds Issue green bonds to finance green infrastructure and low carbon initiatives
TBD Beneficial interest rates since demand exceeds supply
Local Offsets Switch GreenGas to opt-out; use portion of funds to finance qualified local projects (5% first year)
$1.6m/year
Carbon Tax Explore and pilot local carbon tax or
fee
$5-15m/yr See Boulder, for example.
Would likely require ballot measure.
Total $22.2-32.2m/yr
10.1 Goal: Utilize diverse financial pathways to drive S/CAP
implementation
• Evaluate the economic and legal feasibility of the financing measures identified in Figures 18.
• Utilize the general fund to incentivize investments to promote appliance switching, which may not be
possible for the Enterprise funds to finance due to legal restrictions.
• Establish internal carbon pricing for all City departments and financial activities.
• To the extent feasible, include carbon pricing into the gas rates to fund efficiencies and fuel switching.
• Identify a neighborhood or commercial district as a special district to carry out innovative pilot projects
around GHG reduction, electric transportation development, or other approaches.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 49 of 52
11. IMPLEMENTATION: TURNING VISION
INTO ACTION
Achieving the emissions reductions detailed in this plan requires that the strategies are implemented in a timely,
coordinated and sustained way. Partial or poorly coordinated implementation will reduce the emissions reduction
potential of the S/CAP.
Monitoring and Tracking Progress
The Office of Sustainability will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on the progress of the S/CAP on the
following schedule:
• Community greenhouse gas inventory: Annually.
• S/CAP Strategy Indicators: Annually
Below, we summarize the key performance indicators associated with each Strategy:
Table 1. Summary of S/CAP Strategy Indicators for Monitoring Progress21
Levers Goals Strategy 2030 Performance Target 2030 GHG
Emissions
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Re
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
Expand non-
auto mobility
options
T-FAC-1. Expand bicycle
infrastructure
Increase bike boulevard miles to 26
miles
Increase in bike mode share to 30%
8,400
T-FAC-2. Expand transit options Increase transit ridership by 60%
19,200
T-FAC-3. Grow ridesharing
services Increase in rideshare mode
6,400
Create right
financial
incentives
T-INC-1. Provide universal
transit passes
75% of residents and employees have
universal transit passes
7,600
T-INC-2. Implement parking
pricing 50% of sites have parking pricing
18,400
Implement
land use
approaches
T-LU-1. Increase zero-impact
housing Target 2.95 jobs-housing ratio
2,900
Reduce carbon
intensity of
vehicles
T-EV-1. Electrify Palo Alto-based
vehicles
90% of vehicles based in Palo Alto are
zero emission
25,200
T-EV-2. Electrify inbound
vehicles
50% of inbound (not based in Palo
Alto) vehicles are zero emission
29,800
El
e
c
t
r
i
f
yi
n
g
ou
r
Reduce use in
existing
businesses
NG-COMM-1. Electrify water
heating in businesses
85% of commercial water heating is
electric
21,200
NG-COMM-2. Electrify space 85% of commercial space heating is
21 The figures in this table are estimates based on staff and consultant analyses of the estimated GHG reductions
from each strategy. These estimates are built on documented assumptions, and are subject to many factors that
could change over the 2030 horizon.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 50 of 52
heating in businesses electric 15,900
NG-COOK-1. Electrify
commercial cooking 50% of commercial cooking is electric
11,300
Reduce use in
existing homes
NG-RES-1. Electrify residential
water heating
Close to 100% of water heaters are
electric
13,600
NG-RES-2. Electrify residential
space heating
70% of residential space heating is
electric
23,300
Reduce use in
new buildings
NG-GAS-1. Encourage all-
electric new buildings
New buildings are zero net energy
ahead of state targets
11,900
Ze
r
o
Wa
s
t
e
Enhance
programs and
infrastructure
SW-1. Achieve zero waste
Achieve 95% diversion rate
9,500
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 51 of 52
CONCLUSION
Climate change is a global problem and only through local solutions designed to meet the needs of our community
can we mitigate and adapt to its impacts and protect the environment. While the challenge of climate change is
unprecedented, local-level solutions can reduce emissions, increase efficiency, promote economic development,
and improve quality of life for residents.
Together, we can continue to foster a vibrant economy, increase our resiliency and support Palo Alto’s vision for a
livable and sustainable community for generations to come. The City of Palo Alto has taken a significant step
toward a more sustainable future with this climate action plan. This Plan has identified areas and opportunities to
reduce GHG emissions within the community and City operations that along with statewide efforts can achieve our
environmental goals.
While an important first step, this plan will remain a living document, to be updated as technology and policies
progress, to support the City’s efforts to manage GHG emissions for a sustainable future for all.
City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 Framework Nov 2016 Page 52 of 52
GLOSSARY
BAU: Business as Usual. Measures, initiatives or impacts that do not depend on new City of Palo Alto action
BAU 1: BAU resulting from demographic projections, external (State and Federal) policy choices. Based on
CompPlan analysis, modified by S/CAP consultants to distinguish certain elements. (See BAU2)
BAU 2: BAU resulting from existing (enacted and/or in progress)
Palo Alto: The entire Palo Alto community, including COPA, residents and businesses
CNE: Carbon Neutral Electricity
CPAU: City of Palo Alto Utilities
COPA or The City: City of Palo Alto municipal government, including City of Palo Alto Utilities
EV: Electric Vehicle
GHG: Greenhouse gas emissions
MaaS : Mobility as a Service
PV: Photovoltaic System
SOV: Single Occupant Vehicles
S/CAP: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
TNCs: Transportation Network Companies
VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled
How Will the Comprehensive Plan Update & the
Sustainability & Climate Action Plan Work Together?
Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan
Update and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) are be-
ing prepared in parallel and will both
address issues related to sustainability,
including reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and single occu-
pant vehicle trips, conserving energy,
water, and other natural resources,
and adapting to expected changes in
climate and resulting impacts such
as sea level rise, drought, increased
flooding and fire risk, etc. The fol-
lowing points describe how these two
concurrent planning efforts interact
with each other.
The Comprehensive Plan Update will
embrace principles of sustainability
via new goals, policies, and imple-
mentation programs, particularly in
the Transportation, Land Use & Com-
munity Design, Natural Environment,
and Safety elements of the updated
plan. A subcommittee of the Citizens
Advisory Committee has been formed
to work across elements on this issue.
Also, the use of icons or a special sec-
tion in the final plan can allow readers
to find goals, policies, and programs
related to sustainability and climate
change adaption wherever they occur
in the document.
The Comprehensive Plan Update will
describe the intent and scope of the
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan and explicitly incorporate the
plan by reference, similar to how
other important community plans
will be referenced (e.g. the Baylands
Master Plan; the Local Hazard Mitiga-
tion Plan; the Parks, Trails and Open
Space Master Plan; the Urban Forest
Master Plan, etc.).
As a more focused plan, the Sus-tainability and Climate Action Plan
will be much more specific than the
Comprehensive Plan Update when
it comes to strategies for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
for addressing other sustainability-re-
lated topics. The Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan will also look
out farther than the Comprehensive
Plan Update horizon year of 2030.
Both the Comprehensive Plan Up-
date and the Sustainability and Cli-mate Action Plan will require review
pursuant to the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) that is being prepared for the
Comprehensive Plan Update will con-
tain a conservative (i.e. probably high)
forecast of community-wide GHG
emissions in the year 2030. The Sus-
tainability and Climate Action Plan
will be more aspirational in assuming
aggressive emission reductions.
Finalization, adoption and imple-
mentation of the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan will be included
as a mitigation measure in the Com-
prehensive Plan Update Draft EIR to
ensure that the City meets or exceeds
the State’s targets for GHG emission
reductions in 2030 and 2050.
Palo Alto’s Comprehen-
sive Plan Update and
the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan
are being prepared in
parallel and will both
address issues related to
sustainability.
Interested in helping craft solutions to
the critical issues facing us now and
into the future? Join us at the Sustain-
ability and Climate Action Summit:www.cityofpaloalto.org/scapreg
Attachment C: Principles and Criteria
Guiding Principles
The Vision Statement for the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Governance Element declares that:
“Palo Alto will maintain a positive civic image and be a leader in the regional, state, and
national policy discussions affecting the community. The City will work with neighboring
communities to address common concerns and pursue common interests. The public
will be actively and effectively involved in City affairs, both at the Citywide and
neighborhood levels.”1
S/CAP builds on that vision with these guiding principles as a basis for effective and sustainable
decision-making:
Consider “sustainability” in its broadest dimensions, including quality of life, the natural
environment and resilience, not just climate change and greenhouse gas emissions
reductions.
Address the sustainability issues most important to the community and select most cost-
effective programs and policies—recognizing that this will entail moral and political, as
well as economic, decision factors.
Seek to improve quality of life as well as environmental quality, economic health and social
equity.
Foster a prosperous, robust and inclusive economy.
Build resilience—both physical and cultural—throughout the community.
Include diverse perspectives from all community stakeholders, residents, and businesses.
Recognize Palo Alto’s role as a leader and linkages with regional, national and global
community.
Design Principles
In both evaluating this S/CAP, and in developing and evaluating future programs guided by it,
Palo Alto is guided by these design principles:
Focus on what’s feasible—recognizing that technology and costs are shifting rapidly.
Prioritize actions that are in the City’s control – recognizing that we can urge others to join
us, but leading by example is most effective
Be specific about the actions and costs to achieve near-term goals, while accepting that
longer-term goals can be more aspirational
Use ambient resources: Maximize the efficient capture and use of the energy and water
that fall on Palo Alto.
1 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/plan-contents/governance-element/
Full cost accounting: Use total (life cycle) cost of ownership and consideration of
externalities to guide financial decisions, while focusing on emission reductions that
achievable at a point in time (i.e. not on life cycle emissions).
Align incentives: Ensure that subsidies, if any, and other investment of public resources
encourage what we want and discourage what we don’t want.
Flexible platforms: Take practical near term steps that expand rather than restrict capacity
for future actions and pivots.
Decision Criteria
In selecting specific programs and policies to pursue, and in allocating public resources to
support them, Palo Alto will be guided by these decision criteria:
Greenhouse gas impact
Quality of life impact
Mitigation cost
Return on investment (ROI)
Ecosystem health
Resilience
Impact on future generations
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6596)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Review of CAC Land Use Element
Title: Review of the Draft Land Use & Community Design Element of the
Comprehensive Plan Update Recommended by the Citizens Advisory
Committee
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss the Draft Land Use and Community
Design Element (Attachments A & B) developed by the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC), including the growth management options (Attachment C) and
issues summarized in this staff report. This is intended as an initial discussion/preview, since
the draft element will return to t h e Council for further discussion and direction together
with a revised draft Transportation Element in early 2017.
Executive Summary
The Land Use and Community Design Element is the third element of the Comprehensive Plan
that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) has developed and transmitted to the City Council
for review. This Draft Element is based on the City Council’s direction regarding vision and
goals, as well as input from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the public.
This update is the product of seven meetings of the full CAC, seven meetings of the Land Use
subcommittee of the CAC and three meetings of the Sustainability subcommittee of the CAC.
The CAC unanimously recommended that the Draft Element be forwarded to the Council for
review and input (with one abstention), along with the individual CAC member comments in
Attachment D.
At this evening’s meeting, staff will summarize the CAC process, themes of the Draft Element,
changes from the existing Element, as well as next steps. Staff is seeking the Council’s initial
comments and questions on the range of options and the outstanding issues summarized
in this Staff Report. The Council will have an opportunity to delve deeper when they consider
the draft Land Use and Community Design Element and the revised draft Transportation
Element together at the end of January.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background and Discussion
The basic purpose of the Land Use and Community Design Element is to designate “the
proposed general distribution and general location and extent of uses of the land”
(Government Code Section 65302(a)). This Element’s objectives and policies provide a long-
range policy direction for short-term actions, including zoning, subdivision and public works
decisions and is therefore the guiding force behind the physical form of Palo Alto for the next
15 years. Given its crucial role, it is not surprising that this Element is the one that the CAC has
spent the most time on. The CAC identified many important areas of consensus, and, where
consensus was not reached, identified a range of options for Council’s consideration.
The CAC as a whole agrees that Palo Alto should:
Require the highest quality development with the least impacts on the physical
environment and the community’s livability.
Focus on ensuring that housing that is affordable is available in the community,
recognizing that “housing that is affordable” goes beyond deed-restricted Below Market
Rate “affordable housing” to include housing at the lower end of market rate housing.
Identify strategies to prevent the displacement of existing residents.
Increase the supply of housing for seniors, people with special needs, and other
vulnerable members of the community.
Monitor growth carefully and regularly reassess its effects, recognizing that the current
system of monitoring non-residential growth in nine areas only is outdated and should
be replaced with a Citywide system. (Options for a growth management system are
described below.)
Manage the growth of Office and Research & Development (R&D) uses while avoiding
restrictions on retail uses, establishing growth monitoring and management programs
that address conversions from one non-residential use (e.g. retail, warehouse) to
another (i.e. office/R&D) within existing buildings, not only net new non-residential
uses.
Consider establishing new requirements for development (“development
requirements”) and new “community indicators” (described in more detail below) to
regularly assess the influence of both existing and new development on livability of the
community as a whole.
Continue to set high standards for urban design, protect neighborhood character,
support local retail, and preserve and enhance open spaces and the urban forest
Use coordinated area plans as a tool for guiding change in targeted areas.
Over the course of the CAC, Land Use, and Sustainability subcommittee meetings, CAC
members identified and discussed the key issues listed below. In the following sections, each
issue is discussed. Areas of consensus are described, as are options crafted by the CAC where
consensus was not reached.
A. Housing affordability (options)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
B. Non-residential growth management tools (options)
C. Office uses in Mixed Use designation (initial consensus; later comments)
D. Convenience Retail in Residential Areas (consensus with agreement for future study)
E. Basements (consensus)
F. Coordinated Area Plans (consensus)
G. Height Limit (options)
H. Parkland acquisition (consensus)
A. Housing Affordability
There was consensus that Palo Alto needs to be more assertive in sustaining a socio-
economically diverse community by addressing the high cost of housing. Part of this
approach includes a broad and comprehensive interpretation of “housing that is affordable”
rather than a narrower focus on “affordable housing.” At the CAC’s suggestion, several policies
and programs were revised to refer to “housing that is affordable,” meaning housing that is
at the lower end of the local price range due to age, size, design, location, or other
characteristics, but is not legally required to be affordable to a certain income level. Only
policies and programs that directly address the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program
use the term “affordable housing.”
In addition, there was strong consensus that existing housing that is affordable should be
preserved to avoid displacement of existing residents. To this end, the Land Use Element
includes a new program to address displacement, and includes preservation of affordable units
in the new development requirements and community indicators (explained below).
CAC members offered a range of different ideas about how to address housing affordability. For
example, as described in more detail in the sections below, some would be willing to exceed
the City’s height limit in order to build additional housing, especially housing for seniors and
people with special needs, while others would not. Some strongly supported protecting local
retail and/or existing surface parking in shopping centers, particularly Stanford Shopping
Center, while others felt that these spaces could be considered as potential locations for new
housing. These divergent approaches are articulated in the range of options for growth
management, height limits, and neighborhood commercial areas presented in the attached
Element and explained below.
B. Non-Residential Growth Management
The CAC spent considerable time and energy addressing non – residential development,
especially the amount of future office and R&D space. The current Comprehensive Plan
manages non-residential development through absolute numerical caps on the amount of non-
residential space in nine “monitored” planning areas and in downtown. Preserving or
modifying this policy and program from the existing Comprehensive Plan is an important focus
City of Palo Alto Page 4
of the Comprehensive Plan Update. After learning about the existing system and reviewing
data on past non-residential growth and capacity remaining under the current caps, the CAC
developed a series of new options for Council’s consideration. The CAC’s growth management
options evolved into three major components, summarized in Table 1 (Attachment C) and
explained below.1
The three different components -- a cumulative growth cap, an annual limit, and a downtown
cap -- could function interrelatedly or independently, meaning the Council could adopt none,
some, or all of them. However, the current numerical ranges for each have been developed
based on the assumption that all three caps would be in place. Therefore, for example, the
annual limit amounts are roughly equivalent to the average growth per year to meet the
remaining development allowed under the cumulative cap.
Cumulative Cap Options
The City’s current cumulative cap on non-residential development is established in the existing
Comprehensive Plan as Policy L-8, which set a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-
residential development since 1989 for nine planning areas. Currently, about 1.4 million square
feet of development subject to this cap has been built, and 1.7 million square feet remain
available.
The summary diagram of options and choices in Table 1 (Attachment C) explains the cumulative
policy options the CAC formulated. These options were developed using the existing Policy L-8
as a starting point and range from eliminating the cumulative cap to keeping the cumulative
cap, with or without the introduction of “development requirements” and “community
indicators” which are explained further below.
In all options with a cumulative cap, the growth limit would apply citywide minus the SUMC
development that has already been entitled, rather than focusing on the nine planning
areas, and would apply to office/R&D (or office/R&D plus hotel) rather than all non-residential
uses. While this narrower focus would mean that other non-residential uses (e.g. new
warehouses and retail uses) would no longer count towards the cap, it would also mean that
existing building space that is converted from one of these uses to office/R&D would count
towards the cap. There was also general agreement that any growth management or
monitoring system should use 2015 as the baseline, while building on the valuable data
collected on growth between 1989 and 2015.
Some CAC members expressed concern about recommending a specific numerical value for the
cap and felt the CAC had not had adequate time or data to arrive at the right numbers.
1 Table 1 includes vote tallies for some items. Over the course of developing and refining growth management
options, the CAC elected to take votes at some meetings as a way of recording minority and majority opinions.
However, as the process evolved, the CAC determined that votes were not a constructive way to move forward and
shifted to a system of articulating a range of options that captured the range of viewpoints on the CAC;without
taking a vote to quantify support for each option. Therefore, not all of the items in Table 1 were voted on.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
However, the CAC generally supported staff’s proposal to carry the remaining 1.7 million square
feet forward as the new cumulative cap on Office/R&D development. This number is reasonable
based on the existing cumulative cap, and the City’s historic track record of development.
If new hotel development is also subject to the cap, one option discussed was a total cumulative
cap of 1.7 million square feet of Office/R&D development and 500,000 square feet of hotel
development. That figure is based on the past 15 years of development history and would
accommodate two current active hotel proposals plus one more full service hotel within the
City. However, the CAC could not come to agreement on an appropriate hotel cap number and
instead agreed that the Comp Plan should include a program to conduct a study to consider a
hotel cap in more detail and set an appropriate cap if needed.
The current Policy L-8 is silent on if or when the cap should be re-evaluated. The CAC’s policy
revisions add a provision that the cumulative cap would be re-evaluated when the amount of
approved office/R&D (and hotel, if included) reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage. This is consistent with the provision in existing Program L-8 about the
downtown cap.
To address the concern about the amount of development capacity allowed under current
zoning and the lower amount of development allowed under the Policy L-8 cap, the CAC also
discussed created a new program, L1.12.3, to adjust non-residential development potential in
the CC, CN, and CS zoning districts and convert some non-retail commercial FAR to residential
FAR, where appropriate. The program notes that conversion to residential capacity should not
be considered in Town and Country Village.
Annual Limit Options
The annual limit addresses the pace of development. Currently, the pace of development is
regulated through the interim ordinance adopted by the City Council in 2015 establishing an
annual limit of 50,000 square feet per fiscal year of new Office/R&D development in three
commercial districts: Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real south of Park
Boulevard. Neither the SUMC nor Stanford Research Park developments are included in the
current annual limit.
There was consensus on the CAC that if an annual limit is implemented on a permanent basis, it
should be expanded beyond the three areas covered in the current ordinance. The CAC
considered an option to apply an annual limit citywide and an option to apply the annual limit
citywide with the exception of Stanford Research Park. In both options, the SUMC
development that has already been entitled would be excluded.
There was consensus on the CAC that the annual limit should continue to apply to office/R&D
uses and the CAC formulated two options for a numerical annual limit. Under the citywide
annual limit option, the subcommittee recommended a limit of 50,000 square feet Citywide,
plus a separate additional cap on annual development in the Stanford Research Park. While the
subcommittee did not come to agreement on a specific square footage cap for Stanford
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Research Park, it did suggest that the Stanford Research Park have the ability to rollover unused
square footage allocations to future years. The CAC also considered an option to exempt the
Stanford Research Park from an annual limit, on the condition that a trip cap is applied to the
Research Park.
Specifically, CAC members suggested that Comp Plan policies be added to encourage the City
and Stanford to agree on traffic reductions if the Research Park is exempted from annual
growth limits. Two possible options for wording have been submitted by CAC members, and
readers are encouraged to review the letter from Stanford in Attachment C. If the Council
directs, relevant text could be added as a new program under Policy L-1.15 (which presents the
option of a citywide annual limit with an exemption for the Research Park).
Downtown Cap Options
The existing Downtown cap is established in Program L-8 of the current Comprehensive Plan,
which established a cap of 350,000 square feet of net new non-residential development
Downtown measured against a baseline of 1986.
Table 2. Downtown Cap (Existing Program L-8) Summary – As of July 2016
Gross sq. ft.
Commercial Downtown Zoning Districts Growth Cap 350,000 sq. ft.
Net non-residential SQFT added through August 31, 2015 277,717 sq. ft
Total SQFT development proposal in the pipeline 26,664 sq. ft.
Total SQFT development remaining to reach the cap if pipeline
projects are approved
45,619 sq. ft.
Source: Planning & Community Environment, October 2016
The CAC put forward one option that the Downtown cap would be revised to apply to
Office/R&D uses only, and another that the cap would apply to both Office/R&D and hotel uses.
In both options, the Downtown cap would continue to apply to the area covered by existing
Program L-8. As noted earlier, focusing the cap on office/R&D uses (or office/R&D plus hotels),
rather than all non-residential uses would mean that other non-residential uses (e.g. new retail
uses) would no longer count towards the cap; but it would also mean that any existing building
space that is converted from retail or other uses to office/R&D would count towards the cap.
If the Downtown cap applies to Office/R&D uses only, the CAC recommended using the square
footage remaining under the current cap as the cap on Office/R&D uses. If the Downtown cap
applies to Office/R&D uses and hotel, the CAC recommended retaining the square footage
remaining under the current cap for Office/R&D and allowing an additional 50,000 square feet
of hotel development above what exists today. The CAC also raised an option to exempt small
City of Palo Alto Page 7
offices of 5,000 square feet or less from the Downtown cap in an effort to support smaller local
businesses.
Any adjustments to the downtown cap will require conforming amendments to the Municipal
Code and the Draft Element also includes a program (L1.16.5) to update the CD district zoning
to convert some non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR Downtown and consider revising
the TDR program to create bonus residential, rather than commercial square footage.
Development Requirements and Community Indicators
Over the course of their discussions about growth management, the CAC advanced two related
tools called “development requirements,” to be placed on new development projects, and
“community indicators” that would be monitored over time to evaluate livability in Palo Alto as
a whole. (Note: the term “development requirements” was preferred over “performance
measures” and other, similar options.) These new tools could be used in addition to or instead
of a numerical cap, as shown in Table 1 (Attachment C). Their intended purposes are
summarized below:
Development requirements:
o Are imposed on new development at the time of approval (whether through
changes to the zoning ordinance or standard conditions of approval).
o Focus on new measures that would be added to existing development
requirements to enhance and reinforce the City’s commitment to achieving the
highest quality development with the least impacts.
o Are not applied to existing development.
Community indicators:
o Evaluate the community as a whole, including existing and new development
and existing and new residents and employees.
o Reflect the outcomes of changes in behavior, new technologies, etc., over the
planning period, not only the outcomes of new construction.
o Are not about achieving a specific end point, but about taking a snapshot, or
check-up, to measure progress over time, recognize successes, and tailor efforts
to areas where improvement is still needed.
o Are used to periodically consider whether to retain, revise or eliminate the
growth limits.
Suggested development requirements are listed in Table L-1 of the attached Draft Element;
community indicators are in Table L-2. For ease of reference, both tables are reproduced here.
The suite of development requirements and community indicators crafted by the CAC includes
components that address both the physical environment and other topics that impact livability
as identified by the CAC, such as schools, parks, and community diversity. However, given the
complexity of instituting a new system for monitoring growth and its impacts, the range of
topics CAC members expressed interest in monitoring, and the nuances of the data associated
City of Palo Alto Page 8
with each individual topic, some CAC members felt that formulating specific development
requirements and community indicators over the course of a few CAC and subcommittee
meetings would not give this the attention it deserves. Thus the range of development
requirements and community indicators presented in the Draft Element is intended as a
starting point for Council review, discussion, and refinement. In addition, the Draft Element
includes one option that presents a detailed system of development requirements and
community indicators, and one option that defers creation of a new system through a new
program calling for a future process.
The CAC formulated three options for using development requirements and community
indicators only:
1. Using development requirements and community indicators only, meaning that growth
would not be capped as long as development requirements were met and indicators
reflected positive change and livability.
2. An “all of the above” approach to impose development requirements, monitor
community indicators, and apply numerical growth caps and annual limits.
3. Using a combination of numerical growth caps and community indicators, but no
development requirements. In this option, it was suggested that compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would establish development requirements
for each development project.
Under any of these options, the CAC agreed that the effectiveness of the development
requirements and the community indicators should be re-evaluated regularly.
C. Mixed Use Designation
The commercial land use designations in the current Comp Plan all allow for a mix of land uses;
however, the consensus on the CAC is that zoning that encourages mixed use projects with no
office component would be a valuable addition. This concept has been incorporated into the
framework in the form of the following new program under Policy L-6.12 [L120]:
PROGRAM L6.12.1: Update the municipal code to include zoning changes that allow
a mix of retail and residential but no office uses. The intent of these changes would be
to encourage a mix of land uses that contributes to the vitality and walkability of
commercial centers and transit corridors. [L121]
Later written comments requested to remove the language prohibiting office uses described in
both Program L6.12.1 [L121] and the Mixed Use Land Use Definition. (See Attachment D.)
D. Convenience Retail in Residential Areas
City of Palo Alto Page 9
CAC members grappled with the pros and cons of providing retail services and daily needs near
neighborhoods with potential traffic, parking and noise impacts on neighborhoods. Ultimately,
the CAC came to consensus on a new program to “explore whether there are appropriate
locations to allow small-scale neighborhood-serving retail facilities… in residential areas.”
(Program L2.2.1 [L46])
As a program, this has been moved so that it is linked to Policy L-2.2 [L45] to “[e]nhance
connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential
neighborhoods” by promoting “a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily
needs of residents.” By agreeing to “explore” only, the CAC did not feel the need to create
options for this issue.
E. Basements
The CAC received extensive and detailed public comments on the issue of basements in single
family homes and the array of potential impacts they can cause to groundwater supply,
flooding, occupancy densities, and public safety. The CAC agreed that the Land Use Element
should address this issue, in addition to policies and programs in the Natural Environment and
Safety Elements, if needed. The following new policy and program are included in the Draft
Element:
Policy L-3.9 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on
adjacent properties, public resources, and the natural environment. [NEW POLICY] [L63]
Program L-3.9.1 Develop a program to assess and manage both the positive and
negative impacts of basement construction in single family homes on the
community and the environment, including:
Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of excluding basements from the
gross floor area and maximum floor area ratio limits in the zoning ordinance.
Consider zoning revisions, including greater setbacks, to limit basement size
and increase basement setbacks from adjacent properties.
Impacts to the natural environment, such as potential impacts to the tree
canopy, groundwater supply or quality, and soil compaction.
Safety issues such as increased surface flooding, increased groundwater
intrusion with sea level rise, emergency access and egress, or sewage
backflows. [NEW PROGRAM] [L64]
CAC members also recommended that staff forward a proposal for the Council to take action to
further limit or regulate basement construction prior to Comp Plan adoption, given the urgency
of the issue. Some members favored a moratorium on single family basements until more
rigorous regulations are in place.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
DRAFT TABLE L-1 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
These requirements are new tools strongly focused on ensuring the highest quality development with
the least impacts. .
1. Reducing Trips: a specific percent of typical single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuter trips.
2. Alleviating Traffic Congestion: minimize impact on intersection Level of Service (LOS)
3. Connectivity: enhancing connections to transportation infrastructure or services.
4. Preserving Affordable Housing: no net loss of affordable dwelling units, no displacement of
residents of Below Market Rate (BMR) units, and discouraging loss of smaller homes such as
cottages .
5. Facilitating Affordable Housing: Facilitate a mix of multi-family housing, including affordable
units, and housing for seniors and people with special needs.
6. Protecting the Natural Environment: Create a resilient landscape by preserving or increasing the
tree canopy and natural understory, landscaped/open space areas planted with native
plantings, creating or restoring a resilient landscape, and bird-friendly design.
7. Providing Parking: do not allow parking spillover onto residential neighborhood streets.
8. Preserving Affordable Office Space: Encourage the provision of new small office space and
the preservation of existing low-cost office space.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The City already regulates many aspects of development. The City will review these existing regulations
to ensure they are consistent with current targets and effective in achieving the highest quality
development with the least impacts.
Green Building: Conserving energy, water, and resources through meeting specific
requirements in the City’s mandatory green building ordinance, as periodically amended. It
covers topics such as:
o Energy Efficiency and Conservation
o Materials and Waste
o Light Pollution Reduction
o Emissions
o Electric Vehicle Charging
o Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Reuse
o Permeable Surface Area For Groundwater Recharge
o Native, Drought-Tolerant Planting
o Indoor Air Quality
Parking: Meeting need without providing excess:
o Bike Parking
o Vehicle Parking
Parkland: Providing common open space and contributing to Citywide park need:
o Provision of parkland or payment of fees
o Private open space
Landscaping and Amenities: Making Palo Alto more beautiful:
o Tree protection and retention
o Public Art
Neighborhood compatibility and building design: Avoiding negative impacts and improving
the surroundings:
o Glare
o Noise
o Shade
o Utility Undergrounding
o High-quality architecture
o Support for historic resources
Source: Draft Land Use & Community Design Element, September 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 11
DRAFT TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Measure
Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80% below 1990 emissions by
2030 (S/CAP goal)
At least every 2
years
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita 5% decrease per year At least every 2
years
Percent of Commute Trips to Employment Centers by Single
Occupant Vehicle (SOV)
50% trips by SOV, based on
employee survey responses Annually
Number of Commute Trips to Employment Centers
40% below ITE standards for
Downtown and 30% below ITE
standards for SRP.
Annually
Corridor Travel Times
Typical PM peak hour travel time
along 2 major north-south
corridors and 2 major east-west
corridors
At least every 2
years
Commercial District Parking Overflow into Neighborhoods Non-resident parking on sampled
residential neighborhood streets Annually
Air Pollutant Levels
Maximum 24-hour
concentrations of criteria
pollutants identified by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management
District, as reported at the
monitoring stations closest to Palo
Alto
Annually
Groundwater Contamination Acres of City underlain by shallow
groundwater contamination Every 4 years
Jobs/Housing Balance (Expressed as a Ratio of Jobs to
Employed Residents)
Ratio of jobs to
employed residents Every 4 years
Housing Cost Burden
Percentage of owners and renters
paying more than 50% of
household income for housing
Every 4 years
Affordability of Housing Stock
Number of housing units
affordable to moderate-income,
low-income, and very-low-income
households
Every 4 years
Economic Diversity
Percentage of households at
various household income levels
[see Fig. 2-3 in adopted 2015 HE]
Every 4 years
Below Market Rate (BMR) Units Number of units Every 4 years
Progress toward Housing Element goals
Annual Report to State Housing
and Community Development
Department
Annually
Existing Resident Displacement Number of existing units
demolished Every 4 years
Unoccupied Homes
Number of homes
vacant/unoccupied for longer
than 3 months per year
Annually
City of Palo Alto Page 12
DRAFT TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATOR S
Measure
Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Age Diversity Percentage of population in various
age cohorts Every 4 years
PAUSD Class Size Class size Annually
PAUSD Satisfaction with Schools Satisfaction ratings as reported
by Strategic Plan Survey Annually
Park Acreage per Capita
Ratio of district and
neighborhood parks per 1,000
population
Every 4 years
Urban Tree Canopy Canopy cover – percent of city
covered by trees Every 4 years
Biodiversity Species counted in spring and fall
bird counts Biannually
Infrastructure or Acres Affected by Sea Level Rise
Number of key facilities, major
infrastructure, and/or acres of
land within the City limits directly
affected by sea level rise
Every 4 years
Wastewater Reuse Percent of wastewater recycled Every 4 years
Impermeable Surfaces and Stormwater Infiltration in
Urbanized Area
(Need to determine how this can
be measured) Every 4 years
Source: Draft Land Use & Community Design Element, September 2016
F. Coordinated Area Plans
The CAC acknowledged that while a coordinated area plan is a valuable tool for building a
shared vision for the future, developing one is a time- and resource-intensive undertaking.
Initially, the CAC formulated policies to prioritize the Fry's Site and South El Camino Real for
coordinated area plan processes, as these locations represent the important opportunities for
positive impact. However, some members expressed that additional areas should be identified
for Coordinated Area Plans because of their importance to the community, specifically all of the
California Avenue area (not just the Fry’s site), Downtown (including connections between the
Transit Center and University Avenue), and all of El Camino Real (not just the southern
segment). The policies and programs under Goal L-4 reflect the final consensus.
Program L4.2.1 [L68] addresses a South El Camino Real Coordinated Area Plan, Program L.4.2.2
[L69] calls for a Coordinated Area Plan for the “Fry’s site and the surrounding California Avenue
area, and Program L4.6.2 [L79] addresses a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan that includes the
multi-modal station.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
CAC members expressed differences of opinion on which Coordinated Area Plan should be
completed first. However, some members expressed concern that development is already
underway in these areas and will outpace the Coordinated Area Plan efforts.
G. Height Limit
The CAC and subcommittees discussed height limits extensively. A citywide height limit of 50
feet was established in the 1970s in response to community concerns about the growing
number of taller buildings. In the current context of rapidly rising housing costs in Palo Alto and
throughout the Bay Area, however, the CAC discussed the possibility of recommending that City
Council review the height limit. Some CAC members strongly supported maintaining the
existing height limit. Others proposed options that would allow height limit exceptions in areas
close to retail and transit in order to incentivize a mix of multifamily housing, including
affordable housing, units for seniors and people with special needs and to allow for more
design quality and flexibility for that housing. In addition, the CAC heard input from some
members that heights of up to 55 or 65 feet would allow ground-floor retail spaces to have 15-
or 20-foot ceilings, which is increasingly desirable for competitive, attractive retail spaces. For
this reason, 65 feet was specifically included in Option 3 of the 4 options the CAC is putting
forward (below).
The full CAC discussed and voted on a range of four options created by the subcommittee. The
CAC utilized “approval voting,” meaning members could vote for as many of the options as they
felt they could support. The votes did not include input from non-voting CAC members. In
addition, staff solicited votes from the voting CAC members who were not present on May 17
via email. The final approval votes, including emailed votes, were:
7 votes OPTION 1 - Keep the current building height limit
4 votes OPTION 2 – Incorporate flexibility in building regulations to foster better design
7 votes OPTION 3 – Allow the possibility of building heights up to 65 feet in specific
areas to encourage a more diverse and affordable range of housing
options. 10 votes OPTION 4 - Allow the possibility of higher building heights in specific areas to
encourage a more diverse and affordable range of housing options.
The attached Draft Land Use Element (Attachments A & B) includes all four options, along
with the vote tallies.
H. Parkland Acquisition
Parks are an important part of the exceptional quality of life in Palo Alto; however, with few
large, undeveloped parcels available in the urban service area, creation of new parks is a
challenge. Several CAC members have suggested that the Comprehensive Plan should plan for
acquisition of land for new parks and not just collection of in lieu fees to fund construction of
new parks, which the municipal code currently allows developers to opt to do. The
City of Palo Alto Page 14
subcommittee considered a range of tools at the City's disposal to help address the need and
made a range of recommendations that were supported by a majority of CAC members. These
recommendations, with some refinements, resulted in a new Policy and four new programs
under Goal L-8.
Other Land Use Element Changes & Issues
Other Land Use Element changes recommended by the CAC are summarized briefly below:
Community and Sustainability
Wording addressing sustainability was added to this goal at Council direction; however, it is
important to note that policies and programs supporting sustainable development and
conservation are woven throughout the Land Use and Community Design Element and other
elements of the plan. This goal addresses the overall structure of the city, connectivity
between the different building blocks of the city, a mix of housing types, and reuse of existing
buildings, which CAC members recognized as a very effective sustainability strategy.
Residential Design
In addition to the changes related to single-family basements, described above, the emphasis
under Goal L-3 remains preserving and enhancing livability in residential neighborhoods and
mixed use areas. New policies and programs here support the provision of a range of housing
options, prevent the conversion of housing to non-residential uses, and discourage
displacement of existing residents.
Commercial Centers
The policies and programs under this goal guide development in three different kinds of
commercial centers: regional centers, multi-neighborhood centers, and neighborhood centers.
New programs and policies regarding coordinated area plans were added under this goal, as
described separately above.
In addition, the CAC revised some policies and programs to clarify expectations for bike- and
pedestrian-friendly design. References to support for small businesses were added in several
locations. References to housing in Town and Country Village and in Neighborhood Centers
have been removed in response to CAC concerns.
Employment Districts
The policies and programs under this goal focus on guiding future growth within the city’s four
employment districts in a manner that encourages transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel, and
reduces that number of auto trips for daily errands.
Policies and programs have been updated to call for preservation of some open space in
Stanford Research Park, to plan for attractively designed potential residential or mixed-use
projects along the El Camino Real edge of the Park. Consistency with and implementation of the
City of Palo Alto Page 15
East Meadow Circle Concept Plan is now specifically identified, and an antiquated reference to
development at Stanford Medical Center has been removed. (The Draft East Meadow Circle
Concept Plan, which contemplates modernization of existing buildings, with an emphasis on
bicycle connections and compatibility with adjacent single family neighborhoods, has been
accepted by the City Council and will be included as an appendix to the updated
Comprehensive Plan. The Draft California Avenue Area Concept Plan does not enjoy the
same status and will have to be re-visited before it can be included.)
Urban Design
The policies and programs under this goal focus on promoting high quality, creative urban
design that is compatible with existing development and public spaces. This is the location of
the building height options described above. Policies and programs guiding building design,
which were previously spread throughout the Element, have been consolidated under Goal L-6.
Policy changes so far include revisions to encourage design that promotes neighborhood
character, public health safety, and active lifestyles. New programs include developing
guidelines for bird-safe design.
Historic Resources
The policies and programs under this goal focus on encouraging both public and private
maintenance and preservation of historical resources in Palo Alto.
Substantial new policies and programs were added to this section to reflect the mitigation
measures from the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR that are intended to avoid or reduce
impacts to historic resources and archaeological resources in Palo Alto, although the wording
used in the EIR has been modified to be consistent with the tone and level of detail found in the
rest of the Comprehensive Plan.
Civic Uses
The policies and programs under this goal encourage public life in neighborhoods that do not
have a commercial center nearby by promoting the use of existing community facilities and
creating new gathering places. Policies and programs under this goal have linkages to the
Community Services and Facilities Element.
The most significant change under Goal L-8 thus far has been the addition of a new policy and
four new programs addressing parkland acquisition, as discussed above.
Public Spaces
The policies and programs under this goal focus on creating an inviting and welcoming public
realm through urban design.
A new section addressing the design and planning of utilities and infrastructure includes two
new policies and two new programs that reference, among other topics, the work of the
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee. Other new policies and programs address:
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Incorporation, by reference, of the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan.
Alternatives to surface parking lots, especially between buildings and street frontage.
Shade impacts on public open space.
Preservation of the Baylands.
Palo Alto Airport
The Palo Alto Airport (PAO) is addressed in Goal L-10 of the Land Use Element, per Council
direction. In response to CAC comments, the Program regarding preparation of an Airport
Master Plan has been revised to specify that the Master Plan should minimize environmental
impacts of PAO. CAC members expressed interest in regulating the sale of unleaded fuel at
the airport; while PAO staff support this transition, safe and reliable unleaded fuel for
aircraft is not currently widely available.
Additional CAC Member Comments
Additional CAC member input was received in written comments. Some of this input raised
substantive ideas. For example, many involve wording changes to policies that had been
discussed and revised, and these comments would change the meaning of those policies.
Others address very specific issues that are not usually included in a Comp Plan. Although some
of these items were touched on at the September 20 CAC meeting when the CAC
recommended forwarding the Draft Land Use Element to Council for review, the CAC did not
discuss any of these issues in depth and did not come to consensus on them. Therefore, staff
committed to the CAC that these issues would be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration. Written comments provided at or after the CAC’s September 20 meeting are
included in Attachment D. Previous written comments and minutes from all of the CAC
meetings on the topic of land use and community design can be found at the following links:
December 15, 2015 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-
advisory- committee/#December 15, 2015
March 15, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#March 15, 2016
April 6, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#April 6, 2016
April 19, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#April 19, 2016
May 2, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#May 2, 2016
May 4, 2016 Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#May 4, 2016
May 10, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#May 10, 2016
May 17, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#May 17, 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 17
June 13, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#June 13, 2016
June 24, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#June 24, 2016
July 19, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#July 19, 2016
July 26, 2016 Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#July 26, 2016
August 1, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens- advisory-committee/#August 1, 2016
August 16, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-
committee/#August 16, 2016
September 6, 2016 Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/#September 6, 2016
September 8, 2016 Land Use Subcommittee Meeting:
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/#September 8, 2016
September 20, 2016 CAC Meeting: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-
advisory- committee/#September 20, 2016
Land Use Map Corrections
Substantive changes to the Land Use Map have never been anticipated as part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. However, the Land Use Map in the attached Draft Element
includes two corrections:
Stanford lands outside of the City limits and SOI are shown as blank on the map, similar
to the way the map labels, but does not provide designations for, surrounding
communities like Los Altos or Mountain View. This is because all land outside the SOI is
outside the City’s jurisdiction. Stanford lands within the SOI but outside the City limits
are shown with designations consistent with the Community Plan. Stanford lands within
the City, such as SUMC, Stanford Shopping Center, or the Stanford Research Park, have
not changed.
The designation on the former Hyatt Rickey’s site has been changed to reflect its
existing use; the former Multifamily Residential with Hotel Overlay is replaced with
Multifamily Residential.
All other maps in the existing Land Use Element are being carried forward, although many have
an updated format and symbology in order to be internally consistent with other Comp Plan
maps.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Timeline/Next Steps
As next steps, the attached schedule (Attachment E) shows the Council reviewing the Draft
Land Use and Community Design Element in depth, together with the Draft Transportation
Element, at the end of January 2017.
The schedule also shows the CAC completing its review of the additional elements and
sending its recommended drafts of these elements to the City Council by March, 2017. This
timing is ideal, since some CAC members have expressed that they may not be able to
continue to participate after the end of 2016, and some members are transitioning to the City
Council and the Planning & Transportation Commission.
The Council is scheduled to receive the Scenario 5 and 6 Supplement to the Draft EIR in
March. At that time, the Council can select a preferred alternative for the EIR. Any revisions to
the draft Comp Plan to reflect the Council’s preferred alternative can also be identified then.
Resource Impacts
Comprehensive plan updates are significant undertakings for any jurisdiction and the City of
Palo Alto has invested time and resources in the project since 2008. The need to allocate
multiple members of City staff, significant time on the City Council’s agenda, and financial
resources for consultant assistance and event/meeting programming will continue until the
adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan and its companion environmental document.
Contract amendments for the City’s consultants Placeworks and Management Partners are
being considered as part of a separate agenda item on November 28, 2016. These
amendments reflect the additional effort needed to analyze a sixth EIR scenario, as directed by
the City Council, as well as the additional effort associated with multiple additional
subcommittee meetings and the current schedule.
Environmental Review
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Comprehensive Plan Update was published
on February 5, 2016 and the public comment period closed on June 8, 2016. Council has
directed staff and the consultant team to prepare a supplemental analysis of a 5th and 6th
planning scenario, which will be circulated for public review early in the spring of 2017. A Final
EIR incorporating the DEIR, the supplemental analysis, substantive comments on the DEIR and
supplemental analysis, as well as written responses to those comments, and needed changes to
the text and analysis of the DEIR will be proposed for adoption concurrent with the
Comprehensive Plan Update as shown on the attached schedule included as Attachment E.
Attachments:
Attachment A: LandUseElement_CouncilDraft_20161107_CLEAN (PDF)
Attachment B: LandUseElement_CouncilDraft_20161107_tracked (PDF)
Attachment C: Growth Management Options Summary Table (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Attachment D: September 20 CAC Minutes & Comments, Incl. Comments Received
After the Meeting (PDF)
Attachment E: Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13, 2016 (PDF)
LAND USE AND
COMMUNITY DESIGN
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-1
3
This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the
CAC and members of the public received from December 2015 through July 2016. The
Element will be reviewed by the full CAC in August and September, 2016 and presented
as a draft to Palo Alto City Council in the fall of 2016.
INTRODUCTION
The Land Use and Community Design Element sets the foundation for future
preservation, growth, and change in Palo Alto and serves as the blueprint for the
development of public and private property in the city. It includes policies and
programs intended to balance natural resources with future community needs in a
way that makes optimal use of available land, to create attractive buildings and
public spaces that reinforce Palo Alto’s sense of place and community, to preserve
and enhance quality of life and services in Palo Alto neighborhoods and districts, and
to maintain Palo Alto's role in the success of the surrounding region.
This Element meets the State-mandated requirements for a Land Use Element. It
defines categories for the location and type of public and privates uses of land under
the City's jurisdiction; it recommends standards for population density and building
intensity on land covered by the Comprehensive Plan; and it includes a Land Use
Map (Map L-6) and Goals, Policies, and Programs to guide land use distribution in
the city. By satisfying these requirements, the Land Use and Community Design
Element lays out the basic guidelines and standards upon which all of the other
Comprehensive Plan elements rely and build. Other elements of the Plan
correspond with the land use categories and policy direction contained in this
Element, while providing more specialized guidance focused on particular topics,
such as transportation or conservation.
VISION: Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth needs
with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities
through sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance
the quality of life of all neighborhoods.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-2 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ELEMENTS
The Land Use and Community Design Element is replete with direct connections to
all of the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Its guidance for land uses is
strongly linked to the Housing Element’s prescriptions for residential development,
even though the Housing Element is cyclically updated on a separate State-
mandated timetable. The inextricable tie between land use and transportation is
clearly apparent both in this Element and the Transportation Element, as the co-
location of land uses significantly affects the ability of transit, walking, and biking to
replace vehicle travel, in addition to capitalizing on the presence of rail service in
Palo Alto. The success of programs in the Natural and Urban Environment and Safety
Element is largely dependent on land uses decisions that protect the environment as
well as people and property. The Land Use Element dovetails with both the quality
of life initiatives in the Community Services and Facilities Element, and the prosperity
objectives of the Business and Economics Element.
PLANNING CONTEXT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
With a backdrop sweeping from forested hills to the Bay, Palo Alto is framed by
natural beauty. Views of the foothills contribute a sense of enclosure and a reminder
of the close proximity of open space and nature. Views of the baylands provide a
strong connection to the marine environment and the East Bay hills. Together with
the city’s marshland, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and riparian corridors, these natural
resources, clearly visible in the aerial photograph in Map L-1, are a major defining
feature of Palo Alto’s character.
Preserving the city’s attractive and valuable natural features is important for a
number of reasons. Ecologically, these areas provide key habitat for wildlife, create a
buffer from developed areas, and act as a natural filtration system for storm water
runoff. For the community, they represent an important facet of the look and feel of
Palo Alto, contributing to a sense of place both through direct public access to
natural areas and the views that establish Palo Alto’s local scenic routes.
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Sunnyvale
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpressway
Em bar ca der o R oad
ElCa
mino
Real
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
§¨¦280
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
MA P L- 1
P A L O A L T O A E R I A L V I E W
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NL A N D U S E
0 1 2 Miles
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; ESRI, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016.
Railroads
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
PALO
ALTO
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-4 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
REGIONAL PLANNING
Palo Alto cooperates with numerous regional partners on a range of issues of
common interest. Regional planning partners include the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and other State agencies, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transit District, Santa Clara County, San
Mateo County, and neighboring cities. The City of Palo Alto works together with the
cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park on a variety of shared programs relating to
economic development, social services, education, public safety, and housing.
Palo Alto also works with Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills on joint
ventures such as fire protection and water quality control. In addition, Palo Alto
elected officials and staff participate in numerous countywide and regional planning
efforts, including via both advisory and decision-making boards and commissions.
Palo Alto also maintains a strong relationship with Stanford University. Although the
campus lies outside of the city limits, as shown in Map L-2, important Stanford-
owned lands are within Palo Alto, including Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford
Research Park, and the Stanford University Medical Center. The City, Santa Clara
County, and Stanford maintain an inter-jurisdictional agreement regarding
development on unincorporated Stanford lands and collaborate on selected land use
and transportation projects.
CITY EVOLUTION
EARLY HISTORY
There is evidence in the archaeological record of people living along San
Francisquito Creek as far back as 4000 BC, and the first widely recognized inhabitants
are the Costanoan people starting in about 1500 BC. The Costanoan are Ohlone-
speaking Native Americans who lived near the water from San Francisco Bay to
Carmel. Costanoan and earlier artifacts have been identified in the city, particularly
along the banks of San Francisquito Creek. Preservation of these resources is a high
priority for the City and essential to defining the character of the community.
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Sunnyvale
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpressway
Emb a rc a dero Road
ElCaminoReal
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
§¨¦280
MA P L - 2
S P H E R E O F I N F L U E N C E , U R B A N S E R V I C E A R E A , A N D S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y L A N D S
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NL A N D U S E
0 1 2 Miles
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Stanford University, 2000; PlaceWorks, 2014.
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Stanford Academic Growth Boundary
Railroads
^_Potential Future School Site
Stanford University Land Use Designations
Academic Campus
Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
Open Space and Field Research
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
Lake/Reservoir
Urban Service Boundary
!Caltrain Stations
^_
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-6 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
CITY DEVELOPMENT
From its earliest days, Palo Alto has been a world-class center of knowledge and
innovation. The city incorporated in 1894 on land purchased with the specific intent
of serving the newly established Stanford University. Originally centered on
University Avenue, Palo Alto grew south and east, incorporating the older town of
Mayfield and its California Avenue district in 1925. By the 1970s, the city had almost
doubled in size, stretching into the foothills and south to Mountain View, with
commercial centers along Middlefield Road in Midtown and El Camino Real through
formerly unincorporated Barron Park, and research and development areas at the
city’s outskirts.
Today, Palo Alto covers almost 26 square miles (16,627 acres) of land, about a third
of which is open space, including 34 city-owned parks and 1,700 acres of protected
baylands. Ensuring that activities in and around the baylands, including airport
operations, occur with minimal environmental impacts is of major importance to the
City and region.
COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Palo Alto was an early adopter of compact development principles, as embodied in
the Urban Service Area designated to manage growth in the current Comprehensive
Plan. Through this strategy, the City has endeavored to direct new development into
appropriate locations—such as along transit corridors and near employment centers—
while protecting and preserving neighborhoods as well as the open space lands that
comprise about half of the city.
SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE
Palo Alto is regarded as a leader in sustainability, having adopted its first Climate
Action Plan in 2007 and continuing through the City’s multi-faceted efforts to
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-7
eliminate the community’s dependence on fossil fuels and adapt to the potential
effects of climate change. Through the direct provision of public utility services by the
City to the community, Palo Alto is able to achieve truly outstanding energy efficiency
and water conservation. The City and community also are leaders in promoting non-
automobile transportation, waste reduction and diversion, and high-quality, low-
impact development.
Together, all of these efforts make Palo Alto a more resilient community, able to
adjust behaviors and actions in an effort to protect and preserve environmental
resources.
CITY STRUCTURE
COMPONENTS
The city is composed of unique neighborhoods and distinct but connected places.
Understanding how these different components of the city structure support one
another and connect to the region can help inform land use planning. By reflecting
the existing structure in its policies, Palo Alto will ensure that it remains a community
that encourages social contact and public life and also maintains quality urban
design.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Palo Alto’s 35 neighborhoods are characterized by housing, parks, and public
facilities. Their boundaries are based on land use and street patterns and community
perceptions. Most of the residential neighborhoods have land use classifications of
single-family residential with some also including multiple-family residential, and
transitions in scale and use often signify neighborhood boundaries.
Each neighborhood is a living reminder of the unique blend of architectural styles,
building materials, scale, and street patterns that were typical at the time of its
development. These characteristics are more intact in some neighborhoods than in
others. The City strives to complement neighborhood character when installing
streets or public space improvements and to preserve neighborhoods through
thoughtful development review to ensure that new construction, additions, and
remodels reflect neighborhood character.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-8 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Neighborhoods built prior to the mid-1940s generally have a traditional pattern of
development with relatively narrow streets, curbside parking, vertical curbs, and
street trees between the curb and sidewalk. Many homes are oriented to the street
with parking often located to the rear of the lot.
Many later neighborhoods were shaped by Modernist design ideas popularized by
builder Joseph Eichler. The houses are intentionally designed with austere facades
and oriented towards private backyards and interior courtyards, where expansive
glass walls “bring the outside in.” Curving streets and cul-de-sacs further the sense of
house as private enclave, and flattened curbs joined to the sidewalk with no planting
strip create an uninterrupted plane on which to display the house. Some
neighborhoods built during this period contain other home styles such as California
ranch.
Both traditional and modern Palo Alto neighborhoods have fine examples of multi-
unit housing that are very compatible with surrounding single-family homes,
primarily because of their high-quality design characteristics, such as entrances and
gardens that face the street rather than the interior of the development. Examples
include duplexes and small apartment buildings near Downtown, as well as second
units and cottage courts in other areas of the city.
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Palo Alto is widely recognized for its mix of culture, architecture, and
atmosphere of innovation, which make it a uniquely special place. Downtown plays
a key role in concentrating housing, employment, shopping, and entertainment near
each other and regional rail and other transit, exemplifying and supporting citywide
sustainability and resiliency.
CENTERS
Centers are commercial and mixed use areas that serve as focal points of community
life. These commercial centers are distributed throughout the city, within walking or
bicycling distance of virtually all Palo Alto residents, as shown in Map L-3. There are
three basic types of Centers in Palo Alto:
Regional Centers include University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford
Shopping Center. These areas are commercial activity hubs of citywide and
regional significance, with a mix of shopping, offices, and some housing.
Downtown is characterized by two- and three-story buildings with ground
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
OregonExpresswayEmbarcaderoRoad
AlmaStreetElCaminoReal
Page MillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Channing Avenue
Stanford
Lands
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
1
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
0 0.5 1 Miles
MA P L - 3
C I T Y S T R U C T U R E
!Caltrain Stations
Sphere of Influence
City Boundary
Railroads
Park/Open Space
Regional Centers
1. University Avenue/Downtown
2. Stanford Shopping Center
Commercial Districts
1. South of Forest Area (SOFA)
2. California Avenue
3. Alma Village
1. Stanford Research Park
2. Stanford Medical Center
3. East Bayshore
4. San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor
"Ø
Mixed Use Areas
Employment Centersl
³³lo×
Employment Districts
1. California Avenue
2. Town & Country Village
3. South El Camino Real
Multi-Neighborhood Centers"Ø
1. Charleston Center
2. Edgewood Plaza
3. Midtown
Neighborhood Centers"Ø
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-10 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-11
floor shops. Trees, benches, outdoor seating areas, sidewalks, plazas, and
other amenities make the streets pedestrian-friendly. Transit is highly
accessible and frequent. Stanford Shopping Center has evolved from its
original auto-oriented design into a premier open-air pedestrian environment
known for extensive landscaped areas surrounded by retail and dining.
Multi-Neighborhood Centers, including California Avenue, Town and
Country Village, and South El Camino Real, are retail districts that serve more
than one neighborhood with a diverse mix of uses including retail, office, and
residential. They feature one- to three--story buildings with storefront windows
and outdoor seating areas that create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.
These centers also contain retail uses clustered around plazas and parks that
provide public gathering spaces. They can be linked to other city Centers via
transit.
Neighborhood Centers, such as Charleston Shopping Center, Edgewood
Plaza and Midtown Shopping Center, are small retail areas drawing customers
from the immediately surrounding area. These centers are often anchored by
a grocery or drug store and may include a variety of smaller retail shops and
offices oriented toward the everyday needs of local residents. Adjacent streets
provide walking, biking, and transit connections.
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Palo Alto’s employment districts, such as Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical
Center, East Bayshore, and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor, represent a
development type not found in other parts of the city. These Districts are
characterized by large one- to four-story buildings, with some taller buildings,
separated by parking lots and landscaped areas. The Districts are accessed primarily
by automobile or employer-supported transit, though future changes in land use and
tenancy could support a shift toward transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
(Note to readers: this section reflects the range of options being reviewed by the
CAC as of September 2016. It will be updated as those options evolve, and will
ultimately be refined to accurately describe the suite of growth management tools
selected by the City Council. Text shown [in brackets] represents possible choices still
under consideration.)
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-12 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
The pace of non-residential growth and development in Palo Alto has been
moderated by a citywide cap on non-residential development first adopted by the
City Council in 1989. Based on the demonstrated and continuous strength of the
city’s economy, and recent changes in the approach to growth management
throughout California, this Plan presents an updated cumulative growth
management and monitoring system. This system moderates the overall amount of
new office/R&D [option: and hotel] development, the pace of development, and its
impacts on Palo Alto’s livability.
CUMULATIVE GROWTH CAP
This updated approach uses 2015 as the baseline from which to monitor new
development and establishes a cumulative, citywide] cap on office/R&D [option: and
hotel] uses, including conversions of existing square footage to office/R&D space. It
also establishes clear guidance to address what the City should do as the cap is
approached. The cumulative cap would restrict development to less than what would
otherwise be allowed under the existing Service Commercial (CS) and Community
Commercial (CC) zoning designations. To address this issue, the City will assess non-
residential development potential in these zones and consider converting some of
the non-residential development potential into residential capacity.
ANNUAL LIMITS
[Option: No annual limits will be applied, and this section would be omitted.]
In addition to regulating the overall amount of development, community consensus
has emerged that it is important to regulate the pace of development to avoid sharp
spikes in construction and resulting rapid changes in the urban fabric and natural
environment. In 2015, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that
established annual limits on new office/R&D space in the City’s fastest-changing
commercial districts to 50,000 square feet per year. This plan expands that cap to
encompass the entire City, excluding the Stanford University Medical Center, which is
subject to a development agreement. Stanford Research Park is subject to a separate
annual limit of ______ square feet per year, but may carry unused capacity forward
to future years. [Option: Stanford Research Park is subject to a trip cap rather than an
annual limit on development.]
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
For many years, the City has carefully regulated new development in Palo Alto; the
sidebar on page LU-Error! Unknown switch argument. lists examples of ordinances
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-13
and requirements. This Plan adds [a program to create] new “better, stronger, and
faster” development requirements, applied to proposed projects at the time of City
review and approval, which will help the City be ensure the highest quality
development with the least environmental impacts. Development requirements will
require new projects to reduce trips, preserve affordable housing, and protect the
urban forest and other natural vegetation. The development requirements will be
regularly re-evaluated in order to monitor their effectiveness, and may be adjusted or
removed as necessary.
COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Maintaining and improving Palo Alto’s livability will demand more than applying
requirements to and evaluating the performance of new development in Palo Alto,
because new development represents a small proportion of the buildings that will be
on the ground in 2030. Existing businesses, institutions and residents also play a role
in creating a more sustainable Palo Alto. These efforts will involve changes in
behavior and new technologies as current conditions evolve over the planning
period. In response to these anticipated changes, and in parallel with the
development requirements, this Element introduces [a program to develop] a group
of community indicators that will measure progress towards stated targets and will
inform the City’s decision-making process on growth management. Each community
indicator is [would be] monitored regularly, based on the specific identified target
and the data available.
DOWNTOWN CAP
A recent cycle of economic growth has brought increased pressure for additional
office space in Downtown Palo Alto, which combines a desirable address with a
beautiful urban environment, access to transit, and proximity to dining and
shopping. In recent years, the demand has become so strong that other important
uses that contribute to Downtown’s vitality, such as storefront retail, are at risk of
being pushed out. To ensure that Downtown remains a regional center with a
diversity of destinations, new office development Downtown is limited to just over
45,000 square feet. This is the amount remaining in a cap originally established in
the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. “New” development includes conversions from
another use to an office use, so it is likely that the cap will be reached within the
horizon of this Plan. In addition to capping office development, the City will monitor
parking demand and commute trips by single-occupant vehicle. [Option: To ensure
that Downtown remains a regional center with a diversity of destinations, non-
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-14 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
residential development, single-occupant vehicle commute trips, and parking
demand Downtown will be monitored annually.]
URBAN DESIGN
The look and feel of Palo Alto is shaped by urban design, which encompasses the
wide variety of features that together form the visual character of the city. These
elements range from aesthetic to functional and include the design of buildings, the
historic character of structures and places, public spaces where people gather,
gateways or entrances to the city, street trees lining neighborhoods, art decorating
public spaces, as well as parking lots and essential infrastructure. Key community
design features are illustrated on Map L-4.
BUILDINGS
Palo Alto has many buildings of outstanding architectural merit representing a variety
of styles and periods. The best examples of these buildings are constructed with
quality materials, show evidence of craftsmanship, fit with their surroundings, and
help make neighborhoods comfortable and appealing. To help achieve quality
design, the Architectural Review Board reviews buildings and site design for
commercial and multi-family residential projects. Palo Alto’s commercial and
residential buildings have received regional and national design recognition. Design
issues in residential neighborhoods include sympathetic restoration and renovation
of homes, protection of privacy if second stories are added, and efforts to make
streets more inviting to pedestrians.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Palo Alto has a rich stock of historic structures and places that are important to the
city’s heritage and preserving and reusing these historic resources contributes to the
livability of Palo Alto. The City’s Historic Inventory lists approximately 400 buildings of
historical merit, with more than a dozen buildings on the National Register of
Historic Places, as well as two historic districts: Ramona Street and Professorville.
Map L-5 illustrates historic resources in Palo Alto.
Historic sites include the El Palo Alto redwood, believed to be the site of a 1776
encampment of the Portola Expedition and one of 19 California Points of Historical
Interest in the city. The garage at 367 Addison that was the birthplace of Hewlett-
Packard is one of seven sites or structures listed on the California Register of Historic
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpresswayEmbarcaderoRoad
AlmaStreetElCaminoReal
Page MillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
Channing Avenue
Stanford
Lands§¨¦280
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
0 1 2 Miles
MA P L - 4
C O M M U N I T Y D E S I G N F E A T U R E S
Major View Corridors
k Primary Gateways
! !Scenic Routes in Palo Alto
!Caltrain Stations
Railroads
Park/Open Space
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-16 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!! !!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
·|}þ237
Sunnyvale
Atherton
OregonExpressway
Embarcadero Road
ElCaminoReal
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Loui
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
MiddlefieldRoad
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
LouisRoad
Professorville
Historic District
Green Gables
Historic District
Greenmeadow
Historic District
Ramona Street
Architectural District
§¨¦280
M A P L - 5
!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!! !
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
H I S T O R I C R E S O U R C E S
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016; The City of Palo Alto, 2013.
0 1 2 Miles
*Cultural and historic resources include Historic Structures on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory
(categories I, II, III, or IV), and/or Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, and/or California
Registered Historic Landmarks, and/or Points of Historical Interest.
This map is for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the full inventory of historic
structures, landmarks, or other cultural resources in Palo Alto. For a more complete listing,
please refer to the content of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
associated environmental review documents.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
!Cultural or historic resource*
Highways
City Limit
Professorville
Historic District
Ramona StreetArchitectural District
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-18 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Landmarks. The length of El Camino Real from San Francisco to San Diego, including
the section that passes through Palo Alto, is a State Historic Landmark. Many historic
buildings in the city have been rehabilitated and adaptively reused as office or
commercial spaces, including former single-family homes in and near downtown.
PUBLIC SPACES, STREETS, AND PARKING
Throughout Palo Alto are a variety of public spaces from parks and schools to plazas
and sidewalks, to cultural, religious, and civic facilities. Each of these can increasingly
serve as centers for public life with gathering places, bicycle and pedestrian access,
safety-enhancing night-time lighting and clear visual access, and, in some cases,
small-scale retail uses such as cafes.
Well-designed streets also invite public use and enhance quality of life. Palo Alto’s
reputation as a gracious residential community is due not only to its fine street trees
and attractive planting areas, but also to appropriate street width for neighborhood
character, accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles, height and setbacks of
buildings, and color and texture of paving materials. These components help to
ensure that streets are pleasant and safe for all travelers.
Parking lots occupy large amounts of surface area in the city. Well-designed parking
lots make efficient use of space while contributing positively to the appearance of the
surrounding area. A parking lot can provide an opportunity for open space and
outdoor amenities rather than just a repository for cars. Many parking lots in Palo
Alto include trees, landscaping and public art.
GATEWAYS
Community identity is strengthened when the entrances to the city are clear and
memorable. In Palo Alto, these entrances or gateways include University Avenue, El
Camino Real, Middlefield Road, Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, San Antonio
Road and Embarcadero Road, and the Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain
stations. Well-designed gateways are defined by natural and urban landmarks that
complement the character and identity of the neighborhood.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-19
URBAN FOREST
Palo Alto’s urban forest—including both public and privately owned trees—is a key
part of the community’s history, identity, and quality of life. It offers enormous social,
environmental, and financial benefits and is a fundamental part of Palo Alto’s sense
of place. Regular spacing of trees that are similar in form and texture provides order
and coherence and gives scale to the street. A canopy of branches and leaves
provides shade for pedestrians and creates a sense of enclosure and comfort. On the
city’s most memorable streets, trees of a single species extend historic character to
the corners of blocks, reducing the apparent width of streets and intersections and
defining the street as a continuous space. Protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the
urban forest, as called for in the 2015 Urban Forest Master Plan, is among the most
effective ways to preserve Palo Alto’s character.
PUBLIC ART
Public art helps create an inviting atmosphere for gathering, fosters economic
development, and contributes to vital public spaces. Palo Alto’s public art program
reflects the City’s tradition of enriching public spaces with works of art, ranging from
the subtle inclusion of handcrafted artifacts into building architecture to more
traditional displays of sculpture at civic locations. The Municipal Code requires both
public and private projects to incorporate public art.
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
A city is supported by its infrastructure—features such as paving, signs, and utilities.
These features represent substantial public investments and are meant to serve all
community members. Infrastructure improvements must meet current needs and
keep pace with growth and development. While the purpose of infrastructure is
usually utilitarian or functional, attention to design details can add beauty or even
improve urban design. For example, replacing a sidewalk can provide an opportunity
to create larger tree wells and provide new street trees.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
Palo Alto Airport (PAO) is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the City
of Palo Alto. PAO occupies 102 acres of land east of Highway 101 in the baylands
and has one paved runway. The airport functions as a reliever to three Bay Area
airports. PAO facilities include an air traffic control tower operated by the Federal
Aviation Administration and a terminal building. Flight clubs and fixed base operators
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-20 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
operate on-site, offering fuel sales, flight lessons, pilot training, and aircraft sales,
rentals, maintenance, and repair. From 1967 to 2015, PAO was operated by Santa
Clara County under a lease agreement. Operations and control have since been
transferred to the City and key challenges ahead include addressing deterioration of
runway conditions, addressing noise impacts and hours of operation, and the
relationship between the Airport and the Baylands Master Plan.
LAND USE MAP AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Map L-6 shows each land use designation within the city of Palo Alto. The land use
designations translate the elements of city structure into a detailed map that presents
the community’s vision for future land use development and conservation on public
and private land in Palo Alto through the year 2030. Residential densities are
expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre.
Building intensities for non-residential uses are expressed in terms of floor area ratio
(FAR), which is the ratio of gross building floor area (excluding areas designated for
parking, etc.) to net lot area, both expressed in square feet. FAR does not regulate
building placement or form, only the spatial relationship between building size and
lot size; it represents an expectation of the overall intensity of future development.
The maximums assigned to the land use designations below do not constitute
entitlements, nor are property owners or developers guaranteed that an individual
project, when tested against the General Plan’s policies, will be able or permitted to
achieve these maximums.
!
!
FOO
T
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
SAND
H
I
L
L
R
D
AL
M
A
S
T
SEA
L
E
A
V
E
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
R
D
OREG
O
N
E
X
P
Y
QU
A
R
R
Y
R
D
LOMA
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
ARA
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
R
D
E CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
EMBARCA
D
E
R
O
W
A
Y
PASTE
U
R
D
R
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
LI
N
C
O
L
N
A
V
E
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
JU
N
I
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
B
L
V
D
PA
G
E
M
I
L
L
R
D
§¨¦280
|ÿ82
£¤101
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Los Altos
Arastradero Preserve
Baylands
Preserve
Byxbee
Park
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
Baylands Master Plan
East Charleston Road
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2015.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
Residential
Single Family Res
Multi-Family Res
Multi-Family Res (w/Hotel Overlay)
Mixed Use
Commercial
Hotel Commercial
Service Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Regional/Community Commercial
Business/Industrial
Light Industrial
Research/Office Park
Other
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
School District Land
Major Institution/Special Facility
Streamside Open Space
Public Park
Open Space/Controlled Development
Public Conservation Land
Stanford University Land Use Designations
Academic Campus
Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
Open Space/Field Research
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
Lake/Reservoir
!Caltrain Stations
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Railroads
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E
L A N D U S E E L E M E N T
MA P L -6
C O M P R E H E N S I V E L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-22 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-23
LAND USE DEFINITIONS
OPEN SPACE
Publicly Owned Conservation Land: Open lands whose primary purpose is the
preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and
animals. Only resource management, recreation, and educational activities
compatible with resource conservation are allowed.
Public Park: Open lands whose primary purpose is public access for active
recreation and whose character is essentially urban. These areas, which may have
been planted with non-indigenous landscaping, may provide access to nature within
the urban environment and require a concerted effort to maintain recreational
facilities and landscaping.
Streamside Open Space: This designation is intended to preserve and enhance
corridors of riparian vegetation along streams. Hiking, biking, and riding trails may be
developed in the streamside open space. The corridor will generally vary in width up
to 200 feet either side of the center line of the creek. However, along San
Francisquito Creek between El Camino Real and the Sand Hill Road bridge over the
creek, the open space corridor varies in width between approximately 80 and 310
feet from the center line of the creek. The aerial delineation of the open space in this
segment of the corridor, as opposed to other segments of the corridor, is shown to
approximate scale on the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Map.
Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open
space but where some development may be allowed on private properties. Open
space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1
to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where
second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per
acre.
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family Residential: This designation applies to residential neighborhoods
primarily characterized by detached single-family homes, typically with one dwelling
unit on each lot. Private and public schools and churches are conditional uses
requiring permits. Second units or duplexes may be allowed in select, limited areas
where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and do not create
traffic and parking problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-24 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
to 7 units per acre, but rises to a maximum of 14 units on parcels where second
units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range from 1 to 30 persons
per acre.
Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by
area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit,
distance to shopping, and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8
to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the
scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted
by zoning may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived,
services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the
overall Comprehensive Plan.
Village Residential: Allows residential dwellings that are designed to contribute to
the harmony and pedestrian orientation of a street or neighborhood. Housing types
include single-family houses on small lots, second units, cottage clusters, courtyard
housing, duplexes, fourplexes, and small apartment buildings. Design standards will
be prepared for each housing type to ensure that development successfully
contributes to the street and neighborhood and minimizes potential negative
impacts. Net densities will range up to 20 units per acre.
Transit-Oriented Residential: Allows higher density residential dwellings in the
University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a
walkable distance, approximately 2,500 feet, of the City’s two multi-modal transit
stations. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that
support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain.
Design standards will be prepared to ensure that development successfully
contributes to the street and minimizes potential negative impacts. Individual project
requirements will be developed, including parking, to ensure that a significant
portion of the residents will use alternative modes of transportation. Net density will
range up to 50 units per acre, with minimum densities to be considered during
development of new City zoning regulations.
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a
cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples
include Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and Midtown. Typical uses include
supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-
service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware stores. In locations along El
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-25
Camino Real and Alma Street, residential and mixed use projects may also locate in
this category. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
Child Care Options – Choose One to Carry Forward
Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber
shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware
stores.
Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber
shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, and hardware stores.
Child care is an acceptable use except in Charleston Center, Edgewood
Center, and Midtown.
Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have
a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They
rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores,
furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail
services such as banks. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices may also
locate in this designation. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and
Country Village, and University Avenue/Downtown. In some locations, residential
and mixed use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential floor area
ratios range from 0.35 to 2.
Service Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying
on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in
high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses
include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and
restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good
automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without
impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be
appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include
San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the
Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
Mixed Use: The Mixed Use designation is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented
places that layer compatible land uses, public amenities and utilities together at
various scales and intensities. The designation allows for multiple functions within
the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a
mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-26 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Most typically, mixed use developments have retail on the ground floor and
residences above. This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail
and Residential/Office development. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although
development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers will range
up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible where higher FAR would be an incentive
to meet community goals such as providing affordable housing. The FAR above 1.15
must be used for residential purposes. FAR between 0.15 and 1.15 may be used for
residential purposes. As of the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use
designation is currently only applied in the SOFA area.
Commercial Hotel: This category allows facilities for use by temporary overnight
occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, with associated
conference centers and similar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting
rooms, small retail shops, personal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel
are also allowed. This category can be applied in combination with another land use
category. Floor area ratio will range up to 2.0 for the hotel portion of the site.
Research/Office Park: Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose
operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses. Stanford Research Park is an
example. Other uses that may be included are educational institutions and child care
facilities. Compatible commercial service uses such as banks and restaurants, and
residential or mixed uses that would benefit from the proximity to employment
centers, will also be allowed. Additional uses, including retail services, commercial
recreation, churches, and private clubs may also be located in Research/Office Park
areas, but only if they are found to be compatible with the surrounding area through
the conditional use permit process. In some locations, residential and mixed-use
projects may also locate in this category. Maximum allowable floor area ratio ranges
from 0.3 to 0.5, depending on site conditions.
Light Industrial: Wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing,
processing, repairing, and packaging of goods. Emission of fumes, noise, smoke, or
other pollutants is strictly controlled. Examples include portions of the area south of
Oregon Avenue between El Camino Real and Alma Street that historically have
included these land uses, and the San Antonio Road industrial area. Compatible
residential and mixed use projects may also be located in this category. Floor area
ratio will range up to 0.5.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-27
INSTITUTIONAL
School District Lands: Properties owned or leased by public school districts and
used for educational, recreational, or other non-commercial, non-industrial purposes.
Floor area ratio may not exceed 1.0.
Major Institution/Special Facilities: Institutional, academic, governmental, and
community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as
non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities.
Major Institution/University Lands: Academic and academic reserve areas of
Stanford University. Population density and building intensity limits are established
by conditional use permit with Santa Clara County. These lands are further
designated by the following sub-categories of land use:
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Single-Family Residential:
Single-family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally
limited to individuals or families affiliated with the institution.
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Multiple Family Residential:
Multiple family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally
limited to individuals or families affiliated with the institution.
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Educational Facilities:
Academic lands with a full complement of activities and densities that give
them an urban character. Allowable uses are academic institutions and
research facilities, student and faculty housing, and support services. Increases
in student enrollment and faculty/staff size must be accompanied by
measures that mitigate traffic and housing impacts.
Major Institution/University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space:
Academic lands having all the characteristics of open space but upon which
some academic development may be allowed provided that open space
amenities are retained. These lands are important for their aesthetic and
ecological value as well as their potential for new academic uses.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-28 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GOAL L-1 A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors
with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping
districts, public facilities, and open spaces.
CONCENTRATING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
Policy L-1.1 Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within
the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is
otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped
land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space,
with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent
with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land
northeast of Highway 101 as open space. [Previous Policy L-1] [L1]
Policy L-1.2 Maintain and strengthen Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods
while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities.
[Previous Policy L-4] [L2]
Policy L-1.3 Promote infill development in the urban service area that is
compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of
the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. [(Previous
Policy L-5 )(PTC Policy L1.7)] [L3]
Program L1.3.1 Work with neighbors, neighborhood associations,
property owners, and developers to identify barriers
to infill development of below market rate and
more affordable market rate housing and to
remove these barriers. Work with these same
stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate
opportunities for below market rate housing and
housing that is affordable [(PTC Program L1.7.10)
(Edited)] [L4]
Policy L-1.4 Ensure that future development addresses potential risks from climate
change and sea level rise. [Note: the revised Safety Element will
include a much more extensive discussion of this issue along with
policies and programs to respond.] [NEW POLICY] [L5]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-29
Program L1.4.1 Review development standards applicable in areas
susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, including
east of Highway 101, West Bayshore and East
Meadow Circle, and the area east of San Antonio
Road and north of East Charleston, and update
requirements as needed to ensure that new
development is designed and located to provide
protection from potential flooding impacts. [(NEW
PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure GHG-3.)] [Note: The revised Safety
Element will include additional mitigation
measures to address sea level rise and climate
change adaptation] [L6]
REGIONAL COOPERATION
Policy L-1.5 Maintain an active engagement with Santa Clara County, San Mateo
County, neighboring cities, other public agencies including school
districts and Stanford University regarding land use and transportation
issues. [Previous Policy L-2] [L7]
Program L1.5.1 Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land
Use Policies Agreement that sets forth the land use
policies of the City, Santa Clara County, and
Stanford University with regard to Stanford
unincorporated lands. [Previous Program L-1] [L8]
Policy L-1.6 Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of jobs,
housing balance and transportation issues. [NEW POLICY] [L9]
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
Policy L-1.7 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and
manage change and development to benefit the community. [NEW
POLICY] [L10]
Program L1.7.1 Review regulatory tools available to the City and
identify actions to enhance and preserve the
livability of residential neighborhoods and the
vitality of commercial and employment districts,
including improved code enforcement practices.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L11]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-30 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-1.8 Sites within or adjacent to existing commercial areas and corridors are
suitable for hotels. Give preference to housing versus hotel use on
sites adjacent to predominantly single family neighborhoods. [NEW
POLICY] [L12]
CUMULATIVE CAP OPTIONS CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Policy L-1.9 (no cumulative cap on non-residential uses) A well designed,
compact, and resilient City maintains a healthy mix of non-residential
uses. The City will monitor non-residential development over time in
addition to applying development requirements and community
indicators designed to ensure the highest quality of development with
the least possible impacts. [NEW POLICY] [L13]
Program L1.9.1 (no cumulative cap; trigger for evaluation of
development requirements)When new Office &
R&D development approved since January 1, 2015
reaches 500,000 square feet citywide, evaluate the
success of adopted development requirements and
community indicators. [NEW PROGRAM] [L14]
Policy L-1.10 (citywide cap on office/R&D minus SUMC plus development
requirements) Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet
of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses associated
with SUMC. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor
development towards the cap on an annual basis. Regularly assess the
effectiveness of requirements applied to development and other
community performance measures and remove or adjust the cap
and/or development requirements accordingly. [NEW POLICY] [L15]
Policy L-1.11 (citywide cap on office/R&D and hotel, minus SUMC, plus
development requirements) Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million
new square feet of office/R&D and an appropriate additional amount
of hotel development using January 1, 2015 as the baseline and
monitor development towards this cap on an annual basis. Regularly
assess the effectiveness of development requirements applied to
development and community indicators and remove or adjust the cap
and/or development requirements accordingly. [NEW POLICY] [L16]
Program L1.11.1 (possible Citywide hotel cap) Study demand and
potential impacts in order to determine whether the
Citywide cap should include a cap on hotel
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-31
development and what an appropriate
development cap would be. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L17]
Policy L-1.12 (cumulative cap exemptions) Exempt medical, governmental, and
institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. [NEW
POLICY] [L18]
CUMULATIVE CAP AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS – IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAMS
Program L1.12.1 (citywide cap re-evaluation) Reevaluate the
cumulative cap when the amount of new
office/R&D [and hotel] square footage entitled since
January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of the allowed
square footage, or 1,139,000 square feet.
Concurrently consider removal or potential changes
to the cap and/or to the amount of additional
development permitted by the City’s zoning
ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L19]
Program L1.12.2 (development requirements reevaluation) Regularly
assess the effectiveness of development
requirements and revise them as necessary. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L20]
Program L1.12.3 (adjust development potential to reflect citywide
cap) Assess non-residential development potential
in the CC, CN, and CS zoning districts, and convert
non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where
appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity
should not be considered in Town and Country
Village. [NEW PROGRAM] [L21]
ANNUAL LIMIT OPTIONS – CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Policy L-1.13 (no annual limit) Use performance requirements to assure that new
development adds to the quality of the community and addresses or
avoids new impacts. [NEW POLICY] [L22]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-32 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-1.14 (citywide annual limit) Limit the amount of new office/R&D square
footage permitted in the City on an annual basis to 50,000 square feet
outside the Stanford Research Park and ___ square feet inside
Stanford Research Park. Allow unused development capacity within
Stanford Research Park only to be carried forward to future years.
Stanford University Medical Center shall be exempt from this annual
limit. [NEW POLICY] [L23]
Policy L-1.15 (citywide annual limit with SRP exemption) Limit the amount of new
office/R&D square footage permitted in the City on an annual basis to
50,000 square feet, exempting new square footage in Stanford
University Medical Center, and exempting the Stanford Research Park
if a cap on peak period auto trips to the Research Park is established
and enforced. [NEW POLICY] [L24]
Policy L-1.16 (annual limit exemptions) Exempt public facilities, offices less than
5,000 square feet, and medical offices of less than 2,000 square feet
from the annual limit. [NEW POLICY] [L25]
DOWNTOWN CAP – CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Program L1.16.1 (no downtown cap) Monitor non-residential
development in Downtown on an annual basis,
tracking new square footage by use, as well as
commute trips by SOV and parking demand. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L26]
Program L1.16.2 (retain downtown cap) Limit new office
development in Downtown to 45,619 square feet,
using January 1, 2015 as the baseline. Monitor this
development on an annual basis, tracking new
square footage as well as commute trips by SOV
and parking demand. Reevaluate this Downtown
development cap when the amount of new office
and hotel square footage entitled since January 1,
2015 reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage and concurrently consider potential
changes to the cap and/or to the amount of
additional development permitted by the City’s
zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L27]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-33
Program L1.16.3 (exempt small offices from downtown cap) Limit
new office development in Downtown to 45,619
square feet, using January 1, 2015 as the baseline.
Small offices, where the design clearly
demonstrates that the space is intended for use by
one or more tenants that occupy less than 5,000
square feet total, shall be exempt. Monitor this
development on an annual basis, tracking new
square footage as well as commute trips by SOV
and parking demand. Reevaluate this Downtown
development cap when the amount of new office
square footage entitled since January 1, 2015
reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage, or 30,564 square feet. Concurrently
consider potential changes to the cap and/or to the
amount of additional development permitted by
the City’s zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L28]
Program L1.16.4 (limit both office and hotels Downtown) Limit new
office development in Downtown to 45,619 square
feet square feet and limit new hotel development
to 50,000 square feet, using January 1, 2015 as the
baseline. Monitor this development on an annual
basis, tracking new square footage as well as
commute trips by SOV and parking demand.
Reevaluate this Downtown development cap when
the amount of new office and hotel square footage
entitled since January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of
the remaining allowed square footage, or 30,564
square feet. Concurrently consider potential
changes to the cap and/or to the amount of
additional development permitted by the City’s
zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L29]
DOWNTOWN CAP – IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program L1.16.5 (adjust downtown development potential to reflect
the cap) Update the CD district zoning to convert
some non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR
Downtown and consider revising the TDR program
to create bonus residential, rather than commercial
square footage.[NEW PROGRAM] [L30]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-34 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Program L1.16.6 (character of downtown) Evaluate and adjust the
zoning definition of office uses allowed in
downtown to and consider ways to prioritize for
small business and startups. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L31]
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Option 1 – Articulate the Purpose and the Topics for the development
requirements in the Comp Plan but develop details through a later program.
Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest
development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These
development requirements are intended to promote sustainability, a
high quality of life and ensure that the City consists of well-designed
and livable neighborhoods and centers. [NEW POLICY] [L32]
Program L1.17.1 Review and refine both new and existing
development requirements that address topics such
as energy, water and other natural resource
conservation, parking, open space and parkland,
landscaping, tree protection and neighborhood
compatibility to ensure they are effective at
achieving the highest quality development with the
least impacts. Publish the results of the review in a
clear and readable document. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L33]
Program L1.17.2 Create development requirements that protect
livability and the environment by addressing
additional topics such as reducing trips, preserving
and facilitating affordable housing and preservation
of the tree canopy. [NEW PROGRAM] [L34]
Policy L-1.18 (community indicators) The city will monitor key community
indicators on a regular basis to determine whether the policies of this
plan and the efforts of the Palo Alto residents and businesses are
effective at promoting livability. Collect the data on the community
indicators in a transparent manner, and publish the results in a clear,
user-friendly, easy-to-understand document. [NEW POLICY] [L35]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-35
Program L1.18.1 Develop community indicators for topics such as
greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, jobs,
housing, schools, parks, the tree canopy, the natural
environment and diversity. Create a list of
community indicators and a schedule for
monitoring these indicators. [NEW PROGRAM] [L36]
Program L1.18.2 Based on monitoring the community indicators
data over time, periodically consider whether to
retain, revise downward or upward, or eliminate the
annual limits on growth, the growth caps in
individual areas, and/or the Citywide cumulative
growth caps in this Land Use and Community
Design Element. [NEW PROGRAM] [L37]
Option 2 – Provide detail and specificity of the Development Requirements in
the Comp Plan.
Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest
development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These
development requirements are intended to promote sustainability, a
high quality of life and ensure that the City consists of well-designed
and livable neighborhoods and centers. [NEW POLICY] [L38]
Program L1.17.1 Review and refine both new and existing
development requirements that address topics such
as energy, water and other natural resource
conservation, parking, open space and parkland,
landscaping, tree protection and neighborhood
compatibility in Table L-1 to ensure they are
effective at achieving the highest quality
development with the least impacts. Publish the
results of the review in a clear and readable
document. [NEW PROGRAM] [L39]
Program L1.17.2 Create development requirements that protect
livability and the environment by addressing
additional topics such as reducing trips, preserving
and facilitating affordable housing and preservation
of the tree canopy as shown on Table L-1. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L40]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-36 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
TABLE L-1 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
These requirements are new tools strongly focused on ensuring the highest quality development
with the least impacts. .
1. Reducing Trips: a specific percent of typical single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuter trips.
2. Alleviating Traffic Congestion: minimize impact on intersection Level of Service (LOS)
3. Connectivity: enhancing connections to transportation infrastructure or services.
4. Reserving Affordable Housing: no net loss of affordable dwelling units, no displacement of
residents of Below Market Rate (BMR) units, and discouraging loss of smaller homes such as cottages.
5. Facilitating Affordable Housing: Facilitate a mix of multi-family housing, including affordable
units, and housing for seniors and people with special needs.
6. Protecting the Natural Environment: Create a resilient landscape by preserving or increasing the tree canopy and natural understory, landscaped/open space areas planted with native plantings, creating or restoring a resilient landscape, and bird-friendly design.
7. Providing Parking: do not allow parking spillover onto residential neighborhood streets.
8. Preserving Affordable Office Space: Encourage the provision of new small office space and the preservation of existing low-cost office space.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The City already regulates many aspects of development. The City will review these existing regulations to ensure they are consistent with current targets and effective in achieving the
highest quality development with the least impacts.
Green Building: Conserving energy, water, and resources through meeting specific requirements in the City’s mandatory green building ordinance, as periodically amended. It covers topics such as:
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation
• Materials and Waste
• Light Pollution Reduction
• Emissions • Electric Vehicle Charging
• Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Reuse
• Permeable Surface Area For Groundwater Recharge
• Native, Drought-Tolerant Planting • Indoor Air Quality
Parking: Meeting need without providing excess:
• Bike Parking
• Vehicle Parking
Parkland: Providing common open space and contributing to Citywide park need:
• Provision of parkland or payment of fees
• Private open space
Landscaping and Amenities: Making Palo Alto more beautiful:
• Tree protection and retention
• Public Art
Neighborhood compatibility and building design: Avoiding negative impacts and improving the surroundings: • Glare
• Noise
• Shade
• Utility Undergrounding • High-quality architecture
• Support for historic resources
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-37
TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Measure Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
80% below 1990 emissions by 2030
(S/CAP goal) At least every 2 years
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) per Capita 5% decrease per year At least every 2 years
Percent of Commute Trips
to Employment Centers by
Single Occupant Vehicle
(SOV)
50% trips by SOV, based on employee
survey responses Annually
Number of Commute Trips
to Employment Centers
40% below ITE standards for
Downtown and 30% below ITE
standards for SRP.
Annually
Corridor Travel Times
Typical PM peak hour travel time along
2 major north-south corridors and 2
major east-west corridors
At least every 2 years
Commercial District
Parking Overflow into
Neighborhoods
Non-resident parking on sampled
residential neighborhood streets Annually
Air Pollutant Levels
Maximum 24-hour concentrations of
criteria pollutants identified by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District,
as reported at the monitoring stations
closest to Palo Alto
Annually
Groundwater
Contamination
Acres of City underlain by shallow
groundwater contamination Every 4 years
Jobs/Housing Balance
(Expressed as a Ratio of
Jobs to Employed
Residents)
Ratio of jobs to employed residents Every 4 years
Housing Cost Burden
Percentage of owners and renters
paying more than 50% of household
income for housing
Every 4 years
Affordability of Housing
Stock
Number of housing units affordable to
moderate-income, low-income, and
very-low-income households
Every 4 years
Economic Diversity
Percentage of households at various
household income levels [see Fig. 2-3
in adopted 2015 HE]
Every 4 years
Below Market Rate (BMR)
Units Number of units Every 4 years
Progress toward Housing
Element goals
Annual Report to State Housing and
Community Development Department Annually
Existing Resident
Displacement Number of existing units demolished Every 4 years
Comment [PW1]: M Note: has been slightly re-
ordered per CAC direction to group like topics.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-38 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Measure Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Unoccupied Homes Number of homes vacant/unoccupied
for longer than 3 months per year Annually
Age Diversity Percentage of population in various age
cohorts Every 4 years
PAUSD Class Size Class size Annually
PAUSD Satisfaction with
Schools
Satisfaction ratings as reported by
Strategic Plan Survey Annually
Park Acreage per Capita Ratio of district and neighborhood
parks per 1,000 population Every 4 years
Urban Tree Canopy Canopy cover – percent of city covered
by trees Every 4 years
Biodiversity Species counted in spring and fall bird
counts Biannually
Infrastructure or Acres
Affected by Sea Level Rise
Number of key facilities, major
infrastructure, and/or acres of land
within the City limits directly affected by
sea level rise
Every 4 years
Wastewater Reuse Percent of wastewater recycled Every 4 years
Impermeable Surfaces and
Stormwater Infiltration in
Urbanized Area
(Need to determine how this can be
measured) Every 4 years
Policy L-1.18 (community indicators) The city will monitor key community
indicators on a regular basis to determine whether the policies of this
plan and the efforts of the Palo Alto residents and businesses are
effective at promoting livability by using community indicators.
Suggested indicators and monitoring frequency are listed in Table L-2
related to greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, commute
trips by single occupant vehicle, jobs/housing balance, and
community diversity. Collect the data on the community indicators in
a transparent manner, and publish the results in a clear, user-friendly,
easy-to-understand document. [NEW POLICY] [L41]
Program L1.18.1 Develop community indicators for topics such as
greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, jobs,
housing, schools, parks, the tree canopy, the natural
environment and diversity as shown in Table L-2.
Create a list of community indicators and a
Comme
Note: has been
slightly
re-
ordered
per CAC direction
to group
like
topics.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-39
schedule for monitoring these indicators. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L42]
Program L1.18.2 Based on monitoring the community indicators
data over time, periodically consider whether to
retain, revise downward or upward, or eliminate the
annual limits on growth, the growth caps in
individual areas, and/or the Citywide cumulative
growth caps in this Land Use and Community
Design Element. [NEW PROGRAM] [L43]
Option 3: Use community indicators along with a cumulative cap, annual limit,
and downtown cap, but do not use development requirements.
GOAL L-2 An enhanced sense of “community” with development
designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and
embrace the principles of sustainability.
Policy L-2.1 Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers,
and Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the
region’s transit and street system. [Previous Policy L-10] [L44]
Policy L-2.2 Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and
the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable
and bikable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that
caters to the daily needs of residents. [Previous Policy L-11] [L45]
Program L2.2.1 Explore whether there are appropriate locations to
allow small-scale neighborhood-serving retail
facilities such as coffee shops and corner stores in
residential areas. [(Previous Policy L-16) (Converted
to Program)] [L46]
Policy L-2.3 As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and
encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, designed for greater
affordability, particularly smaller units and senior housing. [NEW
POLICY] [L47]
Policy L-2.4 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. [Previous Program L 20] [NEW
POLICY] [L48]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-40 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-2.5 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate
greenery and natural features through the use of features such as
green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas, and rain gardens.[(NEW POLICY)
(Combined with Previous Program C26)] [L49]
DISTINCT NEIGHBORHOODS
GOAL L-3 Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its
own distinct character and within walking distance of
shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering
places.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures. [(Previous Policy L-12) (Comp
Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L50]
Policy L-3.2 Preserve residential uses from conversion to office or short-term
rentals. [NEW POLICY] [L51]
Program L3.2.1 Evaluate and implement strategies to prevent
conversion of residential and neighborhood-serving
retail space to office or short-term vacation rentals.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L52]
Policy L-3.3 Support efforts to retain and encourage housing units that are more
affordable, such as cottages, other small homes, and rental housing
units in existing neighborhoods. [NEW POLICY] [L53]
Program L3.3.1 Review development standards to discourage the
loss of housing units, and the replacement of rental
housing units with ownership housing units. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L54]
Policy L-3.4 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower
income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as
feasible. [NEW POLICY] [L55]
Program L3.4.1 Collaborate with PAUSD in exploring opportunities
to build housing that is affordable to school district
employees. [NEW PROGRAM] [L56]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-41
Policy L-3.5 When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize
displacement of existing residents. [NEW POLICY] [L57]
Program L3.5.1 Conduct a study to evaluate various possible tools
for preventing displacement of existing residents.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L58]
Program L3.5.2 Develop and implement a system to inventory the
characteristics of existing housing units and track
changes in those characteristics on a regular basis.
Make the information publicly available. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L59]
MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
In appropriate locations, encourage a mix of smaller housing types
such as studios, co-housing, cottage, clustered housing and secondary
dwelling units, to provide a more diverse range of housing
opportunities and preserve existing housing units of these types.
[(Previous Policy L-13) (Note: Program H3.3.5 of the adopted Housing
Element is to explore modifications to development standards to
further encourage second unit development.)] [L60]
Policy L-3.6 Recognize the contribution of cottage cluster housing to the character
of Palo Alto and retain and encourage this type of development. [NEW
POLICY] [L61]
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Policy L-3.7 Ensure that new multifamily buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are
designed and arranged so that each development has a clear
relationship to a public street. [Previous Policy L-14] [L62]
Policy L-3.8 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family
homes on adjacent properties public resources and the natural
environment. [NEW POLICY] [L63]
Program L3.8.1 Develop a program to assess and manage both the
positive and negative impacts of basement
construction in single family homes on the
community and the environment, including:
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-42 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of
excluding basements from the gross floor area
and maximum floor area ratio limits in the
zoning ordinance. Consider zoning revisions,
including greater setbacks, to limit basement
size and increase basement setbacks from
adjacent properties.
Impacts to the natural environment, such as
potential impacts to the tree canopy,
groundwater supply or quality, and soil
compaction.
Safety issues such as increased surface
flooding, increased groundwater intrusion with
sea level rise, emergency access and egress, or
sewage backflows. [NEW PROGRAM] [L64]
COMMERCIAL CENTERS
GOAL L-4 Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail
and commercial services and provide focal points and
community gathering places for the city’s residential
neighborhoods and employment districts.
COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND MIXED USE AREAS
Policy L-4.1 Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a
manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding
neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing small, local
businesses. [Previous Policy L-18] [L65]
Policy L-4.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of formula retail limits adopted for California
Avenue and consider whether these limits should be applied in other
Centers. Develop incentives for local small businesses where
warranted. [NEW PROGRAM] [L66]Use coordinated area plans to
guide development in areas of Palo Alto where significant change is
foreseeable. Address both land use and transportation, define the
desired character and urban design traits of the areas, identify
opportunities for public open space, parks and recreational
opportunities, and address connectivity to and compatibility with
adjacent residential areas; include broad community involvement in
the planning process. [NEW POLICY] [L67]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-43
Program L4.2.1 Prepare a coordinated area plan for the South El
Camino corridor from Curtner Avenue to West
Charleston Road, as shown in the diagram below.
The plan should articulate a vision for the corridor
as a well-designed complete street with an
enhanced pedestrian environment including wider
sidewalks, increased building setbacks, public open
spaces, safe pedestrian crossings at key
intersections, trees and streetscape improvements.
Mixed use residential and retail development on
shallow parcels should be encouraged to support a
more walkable and bikable environment along the
corridor, with appropriate transitions to the
surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The plan
should also foster improved connections to
surrounding destinations. [NEW PROGRAM] [L68]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-44 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Program L4.2.2 Prepare a coordinated area plan for the Fry's site
and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan
should describe a vision for the future of the Fry's
site as a walkable neighborhood with multi‐family
housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek
improvements, and an interconnected street grid.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L69]
Policy L-4.3 Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the
pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and
landscaping. [Previous Policy L-20] [L70]
Policy L-4.4 Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide
centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and
encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such
as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. [Previous
Policy L-21] [L71]
Program L4.4.1 Study the feasibility of using public and private
funds to provide and maintain landscaping and
public spaces such as parks, plazas, sidewalks and
public art within commercial areas. [Previous
Program L-16] [L72]
Program L4.4.2 Through public/private cooperation, provide well-
signed, clean, and accessible restrooms. [Previous
Program L-17] [L73]
Program L4.4.3 Collaborate with merchants to enhance the
appearance of streets and sidewalks within all
Centers. Encourage the formation of business
improvement districts and undertake a proactive
program of maintenance, repair, landscaping and
enhancement.[Previous Policy L-22] [L74]
Program L4.4.4 Identify priority street improvements that could
make a substantial contribution to the character of
Centers, such as widening sidewalks, narrowing
travel lanes, creating medians, restriping to allow
diagonal parking, and planting trees. [Previous
Program L-18] [L75]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-45
REGIONAL CENTERS
University Avenue/Downtown
Policy L-4.5 Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major
commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural,
recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that
recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and
reinforces its pedestrian character. [ (Previous Policy L-23) (Comp
Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L76]
Policy L-4.6 Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and
supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other
amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and
bicyclists. [Previous Policy L-24] [L77]
Program L4.6.1 Pursue redevelopment of pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit connections to and from between the
University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station area,
University Avenue/Downtown, and the Stanford
Shopping Center. [Previous Policy L-27] [L78]
Program L4.6.2 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown,
encompassing the University Avenue Multi-modal
Transit Station Area. [Previous Program L-25][L79]
Stanford Shopping Center
Policy L-4.7 Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere
regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and
encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill,
potentially including housing and mixed use development on existing
surface parking lots, while continuing to supply adequate parking.
[Previous Policy L-26] [L80]
Program L4.7.1 While preserving adequate parking to meet
demand, identify strategies to reuse surface parking
lots. [(Previous Program L-23)(Merged with
Previous Policy L-27)] [L81]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-46 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
MULTI-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
California Avenue
Policy L-4.8 Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center
intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the
smaller neighborhood business areas. [Previous Policy L-28] [L82]
Program L4.8.1 Create a Coordinated Area Plan for the California
Avenue area to guide its development as a well-
designed mixed use district with diverse land uses
and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets
providing links to California Avenue. [(Previous
Policy L-31) (Converted to Program)] [L83]
Program L4.8.2 Create regulations for the California Avenue area
that encourage the retention of smaller buildings to
provide spaces for existing retail, particularly local,
small businesses, including to allow for their
replacement or rehabilitation. [Previous Program
L-27] [L84]
Policy L-4.9 Improve the transition between the California-Cambridge area and the
single family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park. Avoid abrupt
changes in scale and density between the two areas. [Previous Policy
L-30] [L85]
South El Camino Real
Policy L-4.10 Enhance the pedestrian environment along South El Camino Real,
redesigning the street to provide wider sidewalks, increased building
setbacks, safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections, trees, and
streetscape improvements, consistent with the recommendations in
the Grand Boulevard Design Guidelines. [(Previous Program L-33)
(Converted to Policy) (Consistent with Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure AES-1)] [L86]
Program L4.10.1 Provide better east-west connections across El
Camino Real to bring neighborhoods together and
to improve linkages to local schools and parks.
[Previous Program L-34] [L87]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-47
Town and Country Village
Policy L-4.11 Recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive
retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region.
Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities,
pedestrian scale, and architectural character while also improving safe
access for bicyclists and pedestrians and increasing the amount of
bicycle parking. [Previous Policy L-32] [L88]
Policy L-4.12 In Town and Country Village, encourage a vibrant retail environment
and urban greening. [Previous Policy L-33] [L89]
Policy L-4.13 In Town and Country Village, encourage improvement of
pedestrian, bicycle, and auto circulation and landscaping
improvements, including maintenance of existing oak trees and
planting additional trees. [Previous Policy L-34] [L90]
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
Policy L-4.14 Improve the local-serving focus, and provide safe pedestrian, bicycle,
and multimodal access to all three Palo Alto Neighborhood Centers –
Charleston Shopping Center, Edgewood Plaza, and Midtown Shopping
Center. Support their continued improvement and vitality. [Previous
Policy L-37] [L91]
Policy L-4.15 Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that
the publicly maintained areas are clean, well-lit, and attractively
landscaped. [Previous Policy L-38] [L92]
Policy L-4.16 Maintain Midtown Shopping Center as an attractive, compact
Neighborhood Center with diverse local-serving uses, a mix of one-
and two-story buildings, adequate parking, and a network of
pedestrian-oriented streets, ways and gathering places. Encourage
retention of Midtown’s grocery store and encourage a variety of
neighborhood retail shops and services. [Previous Policy L-40] [L93]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-48 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
GOAL L-5 High quality employment districts, each with their own
distinctive character and each contributing to the character
of the city as a whole.
Policy L-5.1 Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that facilitates
transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Provide mixed uses to reduce the
number of auto trips. [Previous Policy L-42] [L94]
Policy L-5.2 Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and
connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment
Districts. Pursue opportunities to include sidewalks, paths, low water
use landscaping, reclaimed water, and trees and remove grass turf in
renovation and expansion projects. [Previous Policy L-43] [L95]
Policy L-5.3 Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and
consistent with the character of the area where they are located.
[(Previous Program L-44) (Converted to Policy)] [L96]
Policy L-5.4 Foster compact employment centers served by a variety of
transportation modes. [Previous Policy L-44] [L97]
Program L5.4.1 Create and apply zoning standards and design
guidelines for commercial hotels, conference
centers, and possible residential or mixed-use
projects in Stanford Research Park, particularly near
El Camino Real. [Previous Program L-45] [L98]
Program L5.4.2 Evaluate the optimum number of future hotel
rooms for Palo Alto and consider reductions in the
allowable floor area ratio as appropriate. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L99]
Policy L-5.5 Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor
areas as diverse business and light industrial districts, consistent with
the approved East Meadow Circle Concept Plan (Appendix Y of this
Comprehensive Plan). [Previous Policy L-46] [L100]
Policy L-5.6 Implement the 2012 East Meadow Circle Concept Plan (Appendix Y of
this Comprehensive Plan) when approving new development or other
improvements within the Plan area. [NEW PROGRAM] [L101]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-49
GOAL L-6 Well-designed buildings that create coherent development
patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces.
DESIGN OF BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC SPACE
Policy L-6.1 Promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces. [(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure AES-1) (Previous Policy L-48)] [L102]
Program L6.1.1 Promote awards programs and other forms of
public recognition for projects of architectural merit
that contribute positively to the community.
[Previous Program L-53] [L103]
Policy L-6.2 Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design
guidelines, and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality
residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility.
[Previous Program L-48] [L104]
Policy L-6.3 Require bird-friendly design. [NEW POLICY] [L105]
Program L6.3.1 Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design
that minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the
potential for collisions. [NEW PROGRAM] [L106]
Policy L-6.4 In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character,
encourage the design of new development to maintain and support
the existing character. [Note: This is labeled as a program in the
existing Comp Plan but should more accurately be a policy since it is
an ongoing statement to guide design.] [(Previous Program L-49)
(Converted to Policy) (Comp Plan Draft EIR as Mitigation Measure
AES-1.)] [L107]
Policy L-6.5 Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills
from public streets in the developed portions of the City.[Previous
Policy L-3] [L108]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-50 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to
promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to
enhance a sense of community safety. [Previous Policy L-49] [L109]
Program L6.6.1 Ensure that the zoning ordinance encourages an
ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays
and balconies along public ways where it is
consistent with neighborhood character; avoid
blank or solid walls at street level; and include
human-scale details and massing. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L110]
Policy L-6.7 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 1-7 “approval” votes) Maintain the
current 50-foot height limit on building heights in Palo Alto. [NEW
POLICY] [L111]
Policy L-6.8 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 2-4 “approval” votes) Maintain a 50-
foot height limit on building heights in Palo Alto, but allow heights up
to a maximum of 55 feet for residential and retail mixed use projects
to allow flexibility in floor to ceiling heights and enhance the livability
in multi-family residential units. [NEW POLICY] [L112]
Policy L-6.9 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 3-7 “approval” votes) Building height
limits up to a maximum of 65 feet may be considered for areas well-
served by transit, services and retail as a way to facilitate a mix of
multifamily housing, including affordable units, units targeted to
seniors and other special needs populations, and micro-units designed
to accommodate younger members of the workforce. [NEW POLICY]
[L113]
Program L6.9.1 Revise the Zoning ordinance to establish criteria
and conditions that must be met in order to allow
building heights up to 65 feet. Criteria shall address
affordability of the residential units; compatibility
with surrounding land uses; sensitivity to context;
proximity to transit, services and retail; and
mitigation or avoidance of adverse impacts on
traffic and parking conditions. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L114]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-51
Policy L-6.10 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 4-10 “approval” votes) Building height
limits over 50 feet may be considered for areas well-served by transit,
services and retail as a way to facilitate a mix of multi-family housing,
including affordable units, units targeted to seniors and other special
needs populations, and micro-units designed to accommodate
younger members of the workforce. [NEW POLICY] [L115]
Program L6.10.1 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to establish criteria
and conditions that must be met in order to allow
building heights higher than 50 feet. Criteria shall
address affordability of the residential units;
compatibility with surrounding land uses; sensitivity
to context; proximity to transit, services and retail;
and mitigation or avoidance of adverse impacts on
traffic and parking conditions. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L116]
Policy L-6.11 Promote gradual transitions in the scale of development where
residential districts abut more intense uses in order to minimize
negative impacts where land use transitions occur. Avoid abrupt
changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential
areas and between residential areas of different densities. [Previous
Policy L-6] [L117]
Program L6.11.1 Implement architectural standards to assure they
effectively address land use transitions. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L118]
Policy L-6.12 Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for
single-family residences. [NEW POLICY] [L119]Create opportunities for
new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail.
[Previous Policy L-9] [L120]
Program L6.12.1 Update the municipal code to include zoning
changes that allow a mix of retail and residential
uses but no office uses. The intent of these changes
would be to encourage a mix of land uses that
contributes to the vitality and walkability of
commercial centers and transit corridors. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L121]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-52 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Program L6.12.2 Modify design standards for mixed use projects to
promote a pedestrian-friendly relationship to the
street, including elements such as screened
parking or underground parking, street-facing
windows and entries, and landscaping, and trees
along the street. [Previous Program L-10] [L122]
Program L6.12.3 Consider revising development standards in the
Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and
Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS, and CD)
and the Neighborhood Commercial District (CN)
along El Camino Real to incentivize the conversion
of non-retail commercial FAR to residential use.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L123]
Program L6.12.4 Update the zoning code to preserve ground-floor
retail and limit the displacement of existing retail
from neighborhood centers. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L124]
Policy L-6.13 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the front of
houses from the street. [(Previous Program L-52)(Converted to
Policy)] [L125]
Policy L-6.14 Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient,
appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic
needs. [Previous Policy L-50] [L126]
GOAL L-7 Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s
historic buildings, sites, and districts.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Policy L-7.1 Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources
that have historic merit, including residences listed in the City’s
Historic Resource Inventory, the California Register of Historical
Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. [Previous Policy
L-51] [L127]
Program L7.1.1 Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource
Inventory to determine all historic resources that
are eligible for the California Register as well as
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-53
important examples of California history or
prehistory. Historic resources may consist of a
single building or structure or a district. [(Previous
Program L-54)( Draft EIR Mitigation Measure CULT-
1b)] [L128]
Program L7.1.2 Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to
ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and
preservation of historic resources, particularly in the
University Avenue/Downtown area. [Previous
Program L-55] [L129]
Policy L-7.2 If a proposed development would affect a potential historic resource
that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory, consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in the
City’s Inventory prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations
permit. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
CULT-1b)] [L130]
Policy L-7.3 Actively seek state and federal funding for the preservation of
buildings of historical merit and consider public/private partnerships
for capital and program improvements. [Previous Policy L-53] [L131]
Policy L-7.4 Relocation may be considered as a preservation strategy when
consistent with State and National Standards regarding the relocation
of historic resources. [Previous Policy L-55] [L132]
Policy L-7.5 To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown,
promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. [Previous
Policy L-56] [L133]
Policy L-7.6 Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition for
exemplary Historic Preservation projects. [(Previous Program L-
62)(Converted to Policy)] [L134]
Policy L-7.7 Streamline, to the maximum extent feasible, any future processes for
design review of historic structures to eliminate unnecessary delay and
uncertainty for the applicant and to encourage historic preservation.
[(Previous Program L-63) (Converted to Policy)] [L135]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-54 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
REHABILITATION AND REUSE
Policy L-7.8 Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. [Previous Policy L-58] [L136]
Program L7.8.1 Develop incentives for the retention and
rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all
zones and revise existing zoning and permit
regulations as needed to minimize constraints to
adaptive reuse, particularly in retail areas [(Previous
Policy L-57) (Converted to Program)] [L137]
Program L7.8.2 Create incentives to encourage salvage and reuse of
discarded historic building materials. [Previous
Program L-57] [L138]
Program L7.8.3 For proposed exterior alterations or additions to
designated Historic Landmarks, require design
review findings that the proposed changes are in
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation. [Previous Program L-
58] [L139]
Policy L-7.9 Allow compatible nonconforming uses for the life of historic buildings.
[(Previous Program L-61) (Converted to Policy)] [L140]
Policy L-7.10 Ensure the preservation of significant historic resources owned by the
City of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered to meet
contemporary needs consistent with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation. [Previous Policy L-52] [L141]
Policy L-7.11 Maintain the historic integrity of building exteriors. Consider parking
exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation..
[(Previous Program L-59)(Converted to Policy)] [L142]
Program L7.11.1 Review parking exceptions for historic buildings in
the Zoning Code to determine if there is an
effective balance between historic preservation and
meeting parking needs [NEW PROGRAM] [L143]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-55
Policy L-7.12 Encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in
finding ways to adapt and rehabilitate these buildings, including
participation in state and federal tax relief programs.[(Previous
Program L-64) (Converted to Policy)] [L144]
Program L7.12.1 Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the
transfer of development rights from designated
buildings of historic significance in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites
in the CD zone. Revise the TDR Ordinance so that
transferred development rights may be used only
for residential development on the receiver sites.
[Previous Program L-60] [L145]
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy L-7.13 Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land
formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats, and
remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the
nineteenth century. [(Previous Policy L-60)(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure CULT-1c)] [L146]
Policy L-7.14 Continue to consult with tribes as required by California Government
Code Section 65352.3. In doing so, use appropriate procedures to
accommodate tribal concerns when a tribe has a religious prohibition
against revealing precise information about the location or previous
practice at a particular sacred site. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft
EIR Mitigation Measure CULT-3)] [L147]
Policy L-7.15 Assess the need for archaeological surveys and mitigation plans on a
project-by-project basis, consistent with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. [Note: the
referenced figure will likely be removed from the Comp Plan to
protect the integrity of known and undiscovered archaeological
resources.] [(Previous Program L-67) (Converted to Policy)] [L148]
Policy L-7.16 Ensure that developers understand their obligation to meet state
codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and
paleontological deposits. [NEW POLICY] [L149]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-56 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
GOAL L-8 Attractive and safe civic and cultural facilities provided in all
neighborhoods and maintained and used in ways that foster
and enrich public life.
Policy L-8.1 Facilitate creation of new parkland to serve Palo Alto's residential
neighborhoods, as consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan. [NEW POLICY] [L150]
Program L8.1.1 Encourage dedication of new land for parks
through regulations and incentives for new
development and programs to solicit bequests of
land within the city. [NEW PROGRAM] [L151]
Program L8.1.2 Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the
Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved
below grade. [NEW PROGRAM] [L152]
Program L8.1.3 Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees
towards acquisition of parkland, not just
improvements. [NEW PROGRAM] [L153]
Program L8.1.4 Explore opportunities to dedicate City‐owned land
as parkland to protect and preserve its community
serving purpose into the future. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L154]
Policy L-8.2 Encourage use of data driven, innovative design methods tactics and
use data to understand to evaluate how different community
members use public space. [NEW POLICY] [L155]
Policy L-8.3 Provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art
adjacent to library and community center entrances. [Previous Policy
L-62] [L156]
Policy L-8.4 Encourage small-scale local-serving retail services, such as small cafes,
delicatessens, and coffee carts, in civic centers: Mitchell Park,
Rinconada Library, and Cubberly Community Center. [Previous Policy
L-63] [L157]
Policy L-8.5 Create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban
public spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and
artistic events. [NEW POLICY] [L158]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-57
Policy L-8.6 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit.
Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing
public and private art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto.
Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and
identity of the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-72]
[L159]
Policy L-8.7 Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces,
open space, and community gardens. [Previous Policy L-64] [L160]
Policy L-8.8 Encourage religious and private institutions to collaborate with the
community and the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-65]
[L161]
GOAL L-9 Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance
the image and character of the city.
STREETS AND PARKING
Policy L-9.1 Recognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue between Middlefield
Road and San Francisquito Creek, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road,
Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill
Expressway), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and
Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes and preserve their scenic qualities.
[(Previous Policy L-69) (Previous Program L-71)] [L162]
Program L9.1.1 Evaluate existing zoning code setback requirements
to ensure they are appropriate for scenic routes.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L163]
Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground
wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas.
Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the
amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets,
street trees, a vibrant local economy, and sufficient parking to meet
demand. [Previous Policy L-78] [L164]
Policy L-9.3 Require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and
bicycle safety. [NEW POLICY] [L165]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-58 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-9.4 Enhance tree health and the appearance of streets and other public
spaces through regular maintenance as well as tree and landscape
planting and care of the existing canopy.. [Previous Policy L-70] [L166]
Program L9.4.1 Continue to use the El Camino Real Design
Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance to enhance
the visual character of this corridor by addressing
appropriate sidewalk widths and encouraging
building forms, massing, and setbacks that relate to
the street and the pedestrian, whether through
traditional architectural forms or innovative new
designs. Consider whether sidewalk widths and
building setback should also be addressed along
other major thoroughfares such as Alma Street and
Charleston Road. [(NEW PROGRAM) (Comp Plan
Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L167]
Program L9.4.2 Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L168]
PUBLIC SPACES
Policy L-9.5 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering places and open
spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales. [NEW
POLICY] [L169]
[Note: This Section Moved From Goal L-3 Residential Design]
Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared
outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of
residential neighborhoods.[Previous Policy L-15] [L170]
Program L9.6.1 Analyze existing neighborhoods and determine
where publicly accessible shared, outdoor gathering
spaces are below the citywide average. Create new
public spaces, including public squares, parks and
informal gathering spaces in these neighborhoods.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L171]
Policy L-9.7 Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood
amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy trees,
benches, and other amenities that promote walking and “active”
transportation. [Previous Policy L-17] [L172]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-59
Program L9.7.1 Review standards for streets and signage and
update as needed to foster natural, tree-lined
streets with a minimum of signage. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L173]
GATEWAYS
Policy L-9.8 Strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways,
including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real
and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial
districts; Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real, and between Palo Alto
and Stanford.[Previous Policy L-71] [L174]
Program L9.8.1 Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with
special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or
public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and
riparian settings at the entrances to the City over
Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek. [Previous
Program L-72] [L175]
URBAN FOREST
Policy L-9.9 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically
amended, into the Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to
assure that new land uses recognize the many benefits of trees in the
urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy throughout
the City. [NEW POLICY] [L176]
Program L9.9.1 Establish incentives to encourage native trees, and
low water use plantings in new development
throughout the city. [NEW PROGRAM] [L177]
Program L9.9.2 Update City requirements regarding trees and other
landscaping that capture and filter stormwater
within surface parking lots to take advantage of new
technology. [(Previous Policy L-76) (Converted to
Program)] [L178]
Policy L-9.10 Involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development
review. [NEW POLICY] [L179]
Photo by Scott Haefner—Courtesy of Canopy
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-60 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-9.11 Recognize the urban forest as City infrastructure to be maintained in
accordance with applicable guidelines and requirements. [NEW
POLICY] [L180]
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy L-9.12 Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design
standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities
to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or
mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or
visually disruptive. [Previous Policy L-79] [L181]
Program L9.12.1 Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility
wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on
street tree root systems and planting areas.
[Previous Program L-80] [L182]
Program L9.12.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed
utility elements, such as transformers, switching
devices, backflow preventers, and
telecommunications infrastructure. Place these
elements in locations that will minimize their visual
intrusion. [Previous Program L-81] [L183]
Policy L-9.13 Provide utilities and service systems to serve all urbanized areas of
Palo Alto and plan infrastructure maintenance and improvements to
adequately serve existing and planned development. [(NEW POLICY)
(PTC Policy L2.9, edited)] [L184]
Program L9.13.1 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects
the future needs of streets, underground utilities,
and all City assets and plans for the incorporation
of new technology that improves efficiency and
effectiveness. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC Program
L2.9.1)] [L185]
Program L9.13.2 Implement the findings of the City’s Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Committee and its emphasis for
rebuilding our civic spaces. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC
Program L2.9.8)] [L186]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-61
Program L9.13.3 Identify City-owned properties where combinations
of wireless facilities can be co-located, assuming
appropriate lease agreements are in place. [(NEW
PROGRAM)(PTC Program L2.9.5)] [L187]
BAYLANDS
Policy L-9.14 Regulate land uses in the Airport Influence Area to ensure consistency
with the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the
Baylands Master Plan. [NEW POLICY] [L188]
Policy L-9.15 Palo Alto is committed to preservation of the Baylands as called for in
the Baylands Master Plan, which is incorporated here by reference.
[NEW POLICY] [L189]
GOAL L-10 Maintain an economically viable local airport with minimal
environmental impacts.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
Policy L-10.1 Operate Palo Alto Airport (PAO) as a vital and efficient facility at its
current level of operation without intruding into open space areas.
PAO should remain limited to a single runway and minor expansion
shall only be allowed in order to meet federal and State airport design
and safety standards. [(Previous Policy T-57)] [L190]
Program L10.1.1 Relocate the terminal building away from the
Runway 31 clear zone and closer to the hangars,
allowing for construction of a replacement terminal.
[(Previous Program T-58)] [L191]
Program L10.1.2 Update the Airport Layout Plan in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration requirements, as
needed, while ensuring conformance with the
Baylands Master Plan to the maximum extent
feasible. [NEW PROGRAM] [L192]
Program L10.1.3 Identify and pursue funding to address
maintenance, safety and security improvements
needed at PAO. [NEW PROGRAM] [L193]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-62 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-10.2 Minimize the environmental impacts associated with PAO operations,
including adverse effects on the character of surrounding open space,
noise levels, and the quality of life in residential areas, as required by
federal and State requirements. [NEW POLICY] [L194]
Program L10.2.1 Establish and implement a system for processing,
tracking and reporting noise complaints regarding
local airport operations on an annual basis,. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L195]
Program L10.2.2 Work with the airport to pursue opportunities to
enhance the open space and habitat value of the
airport. These include:
maintaining native grasses;
reconstructing levees to protect the airport
from sea level rise while enhancing public
access and habitat conservation; and
evaluating the introduction of burrowing owl
habitat. This program is subject to federal
wildlife hazard requirements and guidelines
for airports. [NEW PROGRAM] [L196]
Policy L-10.3 Provide public access to the Airport for bicyclists and pedestrians.
[NEW POLICY] [L197]
Program L10.3.1 Continue to provide a bicycle/pedestrian path
adjacent to Embarcadero Road, consistent with the
Baylands Master Plan and open space character of
the baylands subject to airport federal and State
regulations. [(Previous Program T-57)] [L198]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-63
Policy L-10.4 Address the potential impacts of future sea level rise through
reconstruction of the Bayfront levee in a manner that provides
protection for the Airport and greater habitat along the San Francisco
Bay frontage. [NEW POLICY] [L199]
Policy L-10.5 Encourage the use of alternatives to leaded fuel in aircraft operating in
and out of Palo Alto Airport. [NEW POLICY] [L200]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-64 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
LAND USE AND
COMMUNITY DESIGN
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-1
3
This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the
CAC and members of the public received from December 2015 through July 2016. The
Element will be reviewed by the full CAC ion August and September16, 2016 and
presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council in September the fall of 2016.
INTRODUCTION
The Land Use and Community Design Element sets the foundation for future
preservation, growth, and change in Palo Alto and serves as the blueprint for the
development of public and private property in the city. It includes policies and
programs intended to balance natural resources with future community needs in a
way that makes optimal use of available land, to create attractive buildings and
public spaces that reinforce Palo Alto’s sense of place and community, to preserve
and enhance quality of life and services in Palo Alto neighborhoods and districts, and
to maintain Palo Alto's role in the success of the surrounding region.
This Element meets the State-mandated requirements for a Land Use Element. It
defines categories for the location and type of public and privates uses of land under
the City's jurisdiction; it recommends standards for population density and building
intensity on land covered by the Comprehensive Plan; and it includes a Land Use
Map (Map L-6) and Goals, Policies, and Programs to guide land use distribution in
the city. By satisfying these requirements, the Land Use and Community Design
Element lays out the basic guidelines and standards upon which all of the other
Comprehensive Plan elements rely and build. Other elements of the Plan
correspond with the land use categories and policy direction contained in this
Element, while providing more specialized guidance focused on particular topics,
such as transportation or conservation.
VISION: Palo Alto’s land use decisions shall balance our future growth needs
with the preservation of our neighborhoods, address climate protection priorities
through sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance
the quality of life of all neighborhoods.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-2 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ELEMENTS
The Land Use and Community Design Element is replete with direct connections to
all of the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Its guidance for land uses is
strongly linked to the Housing Element’s prescriptions for residential development,
even though the Housing Element is cyclically updated on a separate State-
mandated timetable. The inextricable tie between land use and transportation is
clearly apparent both in this Element and the Transportation Element, as the co-
location of land uses significantly affects the ability of transit, walking, and biking to
replace vehicle travel, in addition to capitalizing on the presence of rail service in
Palo Alto. The success of programs in the Natural and Urban Environment and Safety
Element is largely dependent on land uses decisions that protect the environment as
well as people and property. The Land Use Element dovetails with both the quality
of life initiatives in the Community Services and Facilities Element, and the prosperity
objectives of the Business and Economics Element.
PLANNING CONTEXT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
With a backdrop sweeping from forested hills to the Bay, Palo Alto is framed by
natural beauty. Views of the foothills contribute a sense of enclosure and a reminder
of the close proximity of open space and nature. Views of the baylands provide a
strong connection to the marine environment and the East Bay hills. Together with
the city’s marshland, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and riparian corridors, these natural
resources, clearly visible in the aerial photograph in Map L-1, are a major defining
feature of Palo Alto’s character.
Preserving the city’s attractive and valuable natural features is important for a
number of reasons. Ecologically, these areas provide key habitat for wildlife, create a
buffer from developed areas, and act as a natural filtration system for storm water
runoff. For the community, they represent an important facet of the look and feel of
Palo Alto, contributing to a sense of place both through direct public access to
natural areas and the views that establish Palo Alto’s local scenic routes.
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Sunnyvale
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpressway
Em bar ca der o R oad
ElCa
mino
Real
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
§¨¦280
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
MA P L- 1
P A L O A L T O A E R I A L V I E W
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NL A N D U S E
0 1 2 Miles
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; ESRI, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016.
Railroads
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
PALO
ALTO
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-4 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
REGIONAL PLANNING
Palo Alto cooperates with numerous regional partners on a range of issues of
common interest. Regional planning partners include the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and other State agencies, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transit District, Santa Clara County, San
Mateo County, and neighboring cities. The City of Palo Alto works together with the
cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park on a variety of shared programs relating to
economic development, social services, education, public safety, and housing.
Palo Alto also works with Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills on joint
ventures such as fire protection and water quality control. In addition, Palo Alto
elected officials and staff participate in numerous countywide and regional planning
efforts, including via both advisory and decision-making boards and commissions.
Palo Alto also maintains a strong relationship with Stanford University. Although the
campus lies outside of the city limits, as shown in Map L-2, important Stanford-
owned lands are within Palo Alto, including Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford
Research Park, and the Stanford University Medical Center. The City, Santa Clara
County, and Stanford maintain an inter-jurisdictional agreement regarding
development on unincorporated Stanford lands and collaborate on selected land use
and transportation projects.
CITY EVOLUTION
EARLY HISTORY
There is evidence in the archaeological record of people living along San
Francisquito Creek as far back as 4000 BC, and the first widely recognized inhabitants
are the Costanoan people starting in about 1500 BC. The Costanoan are Ohlone-
speaking Native Americans who lived near the water from San Francisco Bay to
Carmel. Costanoan and earlier artifacts have been identified in the city, particularly
along the banks of San Francisquito Creek. Preservation of these resources is a high
priority for the City and essential to defining the character of the community.
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Sunnyvale
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpressway
Emb a rc a dero Road
ElCaminoReal
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
§¨¦280
MA P L - 2
S P H E R E O F I N F L U E N C E , U R B A N S E R V I C E A R E A , A N D S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y L A N D S
P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NL A N D U S E
0 1 2 Miles
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Stanford University, 2000; PlaceWorks, 2014.
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Stanford Academic Growth Boundary
Railroads
^_Potential Future School Site
Stanford University Land Use Designations
Academic Campus
Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
Open Space and Field Research
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
Lake/Reservoir
Urban Service Boundary
!Caltrain Stations
^_
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-6 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
CITY DEVELOPMENT
From its earliest days, Palo Alto has been a world-class center of knowledge and
innovation. The city incorporated in 1894 on land purchased with the specific intent
of serving the newly established Stanford University. Originally centered on
University Avenue, Palo Alto grew south and east, incorporating the older town of
Mayfield and its California Avenue district in 1925. By the 1970s, the city had almost
doubled in size, stretching into the foothills and south to Mountain View, with
commercial centers along Middlefield Road in Midtown and El Camino Real through
formerly unincorporated Barron Park, and research and development areas at the
city’s outskirts.
Today, Palo Alto covers almost 26 square miles (16,627 acres) of land, about a third
of which is open space, including 34 city-owned parks and 1,700 acres of protected
baylands. Ensuring that activities in and around the baylands, including airport
operations, occur with minimal environmental impacts is of major importance to the
City and region.
COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Palo Alto was an early adopter of compact development principles, as embodied in
the Urban Service Area designated to manage growth in the current Comprehensive
Plan. Through this strategy, the City has endeavored to direct new development into
appropriate locations –— such as along transit corridors and near employment
centers— – while protecting and preserving neighborhoods as well as the open space
lands that comprise about half of the city.
SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE
Palo Alto is regarded as a leader in sustainability, having adopted its first Climate
Action Plan in 2007 and continuing through the City’s multi-faceted efforts to
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-7
eliminate the community’s dependence on fossil fuels and adapt to the potential
effects of climate change. Through the direct provision of public utility services by the
City to the community, Palo Alto is able to achieve truly outstanding energy efficiency
and water conservation. The City and community also are leaders in promoting non-
automobile transportation, waste reduction and diversion, and high-quality, low-
impact development.
Together, all of these efforts make Palo Alto a more resilient community, able to
adjust behaviors and actions in an effort to protect and preserve environmental
resources.
CITY STRUCTURE
COMPONENTS
The city is composed of unique neighborhoods and distinct but connected places.
Understanding how these different components of the city structure support one
another and connect to the region can help inform land use planning. By reflecting
the existing structure in its policies, Palo Alto will ensure that it remains a community
that encourages social contact and public life and also maintains quality urban
design.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Palo Alto’s 35 neighborhoods are characterized by housing, parks, and public
facilities. Their boundaries are based on land use and street patterns and community
perceptions. Most of the residential neighborhoods have land use classifications of
single-family residential with some also including multiple-family residential, and
transitions in scale and use often signify neighborhood boundaries.
Each neighborhood is a living reminder of the unique blend of architectural styles,
building materials, scale, and street patterns that were typical at the time of its
development. These characteristics are more intact in some neighborhoods than in
others. The City strives to complement neighborhood character when installing
streets or public space improvements and to preserve neighborhoods through
thoughtful development review to ensure that new construction, additions, and
remodels reflect neighborhood character.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-8 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Neighborhoods built prior to the mid-1940s generally have a traditional pattern of
development with relatively narrow streets, curbside parking, vertical curbs, and
street trees between the curb and sidewalk. Many homes are oriented to the street
with parking often located to the rear of the lot.
Many later neighborhoods were shaped by Modernist design ideas popularized by
builder Joseph Eichler. The houses are intentionally designed with austere facades
and oriented towards private backyards and interior courtyards, where expansive
glass walls “bring the outside in.” Curving streets and cul-de-sacs further the sense of
house as private enclave, and flattened curbs joined to the sidewalk with no planting
strip create an uninterrupted plane on which to display the house. Some
neighborhoods built during this period contain other home styles such as California
ranch.
Both traditional and modern Palo Alto neighborhoods have fine examples of multi-
unit housing that are very compatible with surrounding single-family homes,
primarily because of their high-quality design characteristics, such as entrances and
gardens that face the street rather than the interior of the development. Examples
include duplexes and small apartment buildings near Downtown, as well as second
units and cottage courts in other areas of the city.
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Palo Alto is widely recognized for its mix of culture, architecture, and
atmosphere of innovation, which make it a uniquely special place. Downtown plays
a key role in concentrating housing, employment, shopping, and entertainment near
each other and regional rail and other transit, exemplifying and supporting citywide
sustainability and resiliency.
CENTERS
Centers are commercial and mixed use areas that serve as focal points of community
life. These commercial centers are distributed throughout the city, within walking or
bicycling distance of virtually all Palo Alto residents, as shown in Map L-3. There are
three basic types of Centers in Palo Alto:
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
OregonExpresswayEmbarcaderoRoad
AlmaStreetElCaminoReal
Page MillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Channing Avenue
Stanford
Lands
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
1
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
0 0.5 1 Miles
MA P L - 3
C I T Y S T R U C T U R E
!Caltrain Stations
Sphere of Influence
City Boundary
Railroads
Park/Open Space
Regional Centers
1. University Avenue/Downtown
2. Stanford Shopping Center
Commercial Districts
1. South of Forest Area (SOFA)
2. California Avenue
3. Alma Village
1. Stanford Research Park
2. Stanford Medical Center
3. East Bayshore
4. San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor
"Ø
Mixed Use Areas
Employment Centersl
³³lo×
Employment Districts
1. California Avenue
2. Town & Country Village
3. South El Camino Real
Multi-Neighborhood Centers"Ø
1. Charleston Center
2. Edgewood Plaza
3. Midtown
Neighborhood Centers"Ø
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-10 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-11
Regional Centers include University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford
Shopping Center. These areas are commercial activity hubs of citywide and
regional significance, with a mix of shopping, offices, and some housing.
Downtown is characterized by two- and three-story buildings with ground
floor shops. Trees, benches, outdoor seating areas, sidewalks, plazas, and
other amenities make the streets pedestrian-friendly. Transit is highly
accessible and frequent. Stanford Shopping Center has evolved from its
original auto-oriented design into a premier open-air pedestrian environment
known for extensive landscaped areas surrounded by retail and dining.
Multi-Neighborhood Centers, including California Avenue, Town and
Country Village, and South El Camino Real, are retail districts that serve more
than one neighborhood with a diverse mix of uses including retail, office, and
residential. They feature one- to three--story buildings with storefront windows
and outdoor seating areas that create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.
These centers also contain retail uses clustered around plazas and parks that
provide public gathering spaces. They can be linked to other city Centers via
transit.
Neighborhood Centers, such as Charleston Shopping Center, Edgewood
Plaza and Midtown Shopping Center, are small retail areas drawing customers
from the immediately surrounding area. These centers are often anchored by
a grocery or drug store and may include a variety of smaller retail shops and
offices oriented toward the everyday needs of local residents. Adjacent streets
provide walking, biking, and transit connections.
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Palo Alto’s employment districts, such as Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical
Center, East Bayshore, and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor, represent a
development type not found in other parts of the city. These Districts are
characterized by large one- to four-story buildings, with some taller buildings,
separated by parking lots and landscaped areas. The Districts are accessed primarily
by automobile or employer-supported transit, though future changes in land use and
tenancy could support a shift toward transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-12 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
(Note to readers: this section reflects the range of options being reviewed by the
CAC as of September 2016. It will be updated as those options evolve, and will
ultimately be refined to accurately describe the suite of growth management tools
selected by the City Council. Text shown [in brackets] represents possible choices still
under consideration.)
The pace of non-residential growth and development in Palo Alto has been
moderated by a citywide cap on non-residential development first adopted by the
City Council in 1989. Based on the demonstrated and continuous strength of the
city’s economy, and recent changes in the approach to growth management
throughout California, this Plan presents an updated cumulative growth
management and monitoring system. This system moderates the overall amount of
new office/R&D [option: and hotel] development, the pace of development, and its
impacts on Palo Alto’s livability.
CUMULATIVE GROWTH CAP
This updated approach uses 2015 as the baseline from which to monitor new
development and establishes a cumulative, citywide] cap on office/R&D [option: and
hotel] uses, including conversions of existing square footage to office/R&D space. It
also establishes clear guidance to address what the City should do as the cap is
approached. The cumulative cap would restrict development to less than what would
otherwise be allowed under the existing Service Commercial (CS) and Community
Commercial (CC) zoning designations. To address this issue, the City will assess non-
residential development potential in these zones and consider converting some of
the non-residential development potential into residential capacity.
ANNUAL LIMITS
[Option: No annual limits will be applied, and this section would be omitted.]
In addition to regulating the overall amount of development, community consensus
has emerged that it is important to regulate the pace of development to avoid sharp
spikes in construction and resulting rapid changes in the urban fabric and natural
environment. In 2015, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that
established annual limits on new office/R&D space in the City’s fastest-changing
commercial districts to 50,000 square feet per year. This plan expands that cap to
encompass the entire City, excluding the Stanford University Medical Center, which is
subject to a development agreement. Stanford Research Park is subject to a separate
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-13
annual limit of ______ square feet per year, but may carry unused capacity forward
to future years. [Option: Stanford Research Park is subject to a trip cap rather than an
annual limit on development.]
DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES REQUIREMENTS
For many years, the City has carefully regulated new development in Palo Alto; the
sidebar on page LU-38Error! Unknown switch argument. lists examples of
ordinances and requirements. This Plan adds [a program to create] new “better,
stronger, and faster” development performance measuresrequirements, applied to
proposed projects at the time of City review and approval, which will help the City be
ensure the highest quality development with the least environmental impacts.
Development performance measuresrequirements will require new projects to
reduce trips, preserve affordable housing, and protect the urban forest and other
natural vegetation. The development requirements performance measures will be
regularly re-evaluated in order to monitor their effectiveness, and may be adjusted or
removed as necessary.
COMMUNITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES INDICATORS
Maintaining and improving Palo Alto’s livability will require demand more than
applying measures requirements to and evaluating the performance of new
development in Palo Alto, because new development represents a small proportion
of the buildings that will be on the ground in 2030. Existing businesses, institutions
and residents also play a role in creating a more sustainable Palo Alto. These efforts
will involve changes in behavior and new technologies as current conditions evolve
over the planning period. In response to these anticipated changes, and in parallel
with the development performance measuresrequirements, this Element introduces
[a program to develop] a group of community performance measuresindicators that
will measure progress towards stated targets and will inform the City’s decision-
making process on growth management. Each community performance
measureindicator is [would be] monitored either annually or every four
yearsregularly, based on the specific identified target and the data available.
DOWNTOWN CAP
A recent cycle of economic growth has brought increased pressure for additional
office space in Downtown Palo Alto, which combines a desirable address with a
beautiful urban environment, access to transit, and proximity to dining and
shopping. In recent years, the demand has become so strong that other important
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-14 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
uses that contribute to Downtown’s vitality, such as storefront retail, are at risk of
being pushed out. To ensure that Downtown remains a regional center with a
diversity of destinations, new office development Downtown is limited to just over
45,000 square feet. This is the amount remaining in a cap originally established in
the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. “New” development includes conversions from
another use to an office use, so it is likely that the cap will be reached within the
horizon of this Plan. In addition to capping office development, the City will monitor
parking demand and commute trips by single-occupant vehicle. [Option: To ensure
that Downtown remains a regional center with a diversity of destinations, non-
residential development, single-occupant vehicle commute trips, and parking
demand Downtown will be monitored annually.]
URBAN DESIGN
The look and feel of Palo Alto is shaped by urban design, which encompasses the
wide variety of features that together form the visual character of the city. These
elements range from aesthetic to functional and include the design of buildings, the
historic character of structures and places, public spaces where people gather,
gateways or entrances to the city, street trees lining neighborhoods, art decorating
public spaces, as well as parking lots and essential infrastructure. Key community
design features are illustrated on Map L-4.
BUILDINGS
Palo Alto has many buildings of outstanding architectural merit representing a variety
of styles and periods. The best examples of these buildings are constructed with
quality materials, show evidence of craftsmanship, fit with their surroundings, and
help make neighborhoods comfortable and appealing. To help achieve quality
design, the Architectural Review Board reviews buildings and site design for
commercial and multi-family residential projects. Palo Alto’s commercial and
residential buildings have received regional and national design recognition. Design
issues in residential neighborhoods include sympathetic restoration and renovation
of homes, protection of privacy if second stories are added, and efforts to make
streets more inviting to pedestrians.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-15
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Palo Alto has a rich stock of historic structures and places that are important to the
city’s heritage and preserving and reusing these historic resources contributes to the
livability of Palo Alto. The City’s Historic Inventory lists approximately 400 buildings of
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
Atherton
Redwood City
OregonExpresswayEmbarcaderoRoad
AlmaStreetElCaminoReal
Page MillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
Channing Avenue
Stanford
Lands§¨¦280
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
0 1 2 Miles
MA P L - 4
C O M M U N I T Y D E S I G N F E A T U R E S
Major View Corridors
k Primary Gateways
! !Scenic Routes in Palo Alto
!Caltrain Stations
Railroads
Park/Open Space
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-17
!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!! !!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Mountain View
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Los Altos
£¤101
§¨¦280
·|}þ85
·|}þ237
Sunnyvale
Atherton
OregonExpressway
Embarcadero Road
ElCaminoReal
PageMillRoad
UniversityAvenue
Loui
s
R
o
a
d
ChanningAvenue
Stanford
Lands
MiddlefieldRoad
AlmaStreet
Hawthorne Avenue
ChanningAvenue
EmersonStreet
LouisRoad
Professorville
Historic District
Green Gables
Historic District
Greenmeadow
Historic District
Ramona Street
Architectural District
§¨¦280
M A P L - 5
!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!! !
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
H I S T O R I C R E S O U R C E S
Source: PlaceWorks, 2016; The City of Palo Alto, 2013.
0 1 2 Miles
*Cultural and historic resources include Historic Structures on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory
(categories I, II, III, or IV), and/or Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, and/or California
Registered Historic Landmarks, and/or Points of Historical Interest.
This map is for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the full inventory of historic
structures, landmarks, or other cultural resources in Palo Alto. For a more complete listing,
please refer to the content of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
associated environmental review documents.
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T EL A N D U S E E L E M E N T
!Cultural or historic resource*
Highways
City Limit
Professorville
Historic District
Ramona StreetArchitectural District
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-19
historical merit, with more than a dozen buildings on the National Register of
Historic Places, as well as two historic districts: Ramona Street and Professorville.
Map L-5 illustrates historic resources in Palo Alto.
Historic sites include the El Palo Alto redwood, believed to be the site of a 1776
encampment of the Portola Expedition and one of 19 California Points of Historical
Interest in the city. The garage at 367 Addison that was the birthplace of Hewlett-
Packard is one of seven sites or structures listed on the California Register of Historic
Landmarks. The length of El Camino Real from San Francisco to San Diego, including
the section that passes through Palo Alto, is a State Historic Landmark. Many historic
buildings in the city have been rehabilitated and adaptively reused as office or
commercial spaces, including former single-family homes in and near downtown.
PUBLIC SPACES, STREETS, AND PARKING
Throughout Palo Alto are a variety of public spaces from parks and schools to plazas
and sidewalks, to cultural, religious, and civic facilities. Each of these can increasingly
serve as centers for public life with gathering places, bicycle and pedestrian access,
safety-enhancing night-time lighting and clear visual access, and, in some cases,
small-scale retail uses such as cafes.
Well-designed streets also invite public use and enhance quality of life. Palo Alto’s
reputation as a gracious residential community is due not only to its fine street trees
and attractive planting areas, but also to appropriate street width for neighborhood
character, accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles, height and setbacks of
buildings, and color and texture of paving materials. These components help to
ensure that streets are pleasant and safe for all travelers.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-20 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Parking lots occupy large amounts of surface area in the city. Well-designed parking
lots make efficient use of space while contributing positively to the appearance of the
surrounding area. A parking lot can provide an opportunity for open space and
outdoor amenities rather than just a repository for cars. Many parking lots in Palo
Alto include trees, landscaping and public art.
GATEWAYS
Community identity is strengthened when the entrances to the city are clear and
memorable. In Palo Alto, these entrances or gateways include University Avenue, El
Camino Real, Middlefield Road, Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, San Antonio
Road and Embarcadero Road, and the Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain
stations. Well-designed gateways are defined by natural and urban landmarks that
complement the character and identity of the neighborhood.
URBAN FOREST
Palo Alto’s urban forest—including both public and privately owned trees—is a key
part of the community’s history, identity, and quality of life. It offers enormous social,
environmental, and financial benefits and is a fundamental part of Palo Alto’s sense
of place. Regular spacing of trees that are similar in form and texture provides order
and coherence and gives scale to the street. A canopy of branches and leaves
provides shade for pedestrians and creates a sense of enclosure and comfort. On the
city’s most memorable streets, trees of a single species extend historic character to
the corners of blocks, reducing the apparent width of streets and intersections and
defining the street as a continuous space. Protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the
urban forest, as called for in the 2015 Urban Forest Master Plan, is among the most
effective ways to preserve Palo Alto’s character.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-21
PUBLIC ART
Public art helps create an inviting atmosphere for gathering, fosters economic
development, and contributes to vital public spaces. Palo Alto’s public art program
reflects the City’s tradition of enriching public spaces with works of art, ranging from
the subtle inclusion of handcrafted artifacts into building architecture to more
traditional displays of sculpture at civic locations. The Municipal Code requires both
public and private projects to incorporate public art.
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
A city is supported by its infrastructure—features such as paving, signs, and utilities.
These features represent substantial public investments and are meant to serve all
community members. Infrastructure improvements must meet current needs and
keep pace with growth and development. While the purpose of infrastructure is
usually utilitarian or functional, attention to design details can add beauty or even
improve urban design. For example, replacing a sidewalk can provide an opportunity
to create larger tree wells and provide new street trees.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
Palo Alto Airport (PAO) is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the City
of Palo Alto. PAO occupies 102 acres of land east of Highway 101 in the baylands
and has one paved runway. The airport functions as a reliever to three Bay Area
airports. PAO facilities include an air traffic control tower operated by the Federal
Aviation Administration and a terminal building. Flight clubs and fixed base operators
operate on-site, offering fuel sales, flight lessons, pilot training, and aircraft sales,
rentals, maintenance, and repair. From 1967 to 2015, PAO was operated by Santa
Clara County under a lease agreement. Operations and control have since been
transferred to the City and key challenges ahead include addressing deterioration of
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-22 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
runway conditions, addressing noise impacts and hours of operation, and the
relationship between the Airport and the Baylands Master Plan.
LAND USE MAP AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Map L-6 shows each land use designation within the city of Palo Alto. The land use
designations translate the elements of city structure into a detailed map that presents
the community’s vision for future land use development and conservation on public
and private land in Palo Alto through the year 2030. Residential densities are
expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre.
Building intensities for non-residential uses are expressed in terms of floor area ratio
(FAR), which is the ratio of gross building floor area (excluding areas designated for
parking, etc.) to net lot area, both expressed in square feet. FAR does not regulate
building placement or form, only the spatial relationship between building size and
lot size; it represents an expectation of the overall intensity of future development.
!
!
FOO
T
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
SAND
H
I
L
L
R
D
AL
M
A
S
T
SEA
L
E
A
V
E
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
R
D
OREG
O
N
E
X
P
Y
QU
A
R
R
Y
R
D
LOMA
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
ARA
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
R
D
E CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
EMBARCA
D
E
R
O
W
A
Y
PASTE
U
R
D
R
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
LI
N
C
O
L
N
A
V
E
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
JU
N
I
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
B
L
V
D
PA
G
E
M
I
L
L
R
D
§¨¦280
|ÿ82
£¤101
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Los Altos
Arastradero Preserve
Baylands
Preserve
Byxbee
Park
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
Baylands Master Plan
East Charleston Road
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Source: ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; City of Palo Alto, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2015.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
Residential
Single Family Res
Multi-Family Res
Multi-Family Res (w/Hotel Overlay)
Mixed Use
Commercial
Hotel Commercial
Service Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Regional/Community Commercial
Business/Industrial
Light Industrial
Research/Office Park
Other
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
School District Land
Major Institution/Special Facility
Streamside Open Space
Public Park
Open Space/Controlled Development
Public Conservation Land
Stanford University Land Use Designations
Academic Campus
Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
Open Space/Field Research
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
Lake/Reservoir
!Caltrain Stations
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Railroads
P A L O A L T O G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E
L A N D U S E E L E M E N T
MA P L -6
C O M P R E H E N S I V E L A N D U S E D E S I G N A T I O N S
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-24 LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-25
The maximums assigned to the land use designations below do not constitute
entitlements, nor are property owners or developers guaranteed that an individual
project, when tested against the General Plan’s policies, will be able or permitted to
achieve these maximums.
LAND USE DEFINITIONS
OPEN SPACE
Publicly Owned Conservation Land: Open lands whose primary purpose is the
preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and
animals. Only resource management, recreation, and educational activities
compatible with resource conservation are allowed.
Public Park: Open lands whose primary purpose is public access for active
recreation and whose character is essentially urban. These areas, which may have
been planted with non-indigenous landscaping, may provide access to nature within
the urban environment and require a concerted effort to maintain recreational
facilities and landscaping.
Streamside Open Space: This designation is intended to preserve and enhance
corridors of riparian vegetation along streams. Hiking, biking, and riding trails may be
developed in the streamside open space. The corridor will generally vary in width up
to 200 feet either side of the center line of the creek. However, along San
Francisquito Creek between El Camino Real and the Sand Hill Road bridge over the
creek, the open space corridor varies in width between approximately 80 and 310
feet from the center line of the creek. The aerial delineation of the open space in this
segment of the corridor, as opposed to other segments of the corridor, is shown to
approximate scale on the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Map.
Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open
space but where some development may be allowed on private properties. Open
space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1
to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where
second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per
acre.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-26 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family Residential: This designation applies to residential neighborhoods
primarily characterized by detached single-family homes, typically with one dwelling
unit on each lot. Private and public schools and churches are conditional uses
requiring permits. Second units or duplexes may be allowed in select, limited areas
where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and do not create
traffic and parking problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1
to 7 units per acre, but rises to a maximum of 14 units on parcels where second
units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range from 1 to 30 persons
per acre.
Multiple -Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by
area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit,
distance to shopping, and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8
to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the
scale next to single- family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted
by zoning may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived,
services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the
overall Comprehensive Plan.
Village Residential: Allows residential dwellings that are designed to contribute to
the harmony and pedestrian orientation of a street or neighborhood. Housing types
include single- family houses on small lots, second units, cottage clusters, courtyard
housing, duplexes, fourplexes, and small apartment buildings. Design standards will
be prepared for each housing type to ensure that development successfully
contributes to the street and neighborhood and minimizes potential negative
impacts. Net densities will range up to 20 units per acre.
Transit-oOriented Residential: Allows higher density residential dwellings in the
University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a
walkable distance, approximately 2,5000 feet, of the City’s two multi-modal transit
stations. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that
support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain.
Design standards will be prepared to ensure that development successfully
contributes to the street and minimizes potential negative impacts. Individual project
performance standardsrequirements will be developed, including parking, to ensure
that a significant portion of the residents will use alternative modes of transportation.
Net density will range up to 50 units per acre, with minimum densities to be
considered during development of new City zoning regulations.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-27
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a
cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples
include Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and Midtown. Typical uses
include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants,
self-service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware stores. In some locations
along El Camino Real and Alma Street, residential and mixed use projects may also
locate in this category. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
Child Care Options – Choose One to Carry Forward
Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber
shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware
stores.
Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber
shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners, child care and hardware
stores. Child care is an acceptable use except in Charleston Center, Edgewood
Center, and Midtown.
Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have
a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They
rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores,
furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail
services such as offices and banks. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices
may also locate in this designation. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center,
Town and Country Village, and University Avenue/Downtown. In some locations,
residential and mixed use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential
floor area ratios range from 0.35 to 2.
Service Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying
on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in
high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses
include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and
restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good
automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without
impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be
appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-28 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the
Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4.
Mixed Use: The Mixed Use designation is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented
places that layer compatible land uses, public amenities and utilities together at
various scales and intensities. The designation allows for multiple functions within
the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a
mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity.
Most typically, mixed use developments have retail on the ground floor and
residences above. This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail
and Residential/Office development. Its purpose is to increase the types of spaces
available for living and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain
areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to
provide a high quality pedestrian-oriented street environment. Mixed Use may
include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate
buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Live/Work refers to one or more
individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in
professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and
Residential/Office provide other variations to Mixed Use with Retail typically on the
ground floor and Residential on upper floors. Design standards will be developed to
ensure that development is compatible and contributes to the character of the street
and neighborhood. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although Residential/
Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near
multi-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas
resistant to revitalizationwhere higher FAR would be an incentive to meet community
goals such as providing affordable housing. The FAR above 1.15 will must be used
for residential purposes. FAR between 0.15 and 1.15 may be used for residential
purposes. As of the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation
is currently only applied in the SOFA area.
Commercial Hotel: This category allows facilities for use by temporary overnight
occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, with associated
conference centers and similar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting
rooms, small retail shops, personal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel
are also allowed. This category can be applied in combination with another land use
category. Floor area ratio will range up to 2.01.5 for the hotel portion of the site.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-29
Research/Office Park: Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose
operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses. Stanford Research Park is an
example. Other uses that may be included are educational institutions and child care
facilities. Compatible commercial service uses such as banks and restaurants, and
residential or mixed uses that would benefit from the proximity to employment
centers, will also be allowed. Additional uses, including retail services, restaurants,
commercial recreation, churches, and private clubs may also be located in
Research/Office Park areas, but only if they are found to be compatible with the
surrounding area through the conditional use permit process. In some locations,
residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Maximum
allowable floor area ratio ranges from 0.3 to 0.5, depending on site conditions.
Light Industrial: Wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing,
processing, repairing, and packaging of goods. Emission of fumes, noise, smoke, or
other pollutants is strictly controlled. Examples include portions of the area south of
Oregon Avenue between El Camino Real and Alma Street that historically have
included these land uses, and the San Antonio Road industrial area. Compatible
residential and mixed use projects may also be located in this category. Floor area
ratio will range up to 0.5.
*INSTITUTIONAL
School District Lands: Properties owned or leased by public school districts and
used for educational, recreational, or other non-commercial, non-industrial purposes.
Floor area ratio may not exceed 1.0.
Major Institution/Special Facilities: Institutional, academic, governmental, and
community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as
non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities.
Major Institution/University Lands: Academic and academic reserve areas of
Stanford University. Population density and building intensity limits are established
by conditional use permit with Santa Clara County. These lands are further
designated by the following sub-categories of land use:
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Single- Family Residential:
Single- family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally
limited to individuals or families affiliated with the institution.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-30 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Multiple Family Residential:
Multiple family areas where the occupancy of the units is significantly or totally
limited to individuals or families affiliated with the institution.
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Educational Facilities:
Academic lands with a full complement of activities and densities that give
them an urban character. Allowable uses are academic institutions and
research facilities, student and faculty housing, and support services. Increases
in student enrollment and faculty/ staff size must be accompanied by
measures that mitigate traffic and housing impacts.
Major Institution/University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open Space:
Academic lands having all the characteristics of open space but upon which
some academic development may be allowed provided that open space
amenities are retained. These lands are important for their aesthetic and
ecological value as well as their potential for new academic uses.
GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
LOCAL LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GOAL L-1 A Well-Designed, compact, and resilient city, providing
residents aand visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work
places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces.
EXTENT OF URBANCONCENTRATING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE
AREA
Policy L-1.1 Continue current City policy limiting Limit future urban development
to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The
boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban
growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill
Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made
for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space
character of the area. Retain undeveloped Baylands land northeast of
Highway 101 as open space. [Previous Policy L-1] [L1]
Policy L-1.2 Maintain and strengthen Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods
while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities.
Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable
qualities.[Previous Policy L-4] [L2]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-31
Policy L-1.3 Promote infill development in the urban service area that is,
compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of
the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Maintain
the scale and character of the City Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. [(Previous
Policy L-5 )(PTC Policy L1.7)] [L3]
Program L1.3.1 Maintain a list of vacant and underutilized
properties. Work with property owners and
developers, and neighbors, and neighborhood
associations, property owners, and developers to
identify barriers to infill development of affordable,
below market rate and more affordable market
rate housing on these properties and actions that
addressto remove these barriers. Work with these
same stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate
opportunities for below market rate housing and
housing that is affordable [(PTC Program L1.7.10)
(Edited)] [L4]
Policy L-1.4 Ensure that future development addresses potential risks from climate
change and sea level rise. [Note: the revised Safety Element will
include a much more extensive discussion of this issue along with
policies and programs to respond.] [NEW POLICY] [L5]
Program L1.3.1Program L1.4.1 Review development
standards applicable in areas susceptible to
flooding from sea level rise, including east of
Highway 101, West Bayshore and East Meadow
Circle, and the area east of San Antonio Road and
north of East Charleston, and update requirements
as needed to ensure that new development is
designed and located to provide protection from
potential flooding impacts. [(NEW
PROGRAM)(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure GHG-3.)] [Note: The revised Safety
Element will include additional mitigation
measures to address sea level rise and climate
change adaptation] [L6]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-32 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
REGIONAL COOPERATION
Policy L-1.4Policy L-1.5 Maintain an active cooperative working relationship
engagement with Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, neighboring
cities,, other public agencies including school districts and Stanford
University regarding land use and transportation issues. [Previous
Policy L-2] [L7]
Program L1.4.1 Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land
Use Policies Agreement that sets forth the land use
policies of the City, Santa Clara County, and
Stanford University with regard to Stanford
unincorporated lands. [Previous Program L-1] [L8]
Program L1.4.2 City staff will monitor Stanford development
proposals and traffic conditions within the Sand Hill
Road Corridor and annually report to the Planning
Com- mission and City Council.[Note: Conflicts with
current City practice - annual Mayfield and SUMC
reporting requirements] [Previous Program L-2A]
Program L1.4.3 City staff will review development proposals within
the Airport Influence Area to ensure consistency
with the guidelines of the Palo Alto Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and when
appropriate, will refer development proposals to
the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission for review and comment. [Previous
Program L-2B]
Program L1.5.1 Evaluate changes in land use in the context of
regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives,
as well as the desires of surrounding
neighborhoods.[Previous Policy L-7]
Policy L-1.5Policy L-1.6 Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of
jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. [NEW POLICY] [L9]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-33
MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN CITY CHARACTER[NOTE: THIS SECTION RENAMED
“GUIDING BUILDING DESIGN,” AND MOVED TO GOAL L-6 PER 6/24/16 LAND USE
SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION.]
COMMERCIAL GROWTH LIMITS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
Policy L-1.6Policy L-1.7 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the
community and manage change and development to benefit the
community. [NEW POLICY] [L10]
Program L1.7.1 Review regulatory tools available to the City and
identify actions to enhance and preserve the
livability of residential neighborhoods and the
vitality of commercial and employment districts,
including improved code enforcement practices.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L11]
Policy L-1.7Policy L-1.8 Sites within or adjacent to existing commercial areas and
corridors are suitable for hotels. Give preference to housing versus
hotel use on sites adjacent to predominantly single family
neighborhoods. [NEW POLICY] [L12]
CUMULATIVE CAP OPTIONS CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Policy L-1.9 (no cumulative cap on non-residential uses) A well designed,
compact, and resilient City maintains a healthy mix of non-residential
uses. The City will monitor non-residential development over time in
addition to applying development requirements and community
indicators designed to ensure the highest quality of development with
the least possible impacts. [NEW POLICY] [L13]
Program L1.9.1 (no cumulative cap; trigger for evaluation of
development requirements)When new Office &
R&D development approved since January 1, 2015
reaches 500,000 square feet citywide, evaluate the
success of adopted development requirements and
community indicators. [NEW PROGRAM] [L14]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-34 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-1.10 (citywide cap on office/R&D minus SUMC plus development
requirements) Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet
of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses associated
with SUMC. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor
development towards the cap on an annual basis. Regularly assess the
effectiveness of requirements applied to development and other
community performance measures and remove or adjust the cap
and/or development requirements accordingly. [NEW POLICY] [L15]
Policy L-1.11 (citywide cap on office/R&D and hotel, minus SUMC, plus
development requirements) Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million
new square feet of office/R&D and an appropriate additional amount
of hotel development using January 1, 2015 as the baseline and
monitor development towards this cap on an annual basis. Regularly
assess the effectiveness of development requirements applied to
development and community indicators and remove or adjust the cap
and/or development requirements accordingly. [NEW POLICY] [L16]
Program L1.11.1 (possible Citywide hotel cap) Study demand and
potential impacts in order to determine whether the
Citywide cap should include a cap on hotel
development and what an appropriate
development cap would be. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L17]
Policy L-1.12 (cumulative cap exemptions) Exempt medical, governmental, and
institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. [NEW
POLICY] [L18]
CUMULATIVE CAP AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS – IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAMS
Program L1.12.1 (citywide cap re-evaluation) Reevaluate the
cumulative cap when the amount of new
office/R&D [and hotel] square footage entitled since
January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of the allowed
square footage, or 1,139,000 square feet.
Concurrently consider removal or potential changes
to the cap and/or to the amount of additional
development permitted by the City’s zoning
ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L19]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-35
Program L1.12.2 (development requirements reevaluation) Regularly
assess the effectiveness of development
requirements and revise them as necessary. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L20]
Program L1.12.3 (adjust development potential to reflect citywide
cap) Assess non-residential development potential
in the CC, CN, and CS zoning districts, and convert
non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where
appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity
should not be considered in Town and Country
Village. [NEW PROGRAM] [L21]
ANNUAL LIMIT OPTIONS – CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Policy L-1.13 (no annual limit) Use performance requirements to assure that new
development adds to the quality of the community and addresses or
avoids new impacts. [NEW POLICY] [L22]
Policy L-1.14 (citywide annual limit) Limit the amount of new office/R&D square
footage permitted in the City on an annual basis to 50,000 square feet
outside the Stanford Research Park and ___ square feet inside
Stanford Research Park. Allow unused development capacity within
Stanford Research Park only to be carried forward to future years.
Stanford University Medical Center shall be exempt from this annual
limit. [NEW POLICY] [L23]
Policy L-1.15 (citywide annual limit with SRP exemption) Limit the amount of new
office/R&D square footage permitted in the City on an annual basis to
50,000 square feet, exempting new square footage in Stanford
University Medical Center, and exempting the Stanford Research Park
if a cap on peak period auto trips to the Research Park is established
and enforced. [NEW POLICY] [L24]
Policy L-1.16 (annual limit exemptions) Exempt public facilities, offices less than
5,000 square feet., and medical offices of less than 2,000 square feet
from the annual limit. [NEW POLICY] [L25]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-36 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
DOWNTOWN CAP – CHOOSE ONE OR MORE TO CARRY FORWARD
Program L1.16.1 (no downtown cap) Monitor non-residential
development in Downtown on an annual basis,
tracking new square footage by use, as well as
commute trips by SOV and parking demand. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L26]
Program L1.16.2 (retain downtown cap) Limit new office
development in Downtown to 45,619 square feet,
using January 1, 2015 as the baseline. Monitor this
development on an annual basis, tracking new
square footage as well as commute trips by SOV
and parking demand. Reevaluate this Downtown
development cap when the amount of new office
and hotel square footage entitled since January 1,
2015 reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage and concurrently consider potential
changes to the cap and/or to the amount of
additional development permitted by the City’s
zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L27]
Program L1.16.3 (exempt small offices from downtown cap) Limit
new office development in Downtown to 45,619
square feet, using January 1, 2015 as the baseline.
Small offices, where the design clearly
demonstrates that the space is intended for use by
one or more tenants that occupy less than 5,000
square feet total, shall be exempt. Monitor this
development on an annual basis, tracking new
square footage as well as commute trips by SOV
and parking demand. Reevaluate this Downtown
development cap when the amount of new office
square footage entitled since January 1, 2015
reaches 67 percent of the remaining allowed
square footage, or 30,564 square feet. Concurrently
consider potential changes to the cap and/or to the
amount of additional development permitted by
the City’s zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L28]
Program L1.16.4 (limit both office and hotels Downtown) Limit new
office development in Downtown to 45,619 square
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-37
feet square feet and limit new hotel development
to 50,000 square feet, using January 1, 2015 as the
baseline. Monitor this development on an annual
basis, tracking new square footage as well as
commute trips by SOV and parking demand.
Reevaluate this Downtown development cap when
the amount of new office and hotel square footage
entitled since January 1, 2015 reaches 67 percent of
the remaining allowed square footage, or 30,564
square feet. Concurrently consider potential
changes to the cap and/or to the amount of
additional development permitted by the City’s
zoning ordinance. [NEW PROGRAM] [L29]
DOWNTOWN CAP – IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program L1.7.1 (adjust downtown development potential to reflect
the cap) Update the CD district zoning to convert
some non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR
Downtown and consider revising the TDR program
to create bonus residential, rather than commercial
square footage.[NEW PROGRAM] [L30]
Program L1.16.5
Program L1.16.6 (character of downtown) Evaluate and adjust the
zoning definition of office uses allowed in
downtown to and consider ways to prioritize for
small business and startups. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L31]
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNITY INDICATORS
Option 1 – Articulate the Purpose and the Topics for the development
requirements in the Comp Plan but develop details through a later program.
Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest
development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These
development requirements are intended to promote sustainability, a
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-38 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
high quality of life and ensure that the City consists of well-designed
and livable neighborhoods and centers. [NEW POLICY] [L32]
Program L1.17.1 Review and refine both new and existing
development requirements that address topics such
as energy, water and other natural resource
conservation, parking, open space and parkland,
landscaping, tree protection and neighborhood
compatibility to ensure they are effective at
achieving the highest quality development with the
least impacts. Publish the results of the review in a
clear and readable document. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L33]
Program L1.17.2 Create development requirements that protect
livability and the environment by addressing
additional topics such as reducing trips, preserving
and facilitating affordable housing and preservation
of the tree canopy. [NEW PROGRAM] [L34]
Policy L-1.18 (community indicators) The city will monitor key community
indicators on a regular basis to determine whether the policies of this
plan and the efforts of the Palo Alto residents and businesses are
effective at promoting livability. Collect the data on the community
indicators in a transparent manner, and publish the results in a clear,
user-friendly, easy-to-understand document. [NEW POLICY] [L35]
Program L1.18.1 Develop community indicators for topics such as
greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, jobs,
housing, schools, parks, the tree canopy, the natural
environment and diversity. Create a list of
community indicators and a schedule for
monitoring these indicators. [NEW PROGRAM] [L36]
Program L1.18.2 Based on monitoring the community indicators
data over time, periodically consider whether to
retain, revise downward or upward, or eliminate the
annual limits on growth, the growth caps in
individual areas, and/or the Citywide cumulative
growth caps in this Land Use and Community
Design Element. [NEW PROGRAM] [L37]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-39
Option 2 – Provide detail and specificity of the Development Requirements in
the Comp Plan.
Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest
development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These
development requirements are intended to promote sustainability, a
high quality of life and ensure that the City consists of well-designed
and livable neighborhoods and centers. [NEW POLICY] [L38]
Program L1.17.1 Review and refine both new and existing
development requirements that address topics such
as energy, water and other natural resource
conservation, parking, open space and parkland,
landscaping, tree protection and neighborhood
compatibility in Table L-1 to ensure they are
effective at achieving the highest quality
development with the least impacts. Publish the
results of the review in a clear and readable
document. [NEW PROGRAM] [L39]
Program L1.7.2Program L1.17.2 Create development
requirements that protect livability and the
environment by addressing additional topics such
as reducing trips, preserving and facilitating
affordable housing and preservation of the tree
canopy as shown on Table L-1. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L40]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-40 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
TABLE L-1 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
These requirements are new tools strongly focused on ensuring the highest quality development
with the least impacts. .
1. Reducing Trips: a specific percent of typical single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuter trips.
2. Alleviating Traffic Congestion: minimize impact on intersection Level of Service (LOS)
3. Connectivity: enhancing connections to transportation infrastructure or services.
4. Reserving Affordable Housing: no net loss of affordable dwelling units, no displacement of
residents of Below Market Rate (BMR) units, and discouraging loss of smaller homes such as cottages. .
5. Facilitating Affordable Housing: Facilitate a mix of multi-family housing, including affordable
units, and housing for seniors and people with special needs.
6. Protecting the Natural Environment: Create a resilient landscape by preserving or increasing the tree canopy and natural understory, landscaped/open space areas planted with native plantings, creating or restoring a resilient landscape, and bird-friendly design.
7. Providing Parking: do not allow parking spillover onto residential neighborhood streets.
8. Preserving Affordable Office Space: Encourage the provision of new small office space and the preservation of existing low-cost office space.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The City already regulates many aspects of development. The City will review these existing regulations to ensure they are consistent with current targets and effective in achieving the
highest quality development with the least impacts.
Green Building: Conserving energy, water, and resources through meeting specific requirements in the City’s mandatory green building ordinance, as periodically amended. It covers topics such as:
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation
• Materials and Waste
• Light Pollution Reduction
• Emissions • Electric Vehicle Charging
• Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Reuse
• Permeable Surface Area For Groundwater Recharge
• Native, Drought-Tolerant Planting • Indoor Air Quality
Parking: Meeting need without providing excess:
• Bike Parking
• Vehicle Parking
Parkland: Providing common open space and contributing to Citywide park need:
• Provision of parkland or payment of fees
• Private open space
Landscaping and Amenities: Making Palo Alto more beautiful:
• Tree protection and retention
• Public Art
Neighborhood compatibility and building design: Avoiding negative impacts and improving the surroundings: • Glare
• Noise
• Shade
• Utility Undergrounding • High-quality architecture
• Support for historic resources
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-41
TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS (SEPTEMBER 6TH VERSION)
Measure Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
80% below 1990 emissions by 2030
(S/CAP goal) At least every 2 years
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) per Capita 5% decrease per year At least every 2 years
Percent of Commute Trips
to Employment Centers by
Single Occupant Vehicle
(SOV)
50% trips by SOV, based on employee
survey responses Annually
Number of Commute Trips
to Employment Centers
40% below ITE standards for
Downtown and 30% below ITE
standards for SRP.
Annually
Corridor Travel Times
Typical PM peak hour travel time along
2 major north-south corridors and 2
major east-west corridors
At least every 2 years
Commercial District
Parking Overflow into
Neighborhoods
Non-resident parking on sampled
residential neighborhood streets Annually
Air Pollutant Levels
Maximum 24-hour concentrations of
criteria pollutants identified by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District,
as reported at the monitoring stations
closest to Palo Alto
Annually
Groundwater
Contamination
Acres of City underlain by shallow
groundwater contamination Every 4 years
Jobs/Housing Balance
(Expressed as a Ratio of
Jobs to Employed
Residents)
Ratio of jobs to employed residents Every 4 years
Housing Cost Burden
Percentage of owners and renters
paying more than 50% of household
income for housing
Every 4 years
Affordability of Housing
Stock
Number of housing units affordable to
moderate-income, low-income, and
very-low-income households
Every 4 years
Economic Diversity
Percentage of households at various
household income levels [see Fig. 2-3
in adopted 2015 HE]
Every 4 years
Below Market Rate (BMR)
Units Number of units Every 4 years
Progress toward Housing
Element goals
Annual Report to State Housing and
Community Development Department Annually
Existing Resident
Displacement Number of existing units demolished Every 4 years
Comment [PW1]: M Note: has been slightly re-
ordered per CAC direction to group like topics.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-42 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
TABLE L-2 COMMUNITY INDICATORS (SEPTEMBER 6TH VERSION)
Measure Metric
Recommended
Monitoring
Frequency
Unoccupied Homes Number of homes vacant/unoccupied
for longer than 3 months per year Annually
Age Diversity Percentage of population in various age
cohorts Every 4 years
PAUSD Class Size Class size Annually
PAUSD Satisfaction with
Schools
Satisfaction ratings as reported by
Strategic Plan Survey Annually
Park Acreage per Capita Ratio of district and neighborhood
parks per 1,000 population Every 4 years
Urban Tree Canopy Canopy cover – percent of city covered
by trees Every 4 years
Biodiversity Species counted in spring and fall bird
counts Biannually
Infrastructure or Acres
Affected by Sea Level Rise
Number of key facilities, major
infrastructure, and/or acres of land
within the City limits directly affected by
sea level rise
Every 4 years
Wastewater Reuse Percent of wastewater recycled Every 4 years
Impermeable Surfaces and
Stormwater Infiltration in
Urbanized Area
(Need to determine how this can be
measured) Every 4 years
Policy L-1.18 (community indicators) The city will monitor key community
indicators on a regular basis to determine whether the policies of this
plan and the efforts of the Palo Alto residents and businesses are
effective at promoting livability by using community indicators.
Suggested indicators and monitoring frequency are listed in Table L-2
related to greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, commute
trips by single occupant vehicle, jobs/housing balance, and
community diversity. Collect the data on the community indicators in
a transparent manner, and publish the results in a clear, user-friendly,
easy-to-understand document. [NEW POLICY] [L41]
Program L1.18.1 Develop community indicators for topics such as
greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, jobs,
housing, schools, parks, the tree canopy, the natural
environment and diversity as shown in Table L-2.
Comme
Note: has been
slightly
re-
ordered
per CAC direction
to group
like
topics.
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-43
Create a list of community indicators and a
schedule for monitoring these indicators. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L42]
Program L1.7.3Program L1.18.2 Based on monitoring the
community indicators data over time, periodically
consider whether to retain, revise downward or
upward, or eliminate the annual limits on growth,
the growth caps in individual areas, and/or the
Citywide cumulative growth caps in this Land Use
and Community Design Element. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L43]
Option 3: Use community indicators along with a cumulative cap, annual limit,
and downtown cap, but do not use development requirements.
Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential
development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide
Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City
Council may make modifications for specific properties that allow modest
additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900
maximum. [Previous Policy L-8]
Establish a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development and
traffic conditions related to both residential and non-residential
development at key intersections including those identified in the 1989
Citywide Study and additional intersections identified in the
Comprehensive Plan EIR. If the rate of growth reaches the point where the
citywide development maximum might be reached, the City will reevaluate
development policies and regulations. [Previous Program L-7]
Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000
square feet, or 10 percent above the amount of development existing or
approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential
development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area. [Previous
Program L-8]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-44 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the
ground floor retail requirement, in the University Avenue/Downtown area.
Keep the Planning Commission and City Council advised of the findings on
an annual basis. [Previous Program L-9]
GOAL L-2 An enhanced sense of “community” with development
designed to foster public life, and meet citywide needs, and
embrace the principles of sustainability.
Policy L-2.1 Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers,
and Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the
region’s transit and street system. [Previous Policy L-10] [L44]
Policy L-2.2 Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and
supportEnhance connections between commercial and mixed use
centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting
walkable and bikable connections and a diverse range of retail and
services that caters to the daily needs of residents. [Previous Policy L-
11] [L45]
Program L2.2.1 Consider sitingExplore whether there are
appropriate locations to allow small-scale
neighborhood-serving retail facilities such as coffee
shops and corner stores in existing or new
residential areas. [(Previous Policy L-16) (Converted
to Program)] [L46]
Policy L-2.3 As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and
encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, designed for greater
affordability, particularly smaller units and senior housing. [NEW
POLICY] [L47]
Policy L-2.3Policy L-2.4 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. [Previous Program L 20]
[NEW POLICY] [L48]
Policy L-2.5 Encourage In conjunction with new development and redevelopment
to incorporate greenery and natural features through the use of
features such as green rooftops, pocket proposals, pursue creation of
parks, plazas, or other public gathering places that meet
neighborhood needand rain gardens.[(NEW POLICY) (Combined with
Previous Program C26)] [L49]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-45
RESIDENTIAL DISTINCT NEIGHBORHOODS
GOAL L-3 Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its
own distinct character and within walking distance of
shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering
places.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Policy L-3.1 Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by
encouragingEnsure that new or remodeled structures to beare
compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. [(Previous
Policy L-12) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L50]
Policy L-3.2 Establish pedestrian-oriented design guidelines for residences that
encourage features that enliven the street. [(Previous Program L-
11)(Complete)]
Policy L-3.3Policy L-3.1 Where compatible with neighborhood character, use
Zoning and the Home Improvement Exception process to create
incentives or eliminate obstacles to remodel houses with features
that add street life and vitality. [Previous Program L-12]
Policy L-3.2 Preserve residential uses from conversion to office or short-term
rentals. [NEW POLICY] [L51]
Program L3.2.1 Evaluate and implement strategies to prevent
conversion of residential and neighborhood-serving
retail space to office or short-term vacation rentals.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L52]
Policy L-3.3 Support efforts to retain and encourage housing units that are more
affordable, such as cottages, other small homes, and rental housing
units in existing neighborhoods. [NEW POLICY] [L53]
Program L3.3.1 Review development standards to discourage the
loss of housing units, and the replacement of rental
housing units with ownership housing units. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L54]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-46 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-3.4 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower
income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as
feasible. [NEW POLICY] [L55]
Program L3.4.1 Collaborate with PAUSD in exploring opportunities
to build housing that is affordable to school district
employees. [NEW PROGRAM] [L56]
Policy L-3.5 When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize
displacement of existing residents. [NEW POLICY] [L57]
Program L3.5.1 Conduct a study to evaluate various possible tools
for preventing displacement of existing residents.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L58]
Program L3.5.2 Develop and implement a system to inventory the
characteristics of existing housing units and track
changes in those characteristics on a regular basis.
Make the information publicly available. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L59]
MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
Policy L-3.4 Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density andIn
appropriate locations, encourage a mix of smaller housing types such
as studios, co-housing, cottage, clustered housing and secondary
dwelling units, to provide a more diverse range of housing
opportunities and preserve existing housing units of these types.
[(Previous Policy L-13) (Note: Program H3.3.5 of the adopted Housing
Element is to explore modifications to development standards to
further encourage second unit development.)] [L60]Create and apply
zoning standards for Village Residential housing prototypes. Develop
design guidelines for duplexes, townhouses, courtyard housing,
second units, and small lot single family homes that ensure that such
housing is compatible with single family neighborhoods and other
areas where it may be permitted. [Previous Program L-13]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-47
Create and apply zoning standards for Transit-Oriented Residential
housing prototypes, including consideration of minimum density
standards. Develop design guidelines that ensure that such housing is
compatible with the University Avenue/Downtown and California
Avenue centers where it may be permitted. [(Previous Program L-14)
(Replaced by new Programs L67 and L68 calling for Coordinated Area
Plans)]
Policy L-3.6 Recognize the contribution of cottage cluster housing to the character
of Palo Alto and retain and encourage this type of development. [NEW
POLICY] [L61]
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Policy L-3.5Policy L-3.7 Design and arrangeEnsure that new multifamily buildings,
including entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged, so
that each unit development has a clear relationship to a public street.
[Previous Policy L-14] [L62]
Policy L-3.8 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family
homes on adjacent properties public resources and the natural
environment. [NEW POLICY] [L63]
Program L3.8.1 Develop a program to assess and manage both the
positive and negative impacts of basement
construction in single family homes on the
community and the environment, including:
Land use issues. Evaluate the City’s policy of
excluding basements from the gross floor area
and maximum floor area ratio limits in the
zoning ordinance. Consider zoning revisions,
including greater setbacks, to limit basement
size and increase basement setbacks from
adjacent properties.
Impacts to the natural environment, such as
potential impacts to the tree canopy,
groundwater supply or quality, and soil
compaction.
Safety issues such as increased surface
flooding, increased groundwater intrusion with
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-48 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
sea level rise, emergency access and egress, or
sewage backflows. [NEW PROGRAM] [L64]
COMMERCIAL CENTERS
GOAL L-4 Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail
and commercial services and provide focal points and
community gathering places for the city’s residential
neighborhoods and employment districts.
COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND MIXED USE AREAS
Policy L-4.1 Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a
manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding
neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing small, local
businesses. [Previous Policy L-18] [L65]
Policy L-4.2Policy L-4.1 Establish a planning process for Centers that identifies the
desired character of the area, its role within the City, the locations of
public gathering spaces, appropriate land uses and building forms,
and important street and pedestrian connections to surrounding
Residential Neighborhoods. [Previous Program L-15]
Program L4.2.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of formula retail limits
adopted for California Avenue and consider
whether these limits should be applied in other
Centers. Develop incentives for local small
businesses where warranted. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L66]
Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of
small-scale local businesses. [Previous Policy L-19]
Policy L-4.2 Use coordinated area plans to guide development in areas of Palo Alto
where significant change is foreseeable. Address both land use and
transportation, define the desired character and urban design traits of
the areas, identify opportunities for public open space, parks and
recreational opportunities, and address connectivity to and
compatibility with adjacent residential areas; include broad community
involvement in the planning process. [NEW POLICY] [L67]
Program L4.2.2Program L4.2.1 Prepare a coordinated area
plan for the South El Camino corridor from Curtner
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-49
Avenue to West Charleston Road, as shown in the
diagram below. The plan should articulate a vision
for the corridor as a well-designed complete street
with an enhanced pedestrian environment
including wider sidewalks, increased building
setbacks, public open spaces, safe pedestrian
crossings at key intersections, trees and streetscape
improvements. Mixed use residential and retail
development on shallow parcels should be
encouraged to support a more walkable and
bikable environment along the corridor, with
appropriate transitions to the surrounding single-
family neighborhoods. The plan should also foster
improved connections to surrounding destinations.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L68]
Program L4.2.3 Prepare a coordinated area plan for the Fry's site
and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan
should describe a vision for the future of the Fry's
site as a walkable neighborhood with multi‐family
housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek
improvements, and an interconnected street grid.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L69]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-50 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-4.3 Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the
sidewalkin a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form
corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. [Previous Policy L-20]
[L70]
Policy L-4.3Policy L-4.4 Provide Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood
Centers provide with centrally located gathering spaces that create a
sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage
public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and
public art. [Previous Policy L-21] [L71]
Program L4.3.1Program L4.4.1 Study the feasibility of using
public and private funds to provide and maintain
landscaping and public spaces such as parks,
plazas, and sidewalks and public art within
commercial areas. [Previous Program L-16] [L72]
Program L4.3.2Program L4.4.2 Through public/private
cooperation, provide obviouswell-signed, clean, and
accessible restrooms available for use during
normal business hours. [Previous Program L-17]
[L73]
Program L4.3.3Program L4.4.3 Collaborate with merchants to
eEnhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks
within all Centers. Encourage the formation of
business improvement districts and undertake a
proactive program of through an aggressive
maintenance, repair, landscaping and
enhancement. and cleaning program; street
improvements; and the use of a variety of paving
materials and landscaping. [Previous Policy L-22]
[L74]
Program L4.3.4Program L4.4.4 Identify priority street
improvements that could make a substantial
contribution to the character of Centers, including
such as widening sidewalks, narrowing travel lanes,
creating medians, restriping to allow diagonal
parking, and planting street trees. [Previous
Program L-18] [L75]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-51
REGIONAL CENTERS
University Avenue/Downtown
Policy L-4.5 Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the
centrala major business district commercial center of the City, with a
mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses.
Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical
importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. [
(Previous Policy L-23) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-
1)] [L76]
Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. [
(Previous Program L-19)
Policy L-4.6 Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and
supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other
amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and
bicyclists. [Previous Policy L-24] [L77]
Program L4.3.5 Improve the University Avenue/Downtown area by
adding landscaping and bicycle parking and
encouraging large development projects to benefit
the public by incorporating public art. [Previous
Program L-21]
Policy L-4.4 Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed
use area. [Previous Policy L-25]
Program L4.4.1 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the SOFA and
the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) site.
[(Previous Program L-22)(Completed)]
Program L4.6.1 Pursue redevelopment of pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit connections to and from between the
University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station area,
to establish a link between University
Avenue/Downtown, and the Stanford Shopping
Center. [Previous Policy L-27] [L78]
Program L4.6.2 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown,
encompassing the University Avenue Multi-modal
Transit Station Area. [Previous Program L-25][L79]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-52 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Establish the following unranked community design priorities for the
University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station Area:
Improving pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections to create
an urban link between University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford
Shopping Center.
Creating a major civic space at the Caltrain Station that links University
Avenue/Downtown and Palm Drive.
Infilling underutilized parcels with a mix of uses such as shopping,
housing, office, hotel, and medical facilities.
Improving public park space.
Protecting views of the foothills by guiding building heights and
massing. [Previous Program L-26]
Stanford Shopping Center
Policy L-4.7 Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere
regional shopping centers. Promote Encourage bicycle and pedestrian
use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur
through infill, potentially including housing and mixed use
development on existing surface parking lots, while continuing to
supply adequate parking. [Previous Policy L-26] [L80]
Program L4.7.1 While preserving adequate parking to meet
demand, iIdentify strategies to reuse surface
parking lots and improve pedestrian and transit
connections at Stanford Shopping Center.
[(Previous Program L-23)(Merged with Previous
Policy L-27)] [L81] Maintain a Stanford Shopping
Center development cap of 80,000 square feet of
additional development beyond that existing on
June 14, 1996. [Previous Program L-24]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-53
MULTI-NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
California Avenue
Policy L-4.8 Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California
Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center
intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the
smaller neighborhood business areas. [Previous Policy L-28] [L82]
Program L4.8.1 Create a Coordinated Area Plan for Develop the
Cal-Venturaifornia Avenue area to guide its
development as a well-designed mixed use district
with diverse land uses , two- to three-story
buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented
streets providing links to California Avenue.
[(Previous Policy L-31) (Converted to Program)]
[L83]
Program L4.8.2 Create regulations for the California Avenue area
that encourage the retention of smaller buildings to
provide spaces for existing retail, particularly local,
small businesses, including to allow for their re-
placement or rehabilitation of smaller buildings
while preventing buildings that are out of scale with
existing buildings. [Previous Program L-27] [L84]
Policy L-4.5 Work with merchants, property owners, and City representatives to
create an urban design guide for the California Avenue business
district. [Previous Program L-28]
Encourage residential and mixed use residential development in the
California Avenue area. [Previous Policy L-29]
Revise the zoning of the California Avenue business district to reduce
the non- residential development potential to levels comparable to
other commercial areas in the City while retaining substantial
residential development potential. [Previous Program L-29]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-54 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-4.6 Improve the transition between the California-Cambridge area and the
single family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park. Avoid abrupt
changes in scale and density between the two areas. [Previous Policy
L-30] [L85] Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the Cal-Ventura area.
Use the landuse diagram from the Community Design Workshop as
the starting point for preparing this Plan. [Previous Program L-30]
Policy L-4.7 Establish the following unranked priorities for redevelopment within
the Cal-Ventura area:
Policy L-4.8 Connect the Cal-Ventura area with the Multi-modal Transit Station and
California Avenue. Provide new streets and pedestrian connections
that complete the street grid and create a walkable neighborhood.
Policy L-4.9 Fry’s Electronics site (300 Portage): Continued retail activity is
anticipated for this site until 2019. A program should be developed for
the future use of the site for mixed density multi- family housing and a
park or other open space.
Policy L-4.10 Hewlett-Packard: Uses that are compatible with the surrounding area
and a site plan that facilitates pedestrian use of Park Boulevard.
Policy L-4.11 North of Sheridan Avenue: Development of one or more of the City-
owned parking lots with primarily residential uses, provided that public
parking spaces are replaced.
Policy L-4.12Policy L-4.9 Park Boulevard: Streetscape improvements. [Previous Program
L-31]
South El Camino Real
Policy L-4.13 Establish the South El Camino Real area as a well-designed, compact,
vital, Multi-neighborhood Center with diverse uses, a mix of one-, two-
, and three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian-oriented
streets and ways. [Previous Policy L-35]
Policy L-4.14 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the South El Camino Real area.
Use the land use map from the Community Design Workshop as a
starting point for preparing this Plan. [Previous Program L-32]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-55
Policy L-4.10 Study ways to make Enhance the pedestrian environment along South
El Camino Real more pedestrian-friendly, including redesigning the
street to provide wider sidewalks, increased building setbacks, safe
pedestrian crossings at key intersections, street trees, and streetscape
improvements, consistent with the recommendations in the Grand
Boulevard Design Guidelines. [(Previous Program L-33) (Converted to
Policy) (Consistent with Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
AES-1)] [L86]
Program L4.10.1 Provide better east-west connections across El
Camino Real to bring the Ventura and Barron Park
neighborhoods together and to improve linkages to
local schools and parks. [Previous Program L-34]
[L87]
Allow a full range of office and retail uses on shallow parcels along
South El Camino Real, subject to adequate buffering from adjacent
residential uses. [Previous Policy L-36]
Consider Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as a tool to
encourage re-development and/or community-serving amenities
along South El Camino Real. [Previous Program L-35]
Town and Country Village
Policy L-4.11 Recognize and preserve Maintain Town and Country Village as an
attractive community-serving retail center serving Palo Altans and
residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should
preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural
character while also improving safe access for bicyclists and
pedestrians and increasing the amount of bicycle parking. [Previous
Policy L-32] [L88]
Policy L-4.12 In Town and Country Village, encourage housing development
consistent with a vibrant business retail environment and urban
greening. [Previous Policy L-33] [L89]
Policy L-4.13 In Town and Country Village, eEncourage improvement of
pedestrian, bicycle, and auto circulation and landscaping
improvements, including maintenance of existing oak trees and
planting additional oak trees. [Previous Policy L-34] [L90]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-56 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
Policy L-4.14 Maintain the scale, Improve the and local-serving focus, and provide
safe pedestrian, bicycle, and multimodal access to all three Palo Alto’s
four Neighborhood Centers – Charleston Shopping Center, Edgewood
Plaza, and Midtown Shopping Center. Support their continued
improvement and vitality. [Previous Policy L-37] [L91]
Evaluate current zoning to determine if it supports the types of uses
and scale of buildings considered appropriate in Neighborhood
Centers. [Previous Program L-36]
Policy L-4.15 Encourage property owners within Neighborhood Centers to prepare
master plans, with the participation of local businesses, property
owners, and nearby residents. [Previous Program L-37]
Policy L-4.15 Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that
the publicly maintained areas are clean, well-lit, and attractively
landscaped. [Previous Policy L-38] [L92]
Facilitate opportunities to improve pedestrian-oriented commercial
activity within Neighborhood Centers. [Previous Policy L-39]
Revise land use and zoning designations as needed to encourage
medium- density housing (20 to 25 units per acre) within or near
Neighborhood Centers served by public transportation to support a
more vital mix of commercial activities. [Previous Program L-38]
Policy L-4.16 Revitalize Maintain Midtown Shopping Center as an attractive,
compact Neighborhood Center with diverse local-serving uses, a mix
of one- and two-story buildings, adequate parking, and a network of
pedestrian-oriented streets, ways and gathering places. Encourage
retention of Midtown’s grocery stores and encourage a variety of
neighborhood retail shops and services. [Previous Policy L-40] [L93]
Prepare a plan for Midtown with the participation of property owners,
local businesses, and nearby residents. Consider the Midtown
Economic Study and the land use concepts identified during the 1994
Community Design Workshop in developing the plan. The plan
should have a special emphasis on public improvements, including
parking, street furniture and signage. [Previous Program L-39]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-57
Policy L-4.17Policy L-4.16 Make improvements to Middlefield Road in Midtown that
slow traffic, encourage commercial vitality, make the street more
pedestrian-friendly, and unify the northeast and southwest sides of the
commercial area, with consideration given to traffic impacts on the
residential neighborhood. (Previous Program L-40)]
Support bicycle and pedestrian trail improvements along a restored
Matadero Creek within Hoover Park. [Previous Program L-41]
Maintain existing residential uses within the Midtown area and
encourage additional residential development. [Previous Policy L-41]
Retain the existing housing along Colorado Avenue and consider
increasing the density to allow townhouses, co-housing, and/or
housing for the disabled. [(Previous Program L-42) (Complete)]
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
GOAL L-5 High quality employment districts, each with their own
distinctive character and each contributing to the character
of the city as a whole.
Policy L-5.1 Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages
facilitates transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. and Pprovide mixed
uses to reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands. [Previous
Policy L-42] [L94]
Policy L-5.2 Modify existing zoning regulations and create incentives for employers
to pro- vide employee services in their existing buildings—for example,
office support services, restaurants, convenience stores, public
gathering places, and child care facilities—to reduce the need for
employees to drive to these services. [Previous Program L-43]
Policy L-5.2 Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and
connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment
Districts. Pursue opportunities to build include sidewalks, paths, low
water use landscaping, reclaimed water, and trees and remove grass
turf in renovation and expansion projects. [Previous Policy L-43] [L95]
Policy L-5.3 Design the paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and
consistent with the character of the area where they are located.
[(Previous Program L-44) (Converted to Policy)] [L96]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-58 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-5.4 Develop the Stanford Research Park as a Foster compact employment
centers served by a variety of transportation modes. [Previous Policy
L-44] [L97]
Program L5.4.1 Create and apply zoning standards and design
guidelines for commercial hotels, and conference
centers, and possible residential or mixed-use
projects in Stanford Research Park, particularly near
El Camino Real. [Previous Program L-45] [L98]
Program L5.3.1Program L5.4.2 Evaluate the optimum number
of future hotel rooms for Palo Alto and consider
reductions in the allowable floor area ratio as
appropriate. [NEW PROGRAM] [L99]
Policy L-5.4 Develop Stanford Medical Center in a manner that recognizes the
citywide goal of compact, pedestrian-oriented development as well as
the functional needs of the Medical Center. [Previous Policy L-45]
Policy L-5.5 Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical
Center. [(Previous Program L-46)(Complete)]
Policy L-5.6Policy L-5.5 Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore
Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts,
consistent with the approved East Meadow Circle Concept Plan
(Appendix Y of this Comprehensive Plan). [Previous Policy L-46] [L100]
Consider the East Meadow Circle Area as a potential site for higher
density housing that provides a transition between existing housing
and nearby industrial development. [Previous Policy L-47]
Undertake a Community Design Workshop for the
East Meadow Circle Area. [Previous Program L-47]
Program L5.6.1 Implement the 2012 East Meadow Circle Concept
Plan (Appendix Y of this Comprehensive Plan)
when approving new development or other
improvements within the Plan area. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L101]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-59
GOAL L-6 Well-designed buildings that create coherent development
patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces.
DESIGN OF BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC SPACE
Policy L-6.1 Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is
compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. [(Comp
Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1) (Previous Policy L-48)]
[L102]
Program L6.1.1 Promote awards programs and other forms of
public recognition for projects of architectural merit
that contribute positively to the community.
[Previous Program L-53] [L103]
Policy L-6.2 Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design
guidelines, and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality
residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility.
[Previous Program L-48] [L104]
Policy L-6.3 Require bird-friendly design. [NEW POLICY] [L105]
Program L6.2.1Program L6.3.1 Develop guidelines for bird-
friendly building design that minimizes hazards for
birds and reduces the potential for collisions. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L106]
Policy L-6.3Policy L-6.4 In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design
character, encourage the design of new development to maintain and
support the existing character. [Note: This is labeled as a program in
the existing Comp Plan but should more accurately be a policy since
it is an ongoing statement to guide design.] [(Previous Program L-49)
(Converted to Policy) (Comp Plan Draft EIR as Mitigation Measure
AES-1.)] [L107]
Policy L-6.4Policy L-6.5 Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East
Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the
City.[Previous Policy L-3] [L108]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-60 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-6.5Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to revitalize complement streets and public
spaces; and to promote personal safety, public health and well-being;
and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an
ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along
public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid
blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details
and massing. [Previous Policy L-49] [L109]
Program L6.5.1Program L6.6.1 Ensure that the zoning
ordinance encourages an ordered variety of entries,
porches, windows, bays and balconies along public
ways where it is consistent with neighborhood
character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level;
and include human-scale details and massing.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L110]
Undertake a comprehensive review of residential and commercial
zoning requirements to identify additional architectural standards that
should be incorporated to implement Policy L-49. [(Previous Program
L-50) (Complete)]
Use illustrations and form code methods for simplifying the Zoning
Ordinance and to promote well-designed buildings. [(Previous
Program L-51) (Complete)]
Program L6.5.2 Maintain and periodically review height and density
limits to discourage single uses that are
inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding
uses. [Previous Program L-3]
Policy L-6.7 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 1-7 “approval” votes) Maintain the
current 50-foot height limit on building heights in Palo Alto. [NEW
POLICY] [L111]
Policy L-6.8 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 2-4 “approval” votes) Maintain a 50-
foot height limit on building heights in Palo Alto, but allow heights up
to a maximum of 55 feet for residential and retail mixed use projects
to allow flexibility in floor to ceiling heights and enhance the livability
in multi-family residential units. [NEW POLICY] [L112]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-61
Policy L-6.9 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 3-7 “approval” votes) Building height
limits up to a maximum of 65 feet may be considered for areas well-
served by transit, services and retail as a way to facilitate a mix of
multifamily housing, including affordable units, units targeted to
seniors and other special needs populations, and micro-units designed
to accommodate younger members of the workforce. [NEW POLICY]
[L113]
Program L6.9.1 Revise the Zoning ordinance to establish criteria
and conditions that must be met in order to allow
building heights up to 65 feet. Criteria shall address
affordability of the residential units; compatibility
with surrounding land uses; sensitivity to context;
proximity to transit, services and retail; and
mitigation or avoidance of adverse impacts on
traffic and parking conditions. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L114]
Policy L-6.10 (BUILDING HEIGHTS - OPTION 4-10 “approval” votes) Building height
limits over 50 feet may be considered for areas well-served by transit,
services and retail as a way to facilitate a mix of multi-family housing,
including affordable units, units targeted to seniors and other special
needs populations, and micro-units designed to accommodate
younger members of the workforce. [NEW POLICY] [L115]
Program L6.10.1 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to establish criteria
and conditions that must be met in order to allow
building heights higher than 50 feet. Criteria shall
address affordability of the residential units;
compatibility with surrounding land uses; sensitivity
to context; proximity to transit, services and retail;
and mitigation or avoidance of adverse impacts on
traffic and parking conditions. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L116]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-62 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-6.6Policy L-6.11 Promote gradual transitions in the scale of development
where residential districts abut more intense uses in order to minimize
negative impacts where land use transitions occur. Where possible,
aAvoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and
non-residential areas and between residential areas of different
densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between
land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations
rather than along streets wherever possible. [Previous Policy L-6]
[L117]
Program L6.6.1 Implement architectural standards to assure they
effectively address land use transitions. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L118]
Program L6.6.2 Review and change zoning regulations promote
gradual transitions in the scale of development
where residential districts abut more intense uses.
[Previous Program L-4]
Program L6.6.3 Establish new performance and architectural
standards that minimize negative impacts where
land use transitions occur. [Previous Program L-5]
Program L6.6.4Program L6.11.1 Revise the City’s
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service
Commercial (CS) zoning requirements to better
address land use transitions. [(Previous Program L-
6) (Complete)]
Policy L-6.7 Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for
single-family residences. [NEW POLICY] [L119]
Policy L-6.8Policy L-6.12 Enhance desirable characteristics in Create mixed use areas.
Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new
mixed use development that includesconsisting of housing and retail.
[Previous Policy L-9] [L120]
Program L6.8.1Program L6.12.1 Update the municipal code to
include zoning changes that allow a mix of retail
and residential uses but no office uses. The intent
of these changes would be to encourage a mix of
land uses that contributes to the vitality and
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-63
walkability of commercial centers and transit
corridors. [NEW PROGRAM] [L121]
Program L6.8.2Program L6.12.2 Create and apply the following
four new Mixed Use zoning standards: A
“Live/Work” designation that permits individuals to
live on the same site where they work by allowing
housing and other uses such as office, retail, and
light industrial to co-exist in the same building
space; and “Retail/ Office, “Residential/Retail,” and
“Residential/Office” designations that permit a mix
of uses on the same site or nearby sites. Develop
Modify design standards for all mixed use projects
designations providing for to promote a
pedestrian-friendly relationship to the street,
including elements such as buildings with one to
three stories, screened rear parking or underground
parking, street-facing windows and entries, and
landscaping, and trees along the streetzero setback
along the street, except that front gardens may be
provided for ground floor residential uses. [Previous
Program L-10] [L122]
Program L6.12.3 Consider revising development standards in the
Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and
Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS, and CD)
and the Neighborhood Commercial District (CN)
along El Camino Real to incentivize the conversion
of non-retail commercial FAR to residential use.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L123]
Program L6.8.3Program L6.12.4 Update the zoning code to
preserve ground-floor retail and limit the
displacement of existing retail from neighborhood
centers. [NEW PROGRAM] [L124]
Program L6.8.4 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view
of houses. [Previous Program L-52]
Policy L-6.9Policy L-6.13 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the
front of houses from the street. [(Previous Program L-52)(Converted
to Policy)] [L125]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-64 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-6.10Policy L-6.14 Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-
efficient, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with
aesthetic needs. [Previous Policy L-50] [L126]
GOAL L-7 Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s
historic buildings, sites, and districts.
HISTORIC CHARACTERRESOURCES
Policy L-7.1 Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources
that have historic merit, including residences listed in the City’s
Historic Resource Inventory, the California Register of Historical
Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. [Previous Policy
L-51] [L127]
Program L7.1.1 Review and update the City’s Inventory of historic
resources including City-owned structures. Update
and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory
to determine all historic resources that are eligible
for the California Register as well as important
examples of California history or prehistory. Historic
resources may consist of a single building or
structure or a district. [(Previous Program L-54)(
Draft EIR Mitigation Measure CULT-1b)] [L128]
Program L7.1.2 Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to
ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and
preservation of historic resources, particularly in the
University Avenue/Downtown area. [Previous
Program L-55] [L129]
Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordinances
to older buildings. Use the State Historical Building Code for
designated historic buildings. [Previous Program L-65]
Policy L-7.2 If a proposed development would affect a potential historic resource
that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory, consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in the
City’s Inventory prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations
permit. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
CULT-1b)] [L130]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-65
Maintain and strengthen the design review procedure for exterior
remodeling or demolition of historic resources. Discourage demolition
of historic resources and severely restrict demolition of Landmark
resources. [Previous Program L-56]
Policy L-7.3 Actively seek state and federal funding for the preservation of
buildings of historical merit and consider public/private partnerships
for capital and program improvements. [Previous Policy L-53] [L131]
Support the goals and objectives of the Statewide Comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan for California. [Previous Policy L-54]
Policy L-7.4 Relocation may be considered as a preservation strategy when
consistent with State and National Standards regarding the relocation
of historic resources. [Previous Policy L-55] [L132]
Policy L-7.5 To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown,
promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. [Previous
Policy L-56] [L133]
Policy L-7.6 Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition for
exemplary Historic Preservation projects. [(Previous Program L-
62)(Converted to Policy)] [L134]
Policy L-7.7 Streamline, to the maximum extent feasible, any future processes for
design review of historic structures to eliminate unnecessary delay and
uncertainty for the applicant and to encourage historic preservation.
[(Previous Program L-63) (Converted to Policy)] [L135]
Follow the procedures established in the State Public Resources Code
for the protection of designated historic buildings damaged by
earthquake or other natural disaster. [Previous Policy L-59]
REHABILITATION AND REUSE
Policy L-7.8 Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. [Previous Policy L-58] [L136]
Program L7.8.1 Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as
needed to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse,
particularly in retail areas. [Previous Program L-66]
Program L7.8.2Program L7.8.1 Develop incentives for the
retention and rehabilitation of buildings with
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-66 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
historic merit in all zones and revise existing zoning
and permit regulations as needed to minimize
constraints to adaptive reuse, particularly in retail
areas [(Previous Policy L-57) (Converted to
Program)] [L137]
Program L7.8.3Program L7.8.2 Create incentives to
eEncourage salvage and reuse of discarded historic
building materials. [Previous Program L-57] [L138]
Program L7.8.4Program L7.8.3 For proposed exterior
alterations or additions to designated Historic
Landmarks, require design review findings that the
proposed changes are in compliance with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation. [Previous Program L-58] [L139]
Policy L-7.9 Allow compatible nonconforming uses for the life of historic buildings.
[(Previous Program L-61) (Converted to Policy)] [L140]
Policy L-7.10 Ensure encourage the preservation of significant historic resources
owned by the City of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered
to meet contemporary needs consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for Rehabilitationonly if, provided that the
preservation standards adopted by the City Council are satisfied.
[Previous Policy L-52] [L141]
Policy L-7.11 Maintain the historic integrity of building exteriors. Allow Consider
parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation.
Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building
exterior will be maintained. [(Previous Program L-59)(Converted to
Policy)] [L142]
Program L7.11.1 Review parking exceptions for historic buildings in
the Zoning Code to determine if there is an
effective balance between historic preservation and
meeting parking needs [NEW PROGRAM] [L143]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-67
Policy L-7.12 Encourage and assist owners of historically significant buildings in
finding ways to adapt and restore rehabilitate these buildings,
including participation in state and federal tax relief
programs.[(Previous Program L-64) (Converted to Policy)] [L144]
Program L7.12.1 Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the
transfer of development rights from designated
buildings of historic significance in the Commercial
Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites
in the CD zone. Revise the TDR Ordinance so that
transferred development rights may be used only
for residential development on the receiver sites.
Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the
Downtown also qualify for this program. [Previous
Program L-60] [L145]
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy L-7.13 Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land
formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats, and
remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the
nineteenth century. [(Previous Policy L-60)(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure CULT-1c)] [L146]
Policy L-7.14 Continue to consult with tribes as required by California Government
Code Section 65352.3. In doing so, use appropriate procedures to
accommodate tribal concerns when a tribe has a religious prohibition
against revealing precise information about the location or previous
practice at a particular sacred site. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft
EIR Mitigation Measure CULT-3)] [L147]
Policy L-7.15 Using the archaeological sensitivity map in the Comprehensive Plan as
a guide, continue to aAssess the need for archaeological surveys and
mitigation plans on a project-by-project basis, consistent with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act. [Note: the referenced figure will likely be removed
from the Comp Plan to protect the integrity of known and
undiscovered archaeological resources.] [(Previous Program L-67)
(Converted to Policy)] [L148]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-68 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-7.15Policy L-7.16 Ensure that developers understand their obligation to meet
state codes regarding the identification and protection of
archaeological and paleontological deposits. [NEW POLICY] [L149]
GOAL L-8 Attractive and safe civic and cultural facilities provided in all
neighborhoods and maintained and used in ways that foster
and enrich public life.
Policy L-8.1 Facilitate creation of new parkland to serve Palo Alto's residential
neighborhoods, as consistent with the Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan. [NEW POLICY] [L150]
Program L8.1.1 Encourage dedication of new land for parks
through regulations and incentives for new
development and programs to solicit bequests of
land within the city. [NEW PROGRAM] [L151]
Program L8.1.2 Pursue opportunities to create linear parks over the
Caltrain tracks in the event the tracks are moved
below grade. [NEW PROGRAM] [L152]
Program L8.1.3 Explore ways to dedicate a portion of in-lieu fees
towards acquisition of parkland, not just
improvements. [NEW PROGRAM] [L153]
Program L8.1.1 Explore opportunities to dedicate City‐owned land
as parkland to protect and preserve its community
serving purpose into the future. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L154]
Program L8.1.2 Promote the use of community and cultural
centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other
community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that
they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a
variety of community services during both daytime
and evening hours. [Previous Policy L-61]
Program L8.1.3 To help satisfy present and future community use
needs, coordinate with the School District to
educate the public about and to plan for the future
use of school sites, including providing space for
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-69
public gathering places for neighborhoods lacking
space. [Previous Program L-68]
Program L8.1.4 Enhance all entrances to Mitchell Park Community
Center so that they are more inviting and facilitate
public gatherings. [(Previous Program L-69)
(Complete)]
Program L8.1.5Program L8.1.4 Study the potential for
landscaping or park furniture that would promote
neighborhood parks as outdoor gathering places
and centers of neighborhood activity. [Previous
Program L-70]
Policy L-8.2 Encourage use of data driven, innovative design methods tactics and
use data to understand to evaluate how different community
members use public space. [NEW POLICY] [L155]
Policy L-8.2 Use the work of artists, craftspeople, architects, and landscape
architects in the design and improvement of public spaces. [Previous
Policy L-74]
Policy L-8.3 Provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art
adjacent to library and community center entrances. [Previous Policy
L-62] [L156]
Policy L-8.4 Encourage small-scale local-serving retail services, such as small cafes,
delicatessens, and coffee carts, in cCivic cCenters: Mitchell Park,
Rinconada Library, and Cubberly Community Center. [Previous Policy
L-63] [L157]
Policy L-8.5 Create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban
public spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and
artistic events. [NEW POLICY] [L158]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-70 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-8.6 Promote and maintain Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a
community benefit. Encourage the development of new and the
enhancement of existing public and private art and cultural facilities
throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with
the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous
Policy L-72] [L159]
Policy L-8.7 Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces,
open space, and community gardens that encourage and support
pedestrian and bicycle travel and person-to-person contact, particularly
in neighborhoods that lack these amenities. [Previous Policy L-64]
[L160]
Policy L-8.8 Encourage religious and private institutions to provide facilities that
promote a sense ofcollaborate with the community and are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-65]
[L161]Public Ways
GOAL L-9 Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance
the image and character of the city.
GOAL L-10 Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps
frame and define the community while meeting the needs
of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.[(Previous Policy L-
66]
GOAL L-11GOAL L-9 Balance traffic circulation needs with the
goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed
and oriented towards pedestrians. [Previous Policy L-67]
[Covered in Transportation Element]
[Note: concepts above covered in more detail in the Transportation
Element under Goal T-3: Streets. To avoid redundancy, extra length,
and potential confusion, we suggest keeping them in Transportation
and deleting here].
Integrate creeks and green spaces with the street and
pedestrian/bicycle path system. [Previous Policy L-68] [Covered in
Transportation Element Policy T-1.18]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-71
STREETS AND PARKING
Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. [Previous Policy L69]
Policy L-9.1 Recognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue between Middlefield
Road and San Francisquito Creek, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road,
Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill
Expressway), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and
Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes and preserve their scenic qualities.
[(Previous Policy L-69) (Previous Program L-71)] [L162]
Program L11.1.1Program L9.1.1 Evaluate existing zoning code
setback requirements to ensure they are
appropriate for scenic routes. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L163]
Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground
wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas.
Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the
amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets,
street trees, a vibrant local economy, and sufficient parking to meet
demand. [Previous Policy L-78] [L164]
Policy L-11.2Policy L-9.3 Require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian
and bicycle safety. [NEW POLICY] [L165]
Policy L-11.3Policy L-9.4 Enhance tree health and the appearance of streets and other
public spaces through regular by expanding and
maintainmaintenanceing as well as Palo Alto’s street tree and
landscape planting and care of the existing canopy. system.. [Previous
Policy L-70] [L166]
Program L9.4.1 Continue to use the El Camino Real Design
Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance to enhance
the visual character of this corridor by addressing
appropriate sidewalk widths and encouraging
building forms, massing, and setbacks that relate to
the street and the pedestrian, whether through
traditional architectural forms or innovative new
designs. Consider whether sidewalk widths and
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-72 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
building setback should also be addressed along
other major thoroughfares such as Alma Street and
Charleston Road. [(NEW PROGRAM) (Comp Plan
Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L167]
Program L9.4.2 Involve tree owners in tree maintenance programs.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L168]
PUBLIC SPACES
Policy L-11.4Policy L-9.5 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering places and
open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales.
[NEW POLICY] [L169]
[Note: This Section Moved From Goal L-3 Residential Design]
Policy L-11.5Policy L-9.6 Create, pPreserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible,
shared outdoor the public gathering spaces within walking and biking
distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential
neighborhood has such spaces. [Previous Policy L-15] [L170]
Program L11.5.1Program L9.6.1 Analyze existing
neighborhoods and determine where publicly
accessible shared, outdoor gathering spaces are
below the citywide average. Create new public
spaces, including public squares, parks and
informal gathering spaces in these neighborhoods.
[NEW PROGRAM] [L171]
Policy L-9.7 Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood
amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street
trees, benches, and other amenities that promote walking and “active”
transportation. favor pedestrians. [Previous Policy L-17] [L172]
Program L11.5.2Program L9.7.1 Review standards for streets
and signage and update as needed to foster
natural, tree-lined streets with a minimum of
signage. [NEW PROGRAM] [L173]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-73
GATEWAYS
Policy L-11.6Policy L-9.8 Strengthen the identity of important community-wide
gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El
Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to
commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real, and
between Palo Alto and Stanford.[Previous Policy L-71] [L174]
Program L11.6.1Program L9.8.1 Develop a strategy to enhance
gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public
spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the
creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances
to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito
Creek. [Previous Program L-72] [L175]
Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in
connection with new development projects. Consider incentives for
including public art in large development projects. [Previous Policy L-
73]
Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking
behind buildings or underground wherever possible. [Previous Policy
L-75]
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to require the location of parking lots
behind buildings rather than in front of them, under appropriate
conditions. [Previous Program L-73]
Modify zoning standards pertaining to parking lot layout and
landscaping for land uses within Employment Districts. [Previous
Program L-74]
URBAN FOREST
Policy L-11.7Policy L-9.9 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan, as
periodically amended, into the Comprehensive Plan by reference in
order to assure that new land uses recognize the many benefits of
trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy
throughout the City. [NEW POLICY] [L176]
Program L11.7.1Program L9.9.1 Establish incentives to
encourage native trees, and low water use plantings
Photo by Scott Haefner—Courtesy of Canopy
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-74 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
in new development throughout the city. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L177]
Program L11.7.2Program L9.9.2 Require Update City
requirements regarding trees and other landscaping
that capture and filter stormwater within surface
parking lots to take advantage of new technology.
[(Previous Policy L-76) (Converted to Program)]
[L178]
Policy L-9.10 Involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development
review. [NEW POLICY] [L179]
Policy L-11.8 Recognize the urban forest as City infrastructure to be maintained in
accordance with applicable guidelines and requirements. [NEW
POLICY] [L180]
Policy L-11.9 Consider Zoning Ordinance amendments for parking lot landscaping,
including requiring a variety of drought-tolerant, relatively litter-free
tree species capable of forming a 50 percent tree canopy within 10 to
15 years. Consider further amendments that would require existing
nonconforming lots to come into compliance wherever possible.
[(Previous Program L-75) (Complete)]
Policy L-11.10 Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount
of land that must be devoted to parking, provided that economic
and traffic safety goals can still be achieved. [Previous Policy L-77]
Policy L-11.11 Evaluate parking requirements and actual parking needs for specific
uses. Develop design criteria based on a standard somewhere
between average and peak conditions. [Previous Program L-76]
Policy L-11.12Policy L-9.11 Revise parking requirements to encourage creative solutions
such as valet parking, landscaped parking reserves, satellite parking,
and others that minimize the use of open land for parking. [Previous
Program L-77]
[Note: Concepts above such as Parking requirements and creative
parking solutions addressed in Transportation Element under Goal T-
5: Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-75
Encourage the use of Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking
structures Downtown and in the California Avenue area. [(Previous
Program L-78) (inconsistent with current City practice)]
UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures,
parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design
standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities
to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or
mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or
visually disruptive. [Previous Policy L-79] [L181]
Policy L-11.13Policy L-9.12 Undertake a coordinated effort by the Public Works, Utilities,
and Planning Departments to establish design standards for public
infrastructure and examine the effectiveness of City street, sidewalk
and street tree maintenance programs. [(Previous Program L-79)
(Complete)]
Program L11.13.1Program L9.12.1 Continue the citywide
undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the
impacts of undergrounding on street tree root
systems and planting areas. [Previous Program L-
80] [L182]
Program L11.13.2Program L9.12.2 Encourage the use of compact
and well-designed utility elements, such as
transformers, switching devices, and backflow
preventers, and telecommunications infrastructure.
Place these elements in locations that will minimize
their visual intrusion. [Previous Program L-81]
[L183]
Policy L-9.13 Provide utilities and service systems to serve all urbanized areas of
Palo Alto and plan infrastructure maintenance and improvements to
adequately serve existing and planned development. [(NEW POLICY)
(PTC Policy L2.9, edited)] [L184]
Program L9.13.1 Develop an Infrastructure Master Plan that projects
the future needs of streets, underground utilities,
and all City assets and plans for the incorporation
of new technology that improves efficiency and
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-76 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
effectiveness. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC Program
L2.9.1)] [L185]
Program L9.13.2 Implement the findings of the City’s Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Committee and its emphasis for
rebuilding our civic spaces. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PTC
Program L2.9.8)] [L186]
Program L11.13.3Program L9.13.3 Identify City-owned properties
where combinations of wireless facilities can be co-
located, assuming appropriate lease agreements
are in place. [(NEW PROGRAM)(PTC Program
L2.9.5)] [L187]
BAYLANDS
Policy L-9.14 Regulate land uses in the Airport Influence Area to ensure consistency
with the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the
Baylands Master Plan. [NEW POLICY] [L188]
Policy L-11.14Policy L-9.15 Palo Alto is committed to preservation of the Baylands as
called for in the Baylands Master Plan, which is incorporated here by
reference. [NEW POLICY] [L189]
GOAL L-12GOAL L-10 Maintain an economically viable local
airport with minimal environmental impacts.
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
Policy L-12.1Policy L-10.1 Support the continued Operate Palo Alto Airport (PAO) as a
vitality and efficientectiveness facility at its current level of operation of
the Palo Alto Airport without significantly increasing its intensity or
intruding into open space areas. PAO The Airport should remain
limited to a single runway and two fixed base operatorsminor
expansion shall only be allowed in order to meet federal and State
airport design and safety standards. [(Previous Policy T-57)] [L190]
Program L12.1.1Program L10.1.1 Encourage Santa Clara County
to Rrelocate the terminal building away from the
Runway 31 clear zone and closer to the hangars,
allowing for construction of a new replacement
terminal. [(Previous Program T-58)] [L191]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
LAND USE DRAFT –NOVEMBER 28, 2016 L-77
Program L10.1.2 Update the Airport Layout Plan in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration requirements, as
needed, while ensuring conformance with the
Baylands Master Plan to the maximum extent
feasible. [NEW PROGRAM] [L192]
Program L12.1.2Program L10.1.3 Identify and pursue funding to
address maintenance, safety and security
improvements needed at PAO. [NEW PROGRAM]
[L193]
Policy L-10.2 Minimize the environmental impacts associated with PAO operations,
including adverse effects on the character of surrounding open space,
noise levels, and the quality of life in residential areas, as required by
federal and State requirements. [NEW POLICY] [L194]
Program L10.2.1 Establish and implement a system for processing,
tracking and reporting noise complaints regarding
local airport operations on an annual basis,. [NEW
PROGRAM] [L195]
Program L10.2.2 Work with the airport to pursue opportunities to
enhance the open space and habitat value of the
airport. These include:
maintaining native grasses;
reconstructing levees to protect the airport
from sea level rise while enhancing public
access and habitat conservation; and
evaluating the introduction of burrowing owl
habitat. This program is subject to federal
wildlife hazard requirements and guidelines
for airports. [NEW PROGRAM] [L196]
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
L-78 LAND USE DRAFT – NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Policy L-12.2Policy L-10.3 Provide public access to the Airport for bicyclists and
pedestrians. [NEW POLICY] [L197]
Program L12.2.1Program L10.3.1 Continue to pProvide a
planting strip and bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent
to Embarcadero Road, that is consistent with the
Baylands Master Plan and open space character of
the baylands subject to airport federal and State
regulations. [(Previous Program T-57)] [L198]
Policy L-10.4 Address the potential impacts of future sea level rise through
reconstruction of the Bayfront levee in a manner that provides
protection for the Airport and greater habitat along the San Francisco
Bay frontage. [NEW POLICY] [L199]
Policy L-10.5 Encourage the use of alternatives to leaded fuel in aircraft operating in
and out of Palo Alto Airport. [NEW POLICY] [L200]
Table 1: Growth Management Options and Choices (For Non-Residential Growth)
Source: Planning & Community Environment, October 2016
Cumulative Cap
(Amount of Development)
Annual Limit
(Pace of Development)
Downtown Cap
(Amount of Development)
Desired Approach
Implement a cumulative cap plus development
requirements and community indicators.
Implement a cumulative cap plus community
indicators but do not use development
requirements.
Don’t implement a cumulative cap. Use
development requirements and community
indicators instead.
Implement an annual limit
Don’t implement an annual limit
Maintain a downtown cap
Don’t maintain a downtown cap
Baseline √ Build on the 1989 land use study but use 2015
as the baseline and monitor from 2015
√ Resets annually √ Build on the current cap, but use 2015 as
the baseline and monitor from 2015
Applicable Area
√ Apply Citywide minus SUMC Apply citywide minus SUMC (3 votes)
Apply citywide minus Stanford Research Park
(SRP) and SUMC (12 votes)
√ Apply Downtown
Uses Affected Apply to office/R&D (13 votes)
Apply to office/R&D plus hotel (6 votes)
√ Apply to office/R&D Apply to office/R&D
Apply to office/R&D plus hotel
Numerical Cap Apply to office/R&D = 1.7M sf
Apply to office/R&D plus hotel = 1.7M sf plus
hotel cap to be determined though future study
√ Address what should happen when cap gets
close
√ Address zoned but unbuilt development
potential
Citywide including SRP = 50,000 sf Citywide +
[TBD] for SRP; allow SRP to rollover unused
square footage to future years
Citywide minus SRP = 50,000 sf with a trip cap
applied to SRP
Apply to Office/R&D = 45,619 sf
Apply to Office/R&D and Hotel = 45,619 sf +
50,000 sf
Consider exempting small offices
√ Address what should happen when cap gets
close
√ Address zoned but unbuilt development
potential
Exemptions √ Continue to exempt public facilities √ Continue exemptions from the interim
ordinance (offices <5K sf, medical offices ,2k sf,
city offices, accessory offices, and “self-
mitigating projects”)
Exempt small offices (< 5k sf)
Eliminate TDRs or use them for residential
square footage only
KEY: √ = CAC Consensus reached • = Options for consideration by City Council TBD = To Be Determined
Comments Received After September 20, 2016 CAC Meeting
The following documents are attached for your review and information:
1.CAC member Whitney McNair’s comments
2.CAC member Elaine Uang’s comments
Public Comments
1.Rita Vrehl
Attachment C - CAC/Public Comments and
9/20/16 CAC Meeting Minutes
Land, Buildings & Real Estate
3160 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304-8442
September 27, 2016
Ms. Hillary Gitelman
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Stanford University Comments on Annual Office/R&D Limit Proposal in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element
Dear Hillary:
As you are aware, the September 20, 2016 draft of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and
Community Design Element contains two options for an annual office and R&D growth limit, in
Policies L-1.14 and L-1.15 (p. L-31). Draft Policy L-1.14 would limit new office/R&D square
footage permitted in the City to 50,000 square feet annually outside the Stanford Research Park
and to a to-be-determined amount inside the Stanford Research Park. Draft Policy L-1.15 also
would limit new office/R&D square footage permitted in the City to 50,000 square feet annually,
but would exempt the Stanford Research Park from a limit “if a cap on peak period auto trips to
the Research Park is established and enforced.”
Stanford University could support a single policy, as set forth below, that consolidated and
revised the two current draft policies. The new proposed policy would limit annual net new
office/R&D square footage permitted in the City to 50,000 square feet and an additional 50,000
square feet within the Stanford Research Park, while also authorizing an exemption for the
Stanford Research Park, in whole or in part, should the City and Stanford reach agreement on
alternative means for addressing auto trips to and from the Research Park. Stanford’s proposed
Policy L-1.14 is as follows:
Limit the amount of net new office/R&D square footage permitted
in the City on an annual basis to 50,000 square feet outside the
Stanford Research Park and an additional 50,000 square feet inside
the Stanford Research Park. Allow unused development capacity
within the Stanford Research Park only to be carried forward to
future years. Stanford University Medical Center shall be exempt
from this annual limit. The Stanford Research Park, in whole or in
part, also shall be exempt from this annual limit if the City and
Stanford enter into a mutually acceptable agreement with defined
performance standards providing for alternative means of
addressing auto trips to and from the Research Park. Any such
agreement may not cause new or substantially more severe
significant environmental impacts than those that would be caused
under the annual limit. [NEW POLICY] [L23]
MS. HILLARY GITELMAN
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PAGE 2
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Whitney McNair, AICP
Director, Land Use Planning
Stanford University
cc: Tiffany Griego, Managing Director, Stanford Research Park, Stanford Real Estate
From:Lee, Elena
To:Costello, Elaine; Joanna Jansen; Moitra, Chitra
Subject:FW: Post: declining student enrollment
Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2016 11:07:24 AM
Attachments:FullSizeRender.jpg
FullSizeRender.jpg
From: Elaine Uang [mailto:elaine.uang@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 1:46 PMTo: Lee, ElenaSubject: Fwd: Post: declining student enrollment Hi Elena,
Given there was some discsusion on Tuesday about "school impacts" could you forward to the
CAC the following images of today's Daily Post article on school enrollment numbers? Theyhave been steadily declining for six years and are projected to continue declining. The article
also highlights the fact the number of 25-40 year olds has declined 7% in the last 10 years. This age group is the family formation cohort and if their numbers continue to dwindle,
PAUSD enrollment will continue to dwindle as well.
Elaine
From:Lee, Elena
To:Gitelman, Hillary; Costello, Elaine; Joanna Jansen; Moitra, Chitra
Subject:FW: CAC comments and Staff"s report sent to the City Council
Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:49:52 AM
From: Rita Vrhel [mailto:ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 9:10 AMTo: Lee, ElenaCc: Council, CitySubject: CAC comments and Staff's report sent to the City Council
Hello Elena....I attended the 9/20 CAC meeting and heard your request for letters by 9/27.
It was interesting how many on the CAC requested that all of their verbal comments and
written communication be included in the document sent to the City Council for their review.
Some members noted during Staff "editing" their comments were removed, which CACmembers indicated "skewed" the final document rather than being reflective of all CAC
statements.
At the 9/20 meeting CAC members were assured all their comments would be included and
sent to the City Council. I hope this occurs.
Inclusion of all comments is crucial as many in the community believe the CAC is a "puppet"
formed to advance certain agendas under the guise of of "community involvement". Theoriginal selection of CAC members supported this view; addition of other community
members resulted in a more balanced committee. But not including all CAC comments inyour report supports lingering "agenda" suspicions.
Over the last 4 months I have observed more and more CAC members become increasinglyconcerned with the waste of community groundwater occurring during residential basement
dewatering.
On 9/20 all but 2 CAC members (present) voiced their support for ending this wastefulprocess as California remains in a severe drought. Three (3) members even called for a
moratorium.
Please reflect these statements in your report to the City Council. Please call or email me ifyou have any questions regarding my comments.
Thank you.
Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM
Medical Case Management
Phone: 650-325-2298Fax: 650-326-9451
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AT PLACES MEMO
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
The following documents are attached for your review and information:
1.CAC member Steve Levy’s comments
2.CAC member Jennifer Hetterly’s comments
3.CAC member Bonnie Packer’s comments
4.CAC member Arthur Keller’s comments
5.CAC member Annette Glanckopf’s comments
Public Comments
1.Keith Bennett, Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
Steve Levy’s Comments
I want to thank staff and my subcommittee members for supporting two important
language/policy clarifications mentioned in our packet today,
One is clarifying that we support both traditional “affordable” housing meaning efforts at helping
low-income residents through public programs/polices like BMR units and also the concept of
making housing more affordable (increasing housing affordability) for residents who are not
wealthy but also not poor enough to qualify for public subsidy. Our adopted Housing Element
has policies for both concepts of increasing affordability and the Comp Plan should as well.
The second clarification with policy implications is distinguishing “performance requirements” for
new developments from the collection and use of community indicator data such as traffic
counts, water and energy use, school enrollment, road maintenance and the many other
community indicators in the S/CAP and sustainability committee work.
The important policy point is to keep focus not just on new development but on the large
potential but also heavy lifting needed to be done by existing residents, workers and
businesses in, for example, reducing car use or saving water and energy.
Attached below are two articles—one showing how new options like Lyft and Uber are allowing
residents to go car light in our allegedly worst car centric city Los Angeles—home of my birth.
People in Los Angeles Are Getting
Rid Of Their Cars
Instead, they’re riding Uber and Lyft to work.
Eric Spiegelman grew up in a six-car family in the San Fernando Valley and
has lived in Los Angeles for the majority of his life. At the end of May, he let
the lease on his Volkswagen CC expire, opting to live car-free in a city
synonymous with car culture. For the past three months, he’s been commuting
to and from work exclusively via Uber and Lyft — mostly using Pool and Line,
cheaper options that allow passengers to share trips with other riders on
similar routes.
“It ran so contrary to the culture that I’d been brought up in, and also my
sense of what was doable,” Spiegelman, 39, told BuzzFeed News. “It was the
most unnatural feeling thing at first. But it was so freeing.”
An understandable sentiment — after all, Spiegelman is president of the LA
Taxicab Commission.
Spiegelman had been studying the economics of riding Uber and Lyft versus a
taxi or driving a personal vehicle when he decided to run the math for his own
car. He made a spreadsheet outlining the cost of leasing his Volkswagen: $458
monthly for the lease itself, $158 for insurance, $70 for gas, and at least $72
for parking, for a total cost of about $758. Based on those calculations, he said
he has saved more than $1,100 in the last three months, spending an average
of $3.42 for each UberPool or Lyft Line ride to work in August.
Ride-hail companies are betting that in the future — particularly after the
introduction of self-driving cars — owning a car will become a thing of the
past. LA, a city long known for car dependency, sprawl, and gridlock, has
become a proving ground for this shift. More than a half-dozen Angelenos told
BuzzFeed News they have ditched their cars recently and instead rely on Uber,
Lyft, public transportation, bikes, and, for longer trips, ZipCar, Turo or similar
services. And they’re part of a growing movement that’s slowly reshaping the
Autopia that is LA. “If you think about it, the ideal form of public
transportation for LA is cars on demand.”
There were nearly 6.3 million cars registered in Los Angeles County from
January through December 2015, according to the California Department of
Motor Vehicles. Nearly 73% of workers ages 16 and older in LA County drove
to work alone in 2014, according to the most recent US Census Bureau data,
and 67% in the city of LA. Residents complained in an LA Times poll
conducted in September that traffic is their biggest concern. LA drivers spent
81 hours each sitting in traffic in 2015, more than drivers in any other US city,
according to the transportation analytics company Inrix.
“LA, that confluence of sort of an extremely high dependence on cars, a lack of
public transportation, does in fact make it very well suited to transition more
rapidly to Uber or Lyft,” said Arun Sundararajan, a New York University
professor and author of a book called The Sharing Economy. “If you think
about it, the ideal form of public transportation for LA is cars on demand.”
Lyft has grown 25-fold in LA since January 2014, the company told BuzzFeed.
Line, the cheaper ride-sharing option it introduced in LA in September 2014,
now accounts for 30% of rides. Derek Kan, Lyft’s general manager for LA, said
the “vast majority” of wait times are under 3 minutes, and that the highest-
volume passengers in the city take up to 200 rides a month.
Uber, which provides more than 150,000 rides in LA per day, has seen similar
popularity for Pool. About five months after Lyft launched Line in LA, Uber
launched UberPool. That ride-sharing service now accounts for 25% of trip
requests.
“I was actually surprised by how well Angelenos have adopted UberPool,”
Brian Hughes, Uber’s general manager for that market, told BuzzFeed. “We
knew as we were launching UberPool that we were asking for a significant
change in behavior from the Los Angeles population.”
It helps that rides can be dirt cheap. Compare the base UberX fares for several
cities: $2.55 in New York City, $2 in San Francisco, $1.15 in Washington, DC,
and $1.70 in Chicago, according to Uber’s fare estimator. And the minimum
fares: $8 in New York City, $6.55 in San Francisco, $6.35 in Washington, DC,
and $4.20 in Chicago.
In LA, the base fare for UberX is $0; the minimum fare is $5.15. The per-
minute rate is 15 cents and the per-mile rate is 90 cents, lower than the
corresponding rates for the other cities, except Chicago, which has the same
per-mile rate.
For UberPool and Lyft Line rides, which are shared with other passengers, the
cost goes down even further.
On average, choosing to share a ride with UberPool only adds about 4.2 extra
minutes to a rider’s trip, Hughes said. But Uber found that LA riders were
nervous that getting in a car with another passenger would make them late.
After finding that was a concern in other markets as well, Uber added “you’ll
arrive by” estimates to its app.
If there’s anything as frustrating as driving in LA, it’s parking there: The
city issues more than 2.5 million parking citations each year, raking in $165
million. Christian Nurse, a 36-year-old commercial and music video producer
who lives in the Fairfax District, had been living in LA for about 14 years by
the time Uber launched there in 2012. He was sick of all the parking tickets
that regularly collected on his Jeep Wrangler’s windshield.
“Having a car in LA is a giant pain in the ass. You’re always worried about it,”
Nurse said “It’s this giant expensive thing that you constantly need to be aware
of when you’re in it, when you’re not in it.”
Nurse did the math and realized even if he rode Uber everywhere, it would
cost him about the same amount as owning a car. So he sold the Jeep.
“I tell people I live in LA like it’s New York. Uber and Lyft are my public
transit station,” he said. “Before ride-sharing, I wasn’t really taking taxis
everywhere. It’s not like calling a taxi, and you have to give them your address,
and they’re dispatched out, and they’re more expensive.”
It’s worth noting that this is a relatively new phenomenon. In December 2014,
when the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University of
California, Berkeley, asked LA residents about their usage of Uber and Lyft,
they didn’t feel the same way.
“The focus group … told us that they use Uber and Lyft periodically for
commutes and for other trips, but that they did not use it, they would not sell a
vehicle, they would not rely upon it on a daily basis because of surge pricing
and the uncertainty of trip costs,” said Adam Cohen, a research associate for
the center who focuses on Southern California. “It would be good to get a
reassessment on that now.”
But that was just a few months after Lyft Line launched, and before the debut
of UberPool and the companies’ price wars to win market share.
Whether Uber and Lyft have made a significant dent on parking congestion in
LA is unclear. Donald Shoup, an urban planning professor at the University of
California, Los Angeles, who has studied parking in the city, said riding Uber
and Lyft round-trip is generally cheaper than owning a car and paying to park
it in LA. But he said it’s difficult to determine if it’s made finding parking any
easier, or rates cheaper in garages. Uber approached him to ask whether he
had studied if the company’s services reduced vehicle travel or parking
demand, but he said he didn’t have the evidence to answer the question.
The other article was an op ed in the Wall Street Journal on limiting jobs in Palo Alto.
In the Heart of Silicon Valley, They Don’t
Want New Jobs
Palo Alto is doing great, thanks. So please build your
affordable homes somewhere else.
By
Andy Kessler
Sept. 16, 2016 6:21 p.m. ET
196 COMMENTS
Palo Alto, Calif.
The capital of Silicon Valley is ready to abdicate. A few weeks ago, bizarre as it
might seem, Palo Alto Mayor Patrick Burt came out against jobs. “We’re looking to
increase the rate of housing growth,” he told Curbed San Francisco, “but decrease the
rate of job growth.”
Think about that. Almost every mayor in the U.S. is wracking his brain trying to
entice jobs into town. Yet Palo Alto—3.8% unemployment, a magnet for the geek
class, the place that nurtured Facebook —is telling everyone else to get lost.
I had to meet this guy. Near City Hall, I pulled my (proudly gas guzzling) car into a spot between a white Tesla and a black Tesla. This was the Coral parking zone, giving
me two hours before I had to move to the Lime zone. Nearby stood the Epiphany, a
new $800-a-night hotel, just down from the ancient House of Foam, fulfilling all your
polyurethane and polystyrene needs. Next to the Verizon Wireless store, the old Stanford Theater was showing a Ruth Chatterton double feature. Palo Alto, 65,000
people sitting on 26 square miles of some of the most valuable land anywhere, is certainly a town of contrasts.
The city doesn’t have a mayoral election. Instead, the council members, some of
whom identify as slow-growth “residentialists,” install one of their own as mayor for a
one-year term. Now it’s Patrick Burt’s turn, and he’s making the most of it. “Big tech
companies are choking off the downtown,” he told the New York Times.
Right before the mayor went rogue, one of the city’s planning commissioners, Kate
Downing, resigned in an open letter. Her family, she said, couldn’t afford to live in
Palo Alto any longer. She’s got a point.
Michael Dreyfus, a top real-estate agent in the area, says the cheapest home for sale is
a three-bedroom, one-bathroom, 959 square footer on about an eighth of an acre that
backs up to train tracks. The asking price (are you sitting down?) is $1.35 million. Or
he can sell you a place with five beds and four and a half baths on less than half an
acre for $17.5 million. OK, that one is in desirable Old Palo Alto, but it isn’t even that
old—no cobblestone streets or anything.
I wanted to ask Mayor Burt: Is stifling job creation really going to help? Or would that
only boost surrounding towns? Palo Alto has already capped the annual growth of
office space. It took years to approve a new $5 billion Stanford Hospital extension,
which the area desperately needed. Even worse, there is a funny quirk in the zoning
laws that limits what’s allowed in so-called Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development areas (downtown). This includes restrictions on research and
development, a catchall for limited manufacturing, “storage or use of hazardous
materials,” and “computer software and hardware firms.”
I can tell you outright that the only hazardous materials in an office of software coders
are their high-test caffeine concoctions. But the software firms are many. Amazon has
its search team in Palo Alto. The big-data firm Palantir has been gobbling up
buildings for its engineers. Facebook had several before moving to neighboring Menlo
Park. SurveyMonkey has a huge site near the train station.
Even Palo Alto’s residential areas are filled with startups, real-life versions of Erlich
Bachman’s house from HBO’s “Silicon Valley.” They’re easy to spot, having more
cars parked during the day than at night. These companies offer high-paying and productive jobs that are great for society.
Someone asked on Quora, the question-and-answer website—whose offices, not coincidentally, used to be right across the street from City Hall before being moved to
neighboring Mountain View—“Will Palo Alto Mayor Patrick Burt really be able to
ban tech companies?” One outlier’s answer included this line: “The way to moderate
housing prices in the face of growing demand is to . . . build more housing.”
Mayor Burt told Curbed San Francisco that he wants “metered job growth, and
metered housing growth.” To me, “metered” implies pay as you go. The city
government’s job should be to build out infrastructure to meet increased demand.
The thing is that Palo Alto has plenty of room. The city reaches from the San
Francisco Bay all the way up to the top of the hills holding back the Pacific Ocean.
The city says that only 0.5% of “developable land” is vacant. But that doesn’t tell the
whole story.
In 2011 residents passed a measure with 65% of the vote to take 10 acres of city
parkland and turn it into a composting facility. If my math is right, that’s enough room
for 80 “affordable” homes. Sounds like Palo Alto has room but chooses not to make it
available for anyone else. It’s not exactly NIMBY—Not In My Back Yard. But
maybe IGMYOOL—I Got Mine, You’re Out Of Luck. That’s the definition, I
suppose, of a residentialist.
Even downtown has room: upward. Most buildings are two stories, maybe three. Only
one, filled with lawyers and venture capitalists, hits 15 stories. Though there’s also
City Hall, which is eight floors. I took the elevator to the seventh to see if I could drop
in on Mayor Burt. Turns out mayor is a part-time job. Mr. Burt’s full-time gig is
running a medical-technology company doing research and development in . . . Palo
Alto. Hmmm.
Mr. Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager, is the author of “Eat People” (Portfolio, 2011).
Hetterly 9/20/16 1
Land Use Comments 9/20/16 Jennifer Hetterly Firstly, I’d like to clarify that the Land Use Subcommittee’s review of the draft development requirements and community indicators was cursory. We received the language at places, therefore Subcommittee input to the draft reflects only brief, on the fly discussion.
CUMULATIVE CAP OPTIONS Policies L1.10 [L15] and L1.11 [L16] The options presented are a little confusing. One proposes an exemption for SUMC, but says nothing about hotels, while the other suggests an additional hotel cap, but says nothing about SUMC. Perhaps it would be clearer to offer one citywide cap policy, followed by outstanding policy questions listed below it as follows: “Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet of office/R&D development. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis. Regularly assess the effectiveness of development requirements and community indicators and remove or adjust the cap and/or development requirements accordingly.
• Should SUMC be exempt from the citywide cap?
• Should hotel square footage be included in the citywide cap?
o If so, should the total square feet allowed under the cap be increased to accommodate an appropriate amount of hotel development?”
Policy L1.12 (cumulative cap exemptions) Lists exemptions for medical and institutional uses. Needs clarification. Given option in L1.10 to specifically exempt SUMC, is the additional medical exemption here intended to address PAMF and it’s ilk, or smaller medical office? Also, is Stanford Research Park considered institutional use? Private schools? I would oppose exempting private schools. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNITY INDICATORS References to “maintain” or “protect” livability suggest that we’re currently at the high point for quality of life. Given significant dissatisfaction with existing traffic,
Hetterly 9/20/16 2
parking, and housing affordability, among other indicators, those terms should be replaced with “improve” as noted below. Both Options 1 and 2 completely lack enforcement mechanisms. A program should be added to both (or alternatively to the “Cumulative Cap and Development Requirements Implementation Programs”) that will monitor compliance and set and enforce penalties, such as: “Monitor project compliance with development requirements (annually?) and enforce penalties as appropriate.” I support Option 2 to provide detail and specificity. Didn’t like the topics identified in Program L1.17.2 (particularly absence of traffic and parking). At the same time, I don’t like all the items listed in the two tables. The “such as” language in the option 2 program suggests an intent that the tables offer a starting point for considering appropriate requirement/indicators, not a requirement that those topics, and only those, become the final requirements/indicators. With that understanding, the Tables offer much more guidance to staff and clarity/confidence to the public about what we hope to achieve through the requirements/indicators. Revise language of L1.17.2 [L40]: “Create development requirements that protect livability and the environment by addressing additional topics such as reducing trips, preserving and facilitating affordable housing and preservation of the tree canopy as those shown on Table L-1.” Revise language of L1.18.1 [L42]: “Develop community indicators for topics such as greenhouse gas emissions, transportation… those listed in Table L-2.
Table L-1 Reference to ensuring consistency with “current targets” under “Existing Development Standards” is vague. Targets for what? Goals and policies of the Comp Plan? Isn’t there something in Existing Development Standards that addresses localized traffic impacts and/or LOS? Or does (did) that analysis only come in through CEQA process? If the former, that should be added to Table L-1.
Table L-2 Should have an intro that puts the list in context, like Table L-1 does. Suggest: “While development requirements are designed to reduce and manage the community impacts of individual developments, community indicators set targets and monitor success in managing cumulative impacts of citywide development.”
Hetterly 9/20/16 3
Add LOS to Corridor Travel Times measure or as a stand alone. I’ll say again, jobs/housing ratio is not an appropriate livability index. To my knowledge, achieving balance is not a goal realistically considered by any City decisionmaker, but there is no other target identified. Achieving balance could require more than doubling the total resident population and quadrupling the cumulative housing built over the past 45 years. Negative livability impacts are potentially massive. A much better jobs/housing measure would be the ratio of
jobs growth to housing growth. Metrics for Percent and Number of Commute Trips are swapped. Add measure for groundwater interference/depletion.
Policy L1.17 (in both options, [L32, L38]): “Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain improve Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts….”
Program L1.17.1 (in both options [L33, L39]): Review and refine both new and existing development requirements that address topics such as energy, water … to ensure they are effective at achieving the highest quality development neighborhoods and centers with the least impacts….”
Program L1.17.2 [L34]: Create development requirements that protect improve livability and the environment by addressing additional topics such as reducing car trips, traffic congestion, and spillover parking, preserving and facilitating affordable housing and preservationing and increasing of the tree canopy.
Policy L1.18 (in both options [L35, L41]) Seems to be addressing both purpose of community indicators and need for transparency (tho no transparency called for in creating the indicators!). Suggest rewording second part and possibly moving it into new, separate policy: “Community indicators will be developed, and monitoring data will be collected in a transparent manner. Results will be published in a clear, user-friendly, easy-to-understand document.”
Add a program before or after Program L1.18.2 (in both options [L37, L43])
Hetterly 9/20/16 4
“Based on monitoring of community indicators, periodically consider whether to adjust development requirements to more effectively achieve livability goals.”
BASEMENTS Basement bedrooms invite future conversion to non-conforming use (e.g., transient occupancy, multi-family use). This can result in occupant density in excess of area maximums, reduction in single family housing stock and increased burdens on public resources without associated revenue to the City. Furthermore, when legally compliant, such uses enjoy the protections of heightened fire, flood, safety and accessibility regulations. Those protections directly serve the building’s inhabitants while also protecting the broader community through careful management of costs, risks and impacts. By turning a blind eye to likely future conversions under the guise of single family design review, we are tacitly approving housing arrangements that lack those protections - consigning future residents to less safe conditions and taxpayers to unanticipated costs and impacts. That outcome is exacerbated when residential basements are constructed in areas at increased risk of flood due to climate change and/or nearby basement construction, including several areas of the City that are not currently considered flood zones. The FAQ submitted by “Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater” is extremely informative and identifies several other areas of concern related to groundwater, soil impacts, flooding and stormwater management costs. I encourage all CAC members to read it. With residential basement construction on the rise (14 sites in 2015), escalating housing costs increasing incentives for illegal conversions, and continuing drought and climate change, the issues associated with basements are becoming increasingly urgent. They should not be an afterthought in this Comprehensive Plan.
Program L3.9.1 [L63]: Revise program as below, along with an added reference to stormwater management (either as natural environment or safety issue). Develop a program to a Assess and manage both the positive and negative impacts of basement construction in single family homes on the community and the environment, including: Land use issues: Evaluate the City’s policy of excluding basements from the gross floor area and maximum floor area ratio limits in the zoning ordinance. Consider zoning revisions to limit excess occupancy, redefine flood zones to reflect impacts of climate change and groundwater impedence, and prescribe construction practices that reduce groundwater displacement as well as including greater setbacks to limit
Hetterly 9/20/16 5
basement size and increase basement setbacks from reduce impacts on adjacent properties…. Finally, I would support a moratorium until more rigorous regulations are in place as well as additional policies prohibiting basements (and especially basement bedrooms) within flood zones (as redefined through Program L3.9.1 [L63]), and limiting commercial basement construction located underneath sidewalks.
Outstanding Land Use Element Issues I support items 1, 2, 10, 11 and 17.
Other Policies/Programs Program L1.3.1 [L4]: Work with neighbors, neighborhood associations, property owners, and developers to identify barriers to infill development of below market rate and more affordable market rate housing and to remove these barriers. Work with these same stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate opportunities for below market rate housing and housing that is affordable to median and moderate income residents. Policy L1.7 [L9]: Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. Program L1.16.3 [L28]: Remove reference to “hotel square footage” re small office exemption under the Downtown Cap. Policy L2.3 [L47]: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller units, BMR units and senior housing.” Add new program L3.2.1A: “Scrutinize development in residential zones for features likely to result in occupancy that exceeds area maximums.”
Bonnie Packer’s Comments on the September draft of the Land Use and Community Design Element. 9/19/16 My congratulations to the subcommittees that developed this draft. It is much more cohesive and forward looking. Just a few general comments: The Staff Report observes that Coordinated Area Plans (CAPs) are time and resource intensive. That is the cost of good planning. There needs to be political will to do CAPs along with a recognition that the expenditure of time and resources is a worthwhile, if not a critically important, investment. The sections in Goal 4 of the element that discuss CAPs should each refer back to the Development Requirements in Table L-1: South El Camino Corridor, Fry’s, California Avenue. The introduction and Policy L-1.17 that the Development Requirements and the Community Indicators are a way to maintain Palo Alto’s “Livability” is a totally
subjective term. I urge that term “livability” be deleted entirely as follows: (Introduction) COMMUNITY INDICATORS Maintaining and improving Palo Alto ’ s livability will demand more than applying… Policy L-1.17 (development requirements) Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The suggested community indicators are excellent, except for PAUSD Class Size. An optimal class size depends on the grade, the subject and many other factors. The issue of overcrowding, which this measure seems to want to get at, could be addressed with the PAUSD satisfaction measure. I also recommend that the List in Table L-2 on community indicators be organized more logically into related groupings. Goal L-6 about the design of buildings should also refer back to the Development Requirements in Policy L-1.17. Policy L-9.2 about parking in developments should cross ref to Policy L-1.17 and to the relevant sections of the Transportation element. Finally, I do not agree with most of the outstanding issues on pages 6-7 of the staff report, for the reasons briefly explained below.
1. There may be areas where a hotel next to a residential area would be ok, if planned well. Blanket prohibitions are not necessary. The zoning code addresses transition issues. 2. Not all areas that have been zoned for retail or really good for retail. Times have changed and so has the retail world. 3. In a multifamily development, a good design may require that some units do not face the street. The change proposed here would be too restrictive. 4. Traffic lights belong in the Transportation element 5. Downtown attracts a regional crowd. Don’t ignore reality. 6. Reusing parking lots at Stanford Shopping center is an excellent idea. Why delete it? 7. Eichlers already have CC&Rs to protect them, as well as the single story overlay process. You don’t need to have a program for this. 8. Office in mixed use: there may need to be some clarification that small offices related to residential portion may be allowed. 9. I think the last sentence about ensuring that each residential neighborhood has parks had been removed. 10. It is not necessary to move the school impact items from Community Facilities Element. 11. Requirements for conditional use permits are set forth in the zoning code. It is not necessary here. 12. I don’t see why the phrase- allowing for replacement or rehab of smaller buildings in Cal Ave area - is a problem. 13. The zoning code probably already prohibits housing in Charleston Plaza – but if it is prohibited in Town & Country, it could be prohibited here. There is no room for housing there anyway. 14. It is a good idea to streamline design review processes. 15. Requiring historic structures to comply with parking requirements will create a catch -22 for these buildings. 16. Why would anyone not see public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit? This statement is not in the context of a PC zone issue. 17. No comment until we see the language.
CAC Comments Sept 20, 2016
Annette Glanckopf
1) There are many photos. Make sure they have a caption
2) Page 4: Housing”
a. Raise BMR requirements to 25%
b. It is not my concern that “Excessive BMR units will stifle housing”. I do not
remember this being a key issue
3) Page 5: Memorial park: add police officers and fire fighters
4) Page 5: Coordinated area plans: no sense of urgency. I am concerned by the time the comp
plan gets approved and council priorities coordinated area plans, that development will be
underway
5) Staff comments on land use element issues
a. Some items do not have placement such as traffic lights
b. Eichler neighborhoods program is in wrong place and there is nothing about IR
c. On point of prohibiting housing in Charleston center, add Midtown as well (see my
point 14)
d. Just curious as to why the sentence was removed “ recognize public art and cultural
facilities as a community benefit”
6) Open space
a. Limit size of homes
b. Make our comp plan compatible with Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan
7) Page 11: zoning issue. If use of fireplaces is prohibited, can we prohibit chimneys in new
buildings?
8) Page 11: Noise: Prohibit gas leaf blowers
9) Page 12: Light pollution: Needs to be addressed in zoning…as well for need for strong code
enforcement
10) Page L 11: Under Development Requirements” this program adds ..new “Better stronger
faster development requirements: These adjectives don’t work together. IMHO better and
stronger don’t work with faster. Remove word faster.
11) Page L 19: Why call out building intensities for non-residential uses are expressed in terms
of FAR. I would eliminate non-residential…since commercial development also is regulated
by FAR
12) Page L 24: My vote is for the second option under child care
13) Page L 29: Cumulative cap: My vote: Policy L 1.11 with no on Program L.1.12 (L 18)
a. Medical offices should not be eliminated from cap.
14) Page L 30: Program L1.12.2: IF development requirements change, they should be reviewed
after the first year and every other year after that
15) Page L 30 Cumulative cap and Development – Implementation
a. Program L1.12.3 This addresses housing in T&C. Add ”no housing in Charleston plaza
or Midtown Center.” Also on Page L-46 under Neighborhoods Centers
16) Page L 30: Where is Program L1.13.1-L1.13.3 ?
17) Annual Limit Options
a. My vote is Policy L.1.15
18) Downtown Cap:
a. My vote is L1.16.4 with second Choice L1.16.2
19) Page L-32
a. Program L1.16.5: Wouldn’t it just be easier to change zoning to include housing in
the CD district? Not sure what is meant by “some non-retail” and what would be the
criteria for selecting these areas?
20) Development Requirements and Community Indicators
a. My vote is for Option 1.
b. In Program L1.17.1 and Policy L.1.18: Documents/reports should be online with
some copies available. I would remove wording about documents and say results
published in a clear, user friendly manner
21) Page L 35
a. Add to development requirements “fencing” to neighborhood compatibility and
building design
b. Page L 37: Monitoring suggested for community indicators is too infrequent, esp at
beginning
22) Page L 38: Under Policy L.2.2 Program L2.2.2 No retail in neighborhoods. Only exception
would be d’town where they are already
23) Pages L 44- L-46: To me: Regional Centers, Multi-neighborhood Centers and Neighborhood
centers should be larger and highlighted
24) Page L46: Neighborhood Centers; Here is where the text should be added: no housing in
Charleston and Midtown Centers.
25) Page L 49: Building Heights
a. My vote Policy L.6.7
b. This should be presented, not by votes but a majority/minority opinion
26) I do not think Eichler fit under building heights. I think there should be separate policy for
development of Eichler standards and also a policy on development standards using IR .
Maybe these should be a program under Policy L.6.12
27) Page L 55: Why is Development of Lubberly not mentioned.
28) Page L 57: Program L 9.4.2 change wording to read “ Develop a program to involve…”
29) Page L 57: Program L9.6.1: Add word “amenities “
30) Page L 58. Program L9.9.1 incentive for native trees….in new development ..add remodeling
or dying trees
31) Page L59: Add Program L9.13.1 Call out “Fiber to the home “
Land, Buildings & Real Estate
3160 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304-8442
132654069.3
September 12, 2016
Land Use and Community Design Comments
Whitney McNair, Director Land Use Planning, Stanford University
Comments on September 7 Proposal
On September 7, Arthur Keller made a proposal to the CAC Land Use Subcommittee that would exempt the
Stanford Research Park from possible Comprehensive Plan limits on annual office development “in exchange
for achieving binding targets for reductions in traffic at key intersections, as well as required mitigating other
impacts of employment and office growth.” Mr. Keller’s letter also proposed a Comprehensive Plan program
that would provide: “The City and Stanford University shall enter into an agreement” specifying certain items
relevant to accomplishing the objective described above.
Stanford appreciates the thought Mr. Keller has given to the unique nature of the Stanford Research Park and
its customized Transportation Demand Management program. We believe Mr. Keller’s proposal merits
consideration in concept, and we continue to assess it carefully.
While Stanford needs more time to comment on the details of the proposal, we can provide some comments
now and can recommend a modified approach we believe would be feasible.
Under Mr. Keller’s plan, the City and Stanford would be required to enter into an agreement to implement the
proposed Comprehensive Plan policy. By law, a Comprehensive Plan policy or program cannot bind the City
to reach a future agreement. The City must reserve its right to determine whether to enter into an agreement
with Stanford. By the same token, the City also cannot require a private entity to enter into a voluntary
agreement.
To address this concern, the proposed policy instead could be worded conditionally, providing that, in the
event Stanford and the City were to reach mutual agreement, Stanford Research Park projects would be
exempt from certain growth limits. This framework would empower the City to agree, as desired, to tailored
approaches that could ensure the City’s trip reduction goals are achieved while alleviating the threat strict
limitations would pose to the economic vitality of the Stanford Research Park.
We have one additional preliminary comment on Mr. Keller’s proposal. As written, the policy would mandate
reductions in traffic at “key intersections,” presumably near the Stanford Research Park. Stanford cannot
control traffic volumes at intersections near its property, as a significant percentage of trips are generated by
uses unrelated to Stanford. To illustrate why this policy would not achieve its intended effect, consider that,
even if the Stanford Research Park were to achieve deep reductions in trips, significant new development on
nearby, non-University property nonetheless could result in a net increase in traffic at monitored intersections.
CAC Packet Page 455 of 459
2
132654069.3
In any agreement between Stanford and the City, the parties would want to identify a metric tailored to the
specific outcomes that Stanford and its tenants can control.
To address the issues raised above, and to allow the parties to any agreement the flexibility to craft
satisfactory alternative arrangements, Stanford suggests allowing project proponents to seek agreement with
the City on to-be-negotiated terms, provided environmental effects are not made worse. Accordingly, we
propose that further consideration of proposals motivated by Mr. Keller’s approach focus on the following
revised policy:
Policy. Allow Stanford University and/or tenants at the Stanford Research Park to
be exempt from any Comprehensive Plan annual growth limits and limits on land
use conversion by entering into a mutually acceptable agreement with defined
performance standards providing for alternative means of reducing vehicle trips
and the effects of employment growth that would apply to a specified project,
projects, or geographic area at the Stanford Research Park. Such an arrangement
may not cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts
than those that would be caused by implementation of the Comprehensive Plan
growth limitations absent the agreement. Subject to the above limitation, the City
has discretion to determine whether and on what terms to enter into an
agreement.
Policy L-1.20 Community Performance Measures
Stanford requests that the City review the Community Performance Measures described in Table L-2 of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan to ensure that the Measure and Target are consistent and the performance data
can be collected and reported in a meaningful way. The Measure of SOV use is a common and reasonable
measurement of the effectiveness of employer TDM efforts and is typically determined using an employee
survey. The Target of a reduction from ITE standards is a trip-based standard that is most often measured
using automated counters placed at driveway entrances. ITE has different measurements, including peak hour
of the generator, peak hour and daily trips. Therefore, the Target and Measure described in Table L-2 are not
directly related to each other and rely on different data collection techniques.
Policy L-6.13 and Program L6.13.1
The City should consider allowing office within a mixed use development. There may be instances where a mix
of uses that include office together with retail, services, or housing is appropriate. For example, Palo Alto
Square has office uses and a theater. Stanford Barn has offices, restaurants and retail. Stanford Shopping
Center has some offices together with retail. Prohibiting office altogether limits options which might be
appropriate in certain locations.
Map Comments
Map L-2. It appears that Map L-2, Stanford University Land Use Designations, is meant to show the land
use designations for Stanford’s lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. However, the “Medical
Center” and “Shopping Center” are both located within the City of Palo Alto and are shown on the map.
Other uses within the City limits on Stanford’s lands, like those of Stanford West and the Stanford
CAC Packet Page 456 of 459
3
132654069.3
Research Park are not on this map. Those lands within the City limits should be removed from the map to
avoid confusion and inconsistencies.
Map L-3. Since the Comprehensive Plan references the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement,
the boundary of the “Stanford Medical Center” should follow the area covered by the SUMC Development
Agreement to avoid any inconsistencies.
Map L-5. The areas along Sand Hill Road and the Stanford Research Park should be treated like the rest of
the city. It is unclear why they are a different base color. Those lands are within the City limits.
Map L-6. Stanford’s lands within unincorporated Santa Clara County are depicted on Map L-2 and should
not be replicated on this map.
Map L-6 identifies lands outside of the City limits and outside the Sphere of Influence. The Comprehensive
Plan will not govern or affect Stanford lands in the unincorporated Santa Clara County during the applicable
planning horizon. If the City shows land use designations on any of Stanford’s lands in unincorporated Santa
Clara County, it would be for reference only, should be labeled as such, and should be consistent with the
County’s land use designations. The City should not give a land use designation for any lands outside their
Sphere of Influence.
As drafted, the land use designations for Stanford’s lands, as identified in the legend, are inconsistent with the
Land Use Designations in the text of the Comprehensive Plan.
CAC Packet Page 457 of 459
Frequently Asked Questions
Underground (Basement) Construction and Groundwater
Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater
Prepared by Keith Bennett
This document is intended to provide factual information on the impacts of underground construction
on groundwater specifically relevant to Palo Alto. Technical references are available upon request.
Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater is only concerned with underground construction that impacts
groundwater, either during or after construction. Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater does not have a
position on underground construction that does not impact groundwater levels, storage or flows.
Underground construction affects groundwater both
a.during construction (when groundwater is pumped during the construction process) and
b.after construction, where underground construction extending into the water table reduces
stormwater handling capabilities of the soils
This FAQ is organized into 3 sections:
I. Pumping groundwater for underground construction (dewatering)
II.Impacts of underground construction on stormwater handling abilities of soils
III.Palo Alto’s groundwater facts
Pumping groundwater for underground construction (“Dewatering”)
1.How much water is pumped to construct residential basements?
This year (2016) is the first year that Palo Alto required measurement of the amount of groundwater
pumped for basement construction. Official measurements are available for the first site only, and
totaled 30.88 million gallons (approximately 95 acre-feet). Placed on a 10,000 square foot lot, this
water would be about 400 feet deep, or about 300 – 400 years of rainfall on the same lot. Used for
irrigation, this is enough water to irrigate about 1,000 average single family residences in Palo Alto
for one year, and would certainly be more than enough to irrigate all of Palo Alto’s parks for a year.
If we assume that this particular site was twice the average amount pumped, then the total pumped
across the City for 14 dewatering sites (the number in 2015) would be approximately 14 x 95 x 50%
= 215 million gallons (= 665 acre-feet).
2.How does the amount of water pumped compare to the amount of water is recharged from
precipitation in Palo Alto annually?
Based upon the Todd Groundwater study for East Palo Alto’s Groundwater Management Plan
(2015), 665 acre-feet is roughly the total amount of water recharged annually through precipitation
in Palo Alto.
3.How much of pumped groundwater is used?
The city requires measurements of the amount of water used through the hose bibs truck fill
stations required at dewatering sites. These measurements indicate that 1 – 2% of the water is
used. The remaining 98 – 99% is discarded to the storm drains.
4. Couldn’t more water be used?
Improving the pumps used to fill the tank trucks, ensuring higher pressures in the hose bibs would
increase the amount of water used and requiring applicants to pay for water distribution every day
could likely increase water use ten-fold or greater. The City currently requires trucking only one day
pre week at “applicant” expense. Water can also be recharged locally through percolation.
5. Doesn’t the Santa Clara Valley District charge for groundwater pumping?
Yes, the charge for groundwater pumping in Palo Alto is about $1,105 per acre-foot. 30.88 million
gallons would cost about $105,000. However, SCVWD provides an exemption for “nuisance water,”
and construction dewatering is exempted from these fees. Residents who want to pump
groundwater for irrigation must make wells at least 50 feet deep, and seal the wells to prevent
contamination, in addition to paying for the water.
6. Is it necessary to pump so much water for underground (basement) construction?
No. There are proven methods using cut-off walls, either using bentonite clays or slurries or sheet
piles. It may still be necessary to pump some water that leaks through the cut-off walls, but done
properly, it is a small fraction of the water pumped using the methods currently used in Palo Alto,
and this water could readily either be entirely used or replaced into the soils.
7. Palo Alto land owners are required to pay a storm drain fee. Are contractors required to pay for
use of the storm drains, which require maintenance and pumping at the Bay?
No. Point-source discharges (such as dewatering sites) are not charged additionally for use of the
storm drains. In 2015, dewatering likely put ½ as much water into the storm drains as from all
streets combined.
8. Didn’t the City commission a consultant’s report that showed that dewatering didn’t have
significant impacts?
Yes, the City received a report by EIP Associated in 2008. Public Works no longer believes that this
report is useful for policy, as the assumptions used in the report do not correspond to current
conditions, and the report included no measured data. For example, the report assumed that a
typical residential dewatering site would pump 8 – 10 million gallons, but the actual amount
pumped is greater than 3X as much, and the pumping rates 3 – 5 times higher. In addition, the
report assumed that only “a few” dewatering operations would occur in any year. In 2015, 14 sites
were dewatered. The report estimated that the water table would be “temporarily” lowered by a
few inches, and only within a few 10’s of feet of the dewatering site. Actual measurements show
that the water table was lowered by over 5 feet more than 100 feet from the dewatering site, and
about 3 feet over 250 feet from the dewatering site.
9. The City enacted new regulations for dewatering in 2016. Didn’t these address the issue?
Partially. The new regulations limit the number of days for dewatering at each site to 70 days.
Pumping longer than 70 days incurs a penalty, which is imposed at the discretion of Public Works.
This has reduced the total amount of water pumped. The City has also required measurement of
the amount of water pumped; for the first time, there quantitative data is available. However, there
are no restrictions on the total amount of water pumped, either for a single site or collectively, and
current practices still result in groundwater pulldown of several feet well beyond the boundaries of
the construction location.
Impacts of underground construction on stormwater handling by soils
1.Does underground construction have impacts on the groundwater handling capability of our soils?
Yes, there are two impacts:
a.The ability of the soil to absorb water in the immediate area is reduced if the construction is
impermeable, and
b.The water level needs to increase to maintain the same flows through the soil, as the
underground construction has the same effect as dams.
2.Isn’t the water displaced by the basement just distributed to a wider area?
The impacts of a single basement are not large. However, just as a small area of impervious surfaces
does not significantly affect the load on the storm drain system, the cumulative impacts on the
storm drain system of multiple sites with impervious surfaces are significant. Similarly, the
cumulative impacts of underground construction can be significant. If every home has a basement
that covers 40% of the lot area (including light wells), and the construction extends into the water
table, the local storage capacity of water on the lot is reduced by 40% (saturate soils cannot absorb
additional water). If all of the properties have similar underground construction, the storage
capacity of the larger area is significantly reduced.
3.Does underground construction affect groundwater levels?
The impacts are most significant during storms when stormwater is flowing through the soils,
including increasing the risks of flooding if the soils become saturated to the surface (i.e.
groundwater rises to the surface). For example, the “normal” winter groundwater level in the area
of Webster and N. California is about 10 feet below ground surface. During the heavy rains in 1998,
the groundwater temporarily rose 6 feet (to about 4 feet below ground surface). The water level
dropped about 2 feet as the water flowed for several days after the rain stopped. Underground
constructions are like “dams” that impede the underground flows (technically, the average soil
“transmissivity” is reduced). Therefore, a greater slope of the water level is required to maintain the
same flow rate. As the highly permeable section of the aquifer is generally shallow (typically the top
30 feet or so), building basements in most properties could increase the slope by 25%; that is, at a
location where the water table rose 6 feet during a heavy storm would rise 25% more, or 7.5 feet.
For a single property the difference is water levels is perhaps ½” across the property, but the
cumulative impacts of all properties to the Bay can be significant.
The geotechnical report for the construction of the basement at 736 Garland states that the water
table at that location in spring 2015 was 6.5 feet below ground surface, but, in the experience of the
geotechnical firm, water levels can rise to 3.5 feet below ground surface during heavy storms.
During periods of time when flows are low, underground construction does not materially affect the
groundwater levels.
4.Is underground construction in areas of high groundwater consistent with the City’s and Santa
Clara Valley Water District’s efforts to reduce stormwater management through absorption into
soils?
While underground construction does not have significant impacts where the construction is
entirely above the groundwater levels during storms, the impacts are likely not large. However, the
cumulative impact of underground construction that extends into the winter water table level surely
reduces stormwater management capacity.
5.How will sea level rise affect the stormwater handling capability of the soils
Sea level will raise groundwater levels by approximately the same amount as the rise in mean sea
level. In many areas of Palo Alto, groundwater is 6 feet or less below ground surface in winter. A sea
level rise of 3 feet would approximately reduce the storage capacity of soils in this area by 50%. In
addition, flow rates for the same groundwater level will likely be significantly reduced. Soils cannot
absorb additional water when they are saturated to the surface.
Palo Alto’s Groundwater
1.Where in Palo Alto is groundwater, and how deep do I have to dig to hit it?
Generally speaking, groundwater is found “east” of the Pulgas Fault, which roughly runs along
Foothill Expressway / Junipero Serra Boulevard. “West” of the fault, bedrock blocks the aquifer, and
subsurface water flows are small.
Bob Wenzel and his associates have made a map of the depth to first groundwater (available for
download at
http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/files/PaloAlto_ShallowGroundwater_Update_wPlumes_V3_re
d.pdf
In much of Palo Alto, groundwater is found at 10 – 15 feet below ground surface, however in other
areas, groundwater is much deeper. It is in these areas where the interactions of underground
construction and groundwater are most significant, both during and after construction.
2.Does the groundwater level vary with the seasons?
Yes, the groundwater level rises during the winter following rains and drops during the summer. In
general, the summer to winter variation in groundwater levels (in the absence of pumping) is 1 – 2
feet. This information is shown on the groundwater map referenced above.
3.Does the groundwater level vary for short periods of time during and following heavy rains?
Yes, the groundwater levels can rise significantly during heavy rains. For example, in 1998, the
groundwater levels along Webster Street between Santa Rita and Oregon Expressway, normally at
about 8 to 10 feet below the surface rose to within 4 to 5 feet of the surface level for a few days
during and following an exceptionally heavy rain storm. This is evidenced by the flooding of utility
basements of several homes in the area, resulting in a fire in one home (596 N. California) as a pilot
light on furnace was extinguished by the water, which resulted in the leaking gas being ignited by
another pilot light.
4.What is the connection between the soils and aquifer and stormwater management?
The City of Palo Alto is proposing a ballot measure authorizing a Stormwater Management Fee
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53633). Part of the funds will be used
for “Green Stormwater Infrastructure” projects to reduce runoff to the storm drains through
absorption into the soils. This water is then stored and transported by the aquifer.
Our soils and groundwater are critical to handling stormwater. If soils are saturated to the surface, a
heavy rainfall of ½” per hour corresponds to 3,700 cubic feet per second of rain in Palo Alto between
Junipero Serra and highway 101. This flow is greater than ½ of the maximum recorded flow of San
Francisquito Creek. Handling this amount of water on the surface is similar to handling ½ of the
maximum flow of San Francisquito Creek on our streets. Clearly the storm drains could not handle
this load, and flooding would result.
5.What is the source (inflows) of our groundwater?
Groundwater sources in Palo Alto are precipitation, irrigation, water and sewer pipe leakage, San
Franciscquito Creek and subsurface flows, including inflow from the Bay. Estimates by Todd
Engineering for East Palo Alto’s Groundwater Management Plan are that about 17% of groundwater
recharge in the “San Francisquito Creek Cone,” which includes Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto,
is from precipitation (1320 acre-feet/year), while about 25% is from irrigation (1891 acre-feet / year)
and 26% from water supply pipeline leakage (1990 acre-feet per year).
6.What are the likely effects of climate change and water conservation on aquifer recharge?
Annual recharge is likely to be significantly reduced through the combined effects of reduced
irrigation and sewer pipeline leakage due resulting from water conservation, reduction in recharge
from water supply pipeline leakage from Palo Alto’s efforts to improve the water supply
infrastructure, and reduced recharge from precipitation.
Sea-level rise is likely to increase recharge from salt-water intrusion from the Bay, as freshwater
flows (which is required to flush salt water) will be reduced.
7.Isn’t all groundwater pumped for underground construction simply flowing to the Bay, and
therefore pumping water to the storm drains the same as natural flows?
Absolutely not, per the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and Todd
Engineering studies, groundwater in the shallow / surface aquifer levels (which is the area directly
affected by underground construction) flows to streams and the Bay, to deeper aquifer levels (if
those levels aren’t full), and is pumped. Some groundwater leaks into sewer pipes, and some is
evaporated and transpired. During very heavy rains, the Bay receives a larger fraction of the flow.
In addition, salt water intrusion will increase due to reduction of sub-surface freshwater flows.
8.Isn’t the surface aquifer separated by an impervious layer of clays from the deeper aquifer,
thereby preventing water from the shallow aquifer from entering the deeper aquifer used for Palo
Alto’s Emergency supply wells?
Both the BAWSCA water model and San Mateo County models show that the aquifer layers are
tightly connected, and there is no clear geologic separation between the “deep” and “shallow”
aquifer levels in Palo Alto. This distinction in the levels was made for the purposes of groundwater
modeling, and the models show the layers as being “leaky.” The Santa Clara Valley Water District
simply defines the “deep aquifer” as 50 feet below ground surface, independent of any local
geology. See slides at:
https://green.smcgov.org/sites/green.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/StakeholderWorkshop_201
60907_Locked.pdf
9.The “shallow” aquifer is non-potable, and therefore waste, correct?
False. In addition to the role in recharging the deeper aquifer levels, water in the shallow aquifer
was historically the major source of water for human use in Palo Alto, and continues to be used for
irrigation by some residences, and is suitable (and easily accessible in many areas) for irrigation.
Comments from Previous
Subcomittee meetings-
Available via the following links:
September 6 Sustainability subcommittee meeting written communication:
[http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/
#September 6, 2016]
September 8 Land Use subcommittee meeting written communication:
[http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/cac/citizens-advisory-committee/
#September 8, 2016]
CAC Packet Page 259 of 459
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 1 of 83
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Rinconada Library – Embarcadero Room
1213 Newell Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
5:30 PM TO 8:30 PM
Call to Order: 5:35 P.M. 1
Co-Chair Keller: I call the meeting to order of the Citizens Advisory Committee on the 2
Comprehensive Plan for Tuesday, September 20th. It is 5:35 p.m. Will the secretary please call 3
the roll? 4
Present: Filppu, Fine, Glanckopf, Hetterly, Hitchings, Keller, Kleinhaus, Levy, McDougall, 5
McNair, Moran, Nadim, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, Summa, Sung, Titus, Uang, 6
Uhrbrock, van Riesen 7
8
Absent: Emberling, Garber, Kou, Wenzlau 9
Robin Ellner: Also, I've been asked to announce for those of you attending the subcommittee 10
meeting on the 27th and October 5th, (inaudible) has your parking passes. 11
Female: (inaudible) 12
Robin Ellner: Safety and Natural Environment. 13
Female: (inaudible) 14
Robin Ellner: 27th and the 5th. There's one subcommittee meeting on the 27th for Safety and 15
Sustainability. On the 5th is the Natural. See (inaudible) after the meeting. 16
Oral Communication: 17
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. We start with Oral Communications. The first one, it says Rebecca 18
Byne. Is that correct? You will have 3 minutes. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 83
Rebecca Byrne: Good evening, Commission. My name's Rebecca Byrne. I'm here on behalf of 1
Housing Choices Coalition. We're a nonprofit that helps people with developmental disabilities 2
find housing throughout Santa Clara County. In Palo Alto, there are 472 residents with 3
developmental disabilities, who are adults that need housing. I'm just here to encourage you 4
when you're doing land use or any other relevant policies to just consider these residents, 5
because there is a tremendous need. I know that you guys can find the solution. Thank you. 6
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next speaker is Maria Marriott. By the way, I appreciate the 7
brevity of the first speaker. 8
Maria Marriott: Hi. I am a resident of Palo Alto. My name's Maria Marriott. I have a son with 9
developmental disabilities. He's 18, and we will be one of those people who is looking for 10
housing in the area. We would like him to be able to be close enough that we can help him to 11
learn to function on his own. Having housing in Palo Alto would be great. We're longtime 12
residents. Thank you. 13
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next speaker is Esther Nigenda. 14
Esther Nigenda: Good evening, Esther Nigenda speaking for Save Palo Alto's Groundwater. 15
Groundwater is part of our natural environment, and yet it gets no respect. For years, I 16
assumed that if the City permitted pumping and dumping of groundwater into the Bay and if 17
our environmental groups did not object, then it must not be a problem. It wasn't until the 18
State mandated a 25-percent reduction of water use because of the drought and that we 19
continued pumping and dumping water that this didn't seem to make sense at all. As an 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 3 of 83
emergency services volunteer, I thought we'll need this water especially if the drought 1
continues for a decade or more. Mega droughts lasting 20 or more years have happened in 2
California before. With climate change, the likelihood that this will happen again is even higher. 3
As a scientist, I could no longer ignore my gut feeling and go with the conventional wisdom, and 4
so I joined Save Palo Alto's Groundwater. Our mission is to protect our community 5
groundwater and promote its use in a sustainable manner. Groundwater has many uses 6
including being the primary source of drinking water for over 50 percent of the United States' 7
population. It is used for growing crops. Shallow groundwater recharges our deeper aquifer, 8
our streams, rivers and wetlands. It is used in many industrial processes, and it supports our 9
structures and infrastructures. As an aside, not many people know that due to overdrafting of 10
our groundwater, Palo Alto subsided 2-4 feet in the 1960s and that this subsidence stopped 11
when we started importing 100 percent of our potable water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. 12
Used sustainably—this means having a groundwater budget and knowing how much we can 13
extract every year without overdrafting—groundwater protects us from saltwater intrusion and 14
subsidence. Dewatering for construction purposes is not using the water, but rather 15
considering it construction waste. When dewatering is needed for some community purpose 16
such as for the construction of a Public Safety Building, we propose that measures should be in 17
place that limits the amount of groundwater extracted by following best construction practices 18
and mandating that all groundwater extracted be recharged to the aquifer or used for 19
beneficial purposes such as irrigation, firefighting, street cleaning and dust suppression. To 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 4 of 83
discourage waste of groundwater, any water extracted from the ground should be metered and 1
charged at market rates. In Palo Alto, bones and rotting food are considered a resource to be 2
composted, not waste. We should apply the same philosophy to our community groundwater. 3
Thank you. 4
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Last speaker is Rita Vrhel. 5
Rita Vrhel: Hello. Rita Vrhel. I'm also with savepaloaltosgroundwater.org, and that would be 6
hard to follow Esther. I just returned from a trip to New Mexico. All across Arizona and New 7
Mexico and in southern California the topic was saving water, either the drought and/or how 8
can water restrictions help save water. One way is not to pump out our precious groundwater. 9
I was going to have a 3-minute video tonight of the sound of 30.88 million gallons being 10
pumped from one house, 736 Garland, my poster child for dewatering. That equals 686,000 45-11
gallon rain barrels. This is from one house. We know this is accurate because the City actually 12
metered it. Water is our most important resource. If we had to go to a stream or walk 10 miles 13
like some unfortunate individuals in the world have to do to obtain water and we're not even 14
talking about clean water, we would probably value it more. Right now, you can go right across 15
the street from Hoover Park, and you can see groundwater being pumped into the storm drain. 16
Many residents were at the Hoover Park ice cream social on Sunday, absolutely outraged when 17
they saw this pumping of a valuable community resource. I don't know if any of you or all of 18
you have seen the amount of water that's being pumped down the drain. The City this year for 19
the first time is metering, and they're also mandating Purple Pipes to have groundwater go into 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 5 of 83
their truck one day a week. The problem is that the City is not supplying enough electricity so 1
that adequate pumping can occur. When I spoke with Joe of Purple Pipes yesterday, because I 2
was going to use some of their water for myself, they could only fill one truck a day. I think it's 3
really time that perhaps you, the Citizen Advisory Committee, start putting some teeth in do we 4
think water is important or do we just want to throw it away. When we're talking about 5
increased growth and continued housing development and population increase in Palo Alto and 6
the Bay Area, where is this water going to come from? Everybody taps into the aquifer. East 7
Palo Alto is having their business development halted until more water can be found. I think 8
we really shouldn't wait until it's too late. Thank you very much. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. 10
Staff Comments: 11
1. Recap of City Council Discussion on Draft Transportation Element 12
Co-Chair Keller: Next we have Staff recapping the long and late City Council meeting last night 13
that some of us attended, including Lydia Kou who is now not feeling well today. Also, I want to 14
mention that we have a resignation. Bob Wenzlau decided to resign from the CAC. Before we 15
continue, I'll just say that—I'll take a moment to talk about how we work together. One of the 16
things that Dan Garber has stressed and I've also stressed is that the meetings of the CAC and 17
the subcommittees need to be safe places. We have a lot of work to do. To do that work 18
effectively, the CAC and subcommittee meetings need to be collaborative and inclusive places 19
where differences of opinion can be expressed civilly and everyone's opinions can be heard and 20
valued. I hope that you'll keep this in mind at all our meetings. Next, staff, Hillary. 21
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 6 of 83
Hillary Gitelman: Thank you, Arthur. Thanks to those of you who did attend last night. The 1
City Council received your draft Transportation Element and offered some very constructive 2
comments. I think all of the Council Members expressed their gratitude to the CAC and were 3
impressed by the quality of the work product. They then went on to provide lots of suggestions 4
about how we could make it even better, but we anticipated that. I think it really was a very 5
constructive conversation. I think each of them had a handful of suggestions or edits or things 6
that we could do to tighten it up. It really was in the realm of tightening it up. I don't think 7
they identified any big topics that we missed, maybe some questions about emphasis on the 8
part of some members of the Council, and then a desire by some to reduce the number of 9
programs, reduce the amount of introductory text, sort of comments that we were all 10
anticipating. Thanks again to all of you who had a hand in that. I thought I'd let you know what 11
we think will happen next with this. The Council did ask to see it again after they've had a 12
chance to look at the Land Use Element. What we're going to do is use the version we gave to 13
the Council last night, which was your draft, as a base document. We're going to accept all the 14
changes that were in that, and then from now on we'll be tracking changes so you'll be able to 15
see exactly how it changes. We're going to make some changes to reflect the input we got 16
from the Council, share it with them again, and then it'll come back to you when we put all of 17
the elements together. Once you get through all the other elements, you'll see it again, and it'll 18
have those track changes. You'll see exactly how it's been modified since you forwarded it to 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 7 of 83
the Council. Congratulations. I think the Council really appreciated your work on this. I think 1
it's a great step forward for this process. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Now what we're going to do is go to the Land Use and Community 3
Design Element. First we're going to start as—first we're going to have a discussion by staff 4
introducing what's happened. Then we're going to go as is usual to the members of the 5
committees first. 6
Agenda Items: 7
Elaine Costello: I'm just going to say a couple of things, and then Joanna—am I on? I just 8
wanted to sort of give you the context of where we are and where we're going on projects 9
before we launch into the two elements that we have tonight, which are Land Use and the 10
Natural Environment. Our goal is to forward the Land Use Element to the Council tonight. They 11
were eager to see it at the Council meeting. They're looking forward to it. That's our primary 12
goal. We're just launching the Natural Environment discussion tonight. We know from the 13
discussion at the last CAC meeting that some of you—all of you have been wonderful in giving 14
so much of your time. Some of you at the end of the year for various reasons may not be 15
continuing on with the CAC, so we are trying to make sure that we can get through as much of 16
the Natural Environment and the Safety Elements before the end of this year. We sent out a 17
schedule, and that shows that the upcoming October, November and December CAC meetings 18
will be devoted to the Natural Environment and Safety Elements, and that the members of the 19
sustainability committee, the safety committee and the natural environment committee will be 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 8 of 83
holding a number of meetings to sort of review each of those documents before they come to 1
you. That's just sort of where we are and where we're headed. The goal is to finish Land Use so 2
that we can launch into these others. By the end of December, we'll still have a lot of work to 3
do in terms of the Economic and Business Element and implementation and a number of other 4
topics. The substantive elements, our goal is to get through as much as we possibly can with 5
the original CAC members. Any questions on that? With that, I'm going to turn it over to 6
Joanna Jansen from PlaceWorks to go through where we are on the Land Use Element, how we 7
followed up with the land use subcommittee on the issues that you had at your last meeting 8
and what the status of that is pretty quickly so we can get to your comments and thoughts. 9
1. Action: Land Use & Community Design Element 10
a. Introduction of Revised Draft Element, including the five issues identified at the 11
August CAC meeting 12
b. Report from the Land Use and Sustainability Subcommittees 13
c. Discussion of Draft Element 14
Joanna Jansen: Thank you, Elaine. I'm just going to run through what has happened on the 15
Land Use Element first, since the last time we were altogether as a group in August, since that's 16
the first topic on the agenda. If you recall the last time we were in this room, near the end of 17
our meeting Hillary and Arthur and others did a great job of kind of summarizing the input that 18
we had heard and the outstanding issues that needed to be addressed and kind of assigned 19
those to the sustainability and the land use subcommittees. Those topics included housing 20
affordability, the urban forest, coordinated area plans, basements and what was at that time 21
called performance measures. We met first with the sustainability subcommittee, and they 22
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 9 of 83
focused on performance measures and moved those forward in a couple of different ways. We 1
added detail to what are now called development requirements that are in Table L-1 of the 2
element, in terms of requirements that will be placed on new projects as they are approved 3
and as they are constructed. In addition to that, recognizing that those are really going to be a 4
relatively small percentage of the built environment that's on the ground in 20 years from now, 5
we also spent additional time on the community performance measures, which are now called 6
community indicators and which measure the performance not only of new development but 7
also of all of the existing buildings and the actions of existing residents and existing workers as 8
well as future residents and workers over time. We also made some important changes to 9
those indicators. You can see in Table L-2 in your Land Use Element that one got quite a bit 10
longer. We added things like corridor travel times, air pollution, unoccupied homes, additional 11
indicators on the urban tree canopy, on groundwater contamination and really a broad range of 12
different issues that were important to the subcommittee members. The other thing to 13
understand about the development requirements and the community indicators is that what 14
we're anticipating is that two options for these tools will go forward to the City Council. In this 15
meeting last time, we came up with the ideas of, one, having all of the detail about these items 16
in the Lane Use Element, so a detailed Table L-1 for development requirements for new 17
development and a pretty detailed Table L-2 with ways that we're going to evaluate the 18
performance of all of the buildings in Palo Alto. Including that detail in the Land Use Element, 19
making those decisions now and including that in the adopted Land Use Element is one option. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 10 of 83
In your staff report, that's actually referred to as Option 2. Option 1 would be to just include a 1
program in the Land Use Element that says you should develop something. You should develop 2
a list of requirements and you should develop a list of community indicators through a 3
subsequent transparent, open, inclusive process, etc., but we shouldn't try to hammer that out 4
right now as part of the Comp Plan. We heard both of those ideas last time at the full CAC. 5
Because we've heard both of those ideas, we are planning to carry forward both as options. 6
Both are relatively fully fleshed out at this point in your draft Lane Use Element. Certainly your 7
comments and thoughts are welcome on that tonight, but at least it's my understanding we're 8
not trying to decide and choose one of those options tonight. We're going to be carrying both 9
of those options forward to the Council for their consideration. The other four issues were 10
looked at in more detail by the land use subcommittee. They looked at housing affordability as 11
distinct from affordable housing. We spent a little bit of time talking about subsidized, below 12
market rate, deed restricted units that are affordable housing and also just a much broader 13
category of housing that is more affordable or some people call it more attainable simply by 14
nature of its size, its design, its age, its location, etc., rather than being legally or otherwise 15
restricted to a certain income level. There was support for ensuring that the Land Use Element 16
really addresses both types of housing and of housing affordability more broadly. When we 17
looked at all of the urban forest policies together, the committee didn't make any major 18
additions to those programs and policies, but we did kind of refine them and added some new 19
policies and programs, just increasing the recognition in the Land Use Element of the 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 11 of 83
importance of the urban forest and involving urban forestry staff in project review, which is 1
something that's already happened but can be memorialized in the Land Use Element. We 2
talked a little bit about coordinated area plans. We have added options to the Land Use 3
Element to expand what was formerly going to be focused on the Fry's coordinated area plan to 4
the larger California Avenue area as well as considering a possible Downtown coordinated area 5
plan. In terms of basements, this continues to be a very important issue. We've been hearing 6
about this a lot. We've had speakers here tonight as well as at a number of our past meetings 7
really emphasizing the importance of this issue and kind of the urgency of the issue. We have 8
added a new multi-part policy that includes evaluating and regulating the potential negative 9
impacts of basements, not only in terms of their impact from a land use perspective in terms of 10
the occupant density or neighborhood character but also in terms of flooding issues, safety 11
issues and urban forest issues as well as a recognition that the potential impacts of basements 12
and their interaction with groundwater may change over time with sea level rise and climate 13
change. That policy is all in the Land Use Element right now. Possible that over time some of 14
those pieces may move to Natural Environment or the Safety Element, because of course they 15
do have to do with both Natural and Safety topics. It's in the Land Use Element right now for 16
your consideration. In addition, the subcommittee suggested that staff should bring forward a 17
more immediate action for consideration by the City Council in light of the level of community 18
concern about this topic. Finally, I just want to bring your attention to a list of outstanding Land 19
Use Element issues that's in the staff report. You've got 17 numbered items here on pages 6 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 12 of 83
and 7 of the staff report. We wanted to highlight these because these are all changes that, 1
while they look really small—they're just a line or two here—some of them could be pretty 2
significant policy changes. They're ones that are important and have been raised primarily in 3
the written communications that we've received both for your August meeting as well as for 4
the intervening subcommittee meetings. We haven't really had a chance to talk about them, 5
but your fellow members have put them out there. It's important to bring these to your 6
attention. If anybody wants to discuss these, if we can get some resolution on any of these, 7
we'll reflect that in the Land Use Element. If not, this list will also go forward to the City Council 8
for their consideration. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. First, let the record show that Elaine Uang has joined us. Let me 10
give some overarching remarks about process. There's a concept, paraphrasing Voltaire, that 11
the best is the enemy of the good. There's also a concept of economics of the notion of 12
decreasing marginal utility. We can continue to meet to try to—as Steve observes. We want to 13
make sure that we don't drag out the process in such a way that we don't keep on 14
incrementally improving it. We want to give it to the Council and let the Council look at it, 15
evaluate it with the Transportation Element, and then give us feedback and figure out what to 16
do from there. A couple of things. First of all, we are not going to have any votes except for a 17
vote to recommend that the City Council consider the draft of the Land Use and Community 18
and Design Element. Secondly, what I think would make sense is for all the comments that are 19
made, either in writing submitted today or ones that you have a chance to submit before a 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 13 of 83
week from today at 5:00. Mark your calendars, September 27th at 5:00, staff will be accepting 1
comments. Those comments will go to Council along with the minutes of this meeting when 2
this goes to Council in mid-November. Because of the timing, we really can't do this in October. 3
It compresses too much and we would take time away from the other elements that we have to 4
do. We're basically running out of time. We've spent a lot of time on this element. We spent a 5
lot time on the Transportation Element. We've spent more time than we originally planned to, 6
so I think it's important to move on with this and to gather your input. Therefore, what I am 7
recommending you do at your comments now is to talk about your highest level issues that we 8
can basically hear. This way, if there are people who agree or disagree with those issues, they 9
can comment on that without being disagreeable and so we can see if there's any consensus 10
that can go to Council based on the reading of their comments. In addition, you can write more 11
between now and a week from today at 5:00. With that, going on. What I'd like you to do is if 12
you are on the land use committee and, I think, the sustainability committee also met on this. 13
If you're on either of those two committees and you met on this element, if you could raise 14
your name tents and make them so that I can see the names, that's helpful. Thank you. We'll 15
go to you first. I can't see your name, so turn it around. No, it's blank that side. Thank you. If 16
you'd always keep your name tags so that we can see them up here, it makes it a lot easier for 17
me. We'll first go to the people who were on the committee, and then afterwards we'll go to 18
the other people. Sustainability as well. If you can make your name tag, Elaine, so I can see it. 19
Thank you. I will start—yes? 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 14 of 83
Alex van Riesen: Can I ask one clarification? 1
Co-Chair Keller: Yes. 2
Alex van Riesen: You said highest level. Are you suggesting that these are things that we have 3
not yet talked about that are not mentioned or are you just asking people to drill home the 4
thing that—I think we've pretty much expressed everything that could humanly, possibly be 5
expressed. How do we avoid kind of redundancy here? 6
Co-Chair Keller: Let me say that I'm not going to control how you spend your time. We will 7
take 2 1/2—I'll let you in on a little secret, and that is we don't actually get 3 minutes. We 8
actually get an extra 30 seconds. Because time is limited, we're going to take 2 minutes and 30 9
seconds for everybody to go this round. If you wish to use your 2 minutes and 30 seconds for 10
things that you don't think are high-level comments, be my guest. On the other hand, the idea 11
is to be as efficient and as high level of the important things as appropriate. 12
Hillary Gitelman: Can I add to that? 13
Co-Chair Keller: Sure. 14
Hillary Gitelman: Just having had this experience last night, I guess I will ask for your mercy. 15
Think of us as the staff conveying your work to the City Council. What would you like us to 16
report as your kind of high-level thoughts on this element as we bring it forward? 17
Co-Chair Keller: We'll start on this side. Steve, you can lead off. 18
Stephen Levy: I'm blown away by the collegiality of the subcommittee and the incredibly good 19
reporting of Joanna and Elaine. I may not get a chance more, but I'd like to thank Shani and 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 15 of 83
Doria and Annette and Jennifer and Hamilton and Alex and Amy. I hope I didn't miss anybody. 1
On that, my priorities are what Joanna said, and I hope you convey them to the Council. I'm 2
interested in the broader issue of housing affordability including below market, subsidized 3
housing but also other housing. I think you've cleared up that language, so I hope you bring 4
that forward to Council. It's certainly in the Housing Element. Second, I really hope that we're 5
able—that the Council can help you with additional staff or whatever so we can proceed on all 6
the area plans. I think the two that are the hardest may also be the ones that have the most 7
impact, the ones that got left off the first time, Cal. Ave. and Downtown. I know there are 8
staffing issues, so I'll support you in asking for help on that. There's all sorts of stuff going on 9
Downtown. The last one is again thank you to the committee and to Joanna and Elaine. In my 10
world of measuring stuff like water usage or energy usage or the condition of the roads—our 11
roads have been going up since we've been putting infrastructure. Traffic and parking are really 12
called community indicators. The importance of that is not the language, but it's what Joanna 13
said. It reminds us that in a City of 68,000, where we could add 10,000 or 15,000, at the most 14
heavy-lifting it's going to be on affecting the behavior of the existing residents, the existing 15
workers and the existing companies. How do they use energy? How do they handle parking? 16
How do they handle commuting? I haven't looked at the scope of the EIR, Joanna, for all of the 17
scenarios. I hope that you're measuring not just the impacts of the new development but how 18
we can mitigate existing. 19
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Elaine is next. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 16 of 83
Elaine Uang: I echo some of the things that Steve just said. I'm very glad to see the expanded 1
language and definition for housing affordability and really glad to see the inclusion of 2
coordinated area plans. I do agree with Steve that—if staff can get more staffing—the two 3
really critical plans are probably Downtown, Cal. Ave. They have the greatest impacts. They're 4
also our greatest opportunity, because they both—if you look at the map, they're the ones that 5
are the most transit accessible, the most walkable. They already have the good bones to 6
support a lot of the sustainable transportation initiatives that we had set forth in the 7
Transportation Element. One thing that I do want to bring that is new and goes back to housing 8
again. I think housing is not just about how many units are created or removed; it's also 9
remembering that people live here. People who have lived here in the community for a long 10
time often may not feel like they can stay here. Remembering that there's a human dimension 11
to that is important. One concern that I have in reading this Land Use draft is that we haven't 12
really thought very carefully about how we can expand those options to allow those folks to 13
stay. We're losing people all the time. I don't think that even my kids are really going to be 14
able to make many, many friends who are going to stay long term. I think if you look steadily at 15
the sort of family formation cohort, they're increasingly renters, and they're just not able to 16
stay here. Traditionally, that was sort of the bulwark of Palo Alto. Concern that we haven't 17
really looked at the land use map. Again, I raised this in my notes last time, but I didn't get a 18
chance to mention it in comments. I just want to bring it forward. 3 percent of our land, 3 19
percent—I'm supportive of the 58 percent of land that is open space, but 3 percent of our land 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 17 of 83
is designated multifamily dwelling, and only 0.7 allows mixed use. There's a really good graph 1
in the existing conditions document I'd encourage you to look at. I'm just really sad that we 2
haven't really taken a look at that map, and we haven't had the opportunity to say how can we 3
change things. There's a policy noted—can we take a look at what are the things that are 4
preventing construction of affordable housing and below market rate units? I think we already 5
know what those are, but we haven't actually addressed them by looking at the land use maps. 6
I think that we had an opportunity, and it'd be nice if we could take that extra step. Look at the 7
map, look at where things can go and really make that and allow people to stay here long term. 8
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Annette. 9
Annette Glanckopf: I did turn in my comments, so I'll just hit the highlights. I would like to see 10
captions on the photos. They're just sort of thrown in there with—though, they're very pretty 11
but whatever. Just a couple of additions that I think we need to put. In Memorial Park, you 12
need to add first responders. Dennis Burns as really our Police Chief is very—I'm glad to see the 13
Memorial Park. On the staff comments, it would have been interesting to see where you 14
actually want to insert them, like traffic lights, in the Comp Plan. The Eichler Neighborhood 15
Program needs to have a special place for it. I don't think personally it belongs under building 16
heights. I think it should be its own policy, and Individual Review needs to be next to it. There's 17
nothing on either thing, so I think that along with this affordable housing issue, Eichlers and 18
single-story overlays are critically important in our land use decisions. On the topic of housing 19
again—back to the staff comments—there was a comment about prohibiting housing in 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 18 of 83
Charleston Center, which I'm very supportive of. I think we need to add Midtown as well. 1
There is a reference to that later on in page L-30 and also L-46. I would like to see both of these 2
to eliminate housing. If we do build housing, we're going to kick out retail, and it's going to be 3
basically unaffordable. I definitely think affordable housing is the key issue, whatever it is, 4
however we want to define it. I think the Comp Plan needs to be stronger in our position. 5
There's something in there that says work with stakeholders to find sites. I think we need to be 6
more hard-hitting and be very specific and say, "Let's identify two sites from the Housing 7
Element and then develop plans to make those sites affordable housing." As far as the 8
performance measures, I'm one of those that are sort of on the speculative side. I think that 9
they're very, very ambitious. In the chart—my vote would be the Council would pare them 10
down. If we do use them in any shape or form, they need to be reviewed much more 11
frequently than are indicated in the documents, 4 years. In some cases, it's—I have one more 12
high-level comment. I think anything that goes forward should be majority and minority, and 13
we shouldn't talk about how many people voted on one side versus the other. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Doria. 15
Doria Summa: Hi. I have a lot of specific comments still, and I'm still a little sorry that we never 16
had the time, but I understand why we didn't, in the process to really go through it at the 17
subcommittee line-by-line. I think we could do some more work on—be more specific about 18
what we want to see in Stanford Research Park with regards to caps or growth mitigations. I 19
thought we had decided that we wanted in the C zones mixed land use that had retail and 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 19 of 83
housing but not office. I'm not a big fan of having too many area plans, and I actually don't 1
think we need one for Downtown. I think area plans work best when there's sort of a clean 2
slate and are very problematic when you're imposing them over a built-out neighborhood. I 3
think there could be stronger language in a couple of places throughout. I don't want to go into 4
all the details. For protection of not just R-1 but all the low-density, residential 5
neighborhoods—that's a big thing for me—I think we need to address the basement and 6
dewatering issue in some more specificity. I think the urban forest language could be a little 7
stronger. I'm really worried about people being displaced in the process of redevelopment, but 8
I understand that is a very tricky issue. I'm not sure the best way to deal with it. I agree with 9
Annette. I think the Eichler building thing was just in the wrong place. I think it should be in 10
Goal 3. I continue to think that our emphasis on below market rate housing should be for the 11
most vulnerable in our community, disabled or elderly, disabled adults and those with financial 12
accessibility issues. Other than that—I also was concerned. I wanted to address some of the 17 13
items. I wasn't sure which way you guys were stating them, whether there was a—like in 14
Number 9, it says delete the last sentence and then in quotes it says ensure that each 15
residential has such spaces. I think what that means is you're adding that last clause and 16
deleting the existing last sentence. In some cases, those specifics were a little confusing for me. 17
I'll leave it at that. 18
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Hamilton. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 20 of 83
Hamilton Hitchings: First, I want to start by saying I really agree with the comments of Annette 1
and Doria. As for the subcommittee and for the Land Use Element, we took an approach which 2
was not to try and come to compromise on everything, because it was clear that different 3
opinions were sufficiently far apart we would not be able to. What we tried to do was come 4
together on where we could and where we couldn't. Staff and Hillary and Elena have done a 5
really nice job of laying out the different options for next City Council to be able to decide what 6
to do. It took a lot of work but, Hillary, I have to say I'm impressed. Thank you very much for 7
that. I do feel that this document is at a point where it's ready to go to City Council. We 8
certainly need their feedback in order to finish it up. I am very concerned, as you know, about 9
low income and displacement. From the data points I've seen, not only are these folks getting 10
priced out but even if we build more housing, it will still not be within their reach, which is why 11
I continue to advocate for below market housing. There is one specific area. If you look at 12
Table L-1 and you look at Item Number 5, in Item Number 4 we talk about not displacing below 13
market. In Item Number 5, we don't actually talk about increasing below market. I would like 14
to see Number 5—we add below market housing as well as including affordable housing. For a 15
lot of people, $2,500 or $3,000 a month just isn't affordable, and they're going to be priced out 16
or they won't be able to live in this community, which will be a detriment to the community. I 17
hope we can capture that in the version that goes to Council. Another area that I think we 18
missed—I realized it when reading this over—is, I think, a giant loophole that anyone can build 19
a big medical center and it not be covered under the office and R&D grant. We have an 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 21 of 83
exemption for below 5,000 feet. Stanford Medical Unit is exempted. I think if someone else 1
wanted to build a big medical facility, we shouldn't exempt medical from the office/R&D just 2
because we already have those other exemptions in there. It's obviously going to be a big 3
project at that point. The last thing I would say is in my subcommittee, I asked that we end the 4
(inaudible) of dewatering. We do have the technology with cut wall and other construction 5
techniques. I would like to see it banned or at least put that up to the Council as an option. 6
Thank you. 7
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Jennifer. 8
Jennifer Hetterly: I submitted written comments. I'll try to just pull out the highlights. I 9
thought the cumulative cap options were a little bit confusing, so I offered some language to 10
clarify that, that I don't think changes the meaning at all. Development requirements and 11
community indicators, there are several references to maintaining and protecting livability 12
which, I think, suggests that we're at the high point right now for quality of life. I think that the 13
significant dissatisfaction with existing traffic, parking, housing affordability suggests that we 14
really want to be improving livability. I would like to see those changed to improve. Options 1 15
and 2 completely lack any enforcement mechanisms. I think we need to add a program to both 16
or alternatively it could go in that cumulative cap and development implementation program 17
section that'll monitor compliance and set and enforce penalties for meeting the development 18
requirements. As far as the tables, I prefer Option 2 mostly because, I think, we could fight 19
forever over what are the specific examples used in Option 1. I like having the tables but, as I 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 22 of 83
read it, that's not an all inclusive list of what are going to be the indicators. That's the starting 1
point for discussion and developing indicators. Is that a correct understanding? Policy L-1.18 2
has a bit about transparency and how data will be monitored and published regarding the 3
community indicators, but there's nothing about calling for transparency and creating the 4
indicators. I think that needs to be added as well as for creating the development 5
requirements. I suggested how you could split out that program into two separate programs to 6
cover that. I think we should periodically assess the development requirements themselves, 7
not just the caps. If our community indicators are not getting where we want them to go, we 8
should consider maybe these development requirements aren't the right ones or aren't at the 9
right levels. I think there should be a program to periodically assess that as well. On 10
basements, I would like to see the addition of reference to storm water management, to excess 11
occupancy that was mentioned in the intro but it didn't show up in the language, to redefine 12
flood zones as well as the construction practices that Hamilton referred to. I'll leave it at that. 13
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 14
Shani Kleinhaus: I had a lot of comments. One thing is it looks like you've done a lot of 15
consolidation, and I like it. Some of the things that disappeared I would like to see back. I don't 16
know if I'll get to cover all of those, because I have two bigger issues right now. One is what 17
Rebecca Byrnes talked about, and that's housing for the bottom of the lowest people in this 18
society. This is not affordable housing; this is not attainable housing. This is people that cannot 19
afford it unless they're subsidized. I'm looking for a program for the City to partner with local 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 23 of 83
nonprofits and whatever other government grants we can get, anything we can do, to 1
accommodate those people. I think that probably belongs as another program under Policy L-2
1.3, to have another program specifically for those people who are the most vulnerable in the 3
community and are not covered here. I also think that Program L-131 is not well written, and it 4
needs a little more editing. I can see what you tried to do here, and it's the right direction for 5
that, but it needs some editing. I would really like to see a program that really looks to care for 6
those people. We have a huge need in this community. That may be seniors, and it may be 7
those people with developmental disabilities. The other thing is a little difficult, because it's 8
late. I tried to introduce it before, and it wasn't that easy. I spoke about it to City Council last 9
night. That's the issue of having caps only and no performance measures and no requirements. 10
I'll try and explain why and why I think that should be advanced as well as the other options. 11
It's not there now. It's hard to explain to people who don't work with CEQA or the California 12
Environmental Quality Act a lot. What we do when we have standards and requirements is we 13
lose the granularity of spaces and specific areas. We say as long as you stand by all our 14
requirements, we check the box. The person who usually checks that box is somebody who 15
graduated yesterday from some school. As long there's something that covers that 16
requirement and it looks okay, that box gets checked. All those elements that we have and we 17
think that they'll be done in a really comprehensive way get a check in the box. Often for staff, 18
it's almost impossible to say, "No, you can't build something," when the box is checked. What 19
that does is it takes away the ability of us, the public, to comment and improve projects on a 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 24 of 83
site-specific rather than some kind of an overall standard basis. This was a huge issue that the 1
Governor actually issued orders to allow affordable housing projects and mixed-use projects to 2
move forward. They didn't do it for office. We need to think about it, because the moment 3
that we have those things to replace our ability to influence a project, our only way then is 4
some kind of a referendum. I don't think people want to go there; it divides the community. 5
Look what it's done to Palo Alto. I really think we should offer the alternative if anybody agrees 6
with me. I said, "Let's do it," and they told me, "You're the only one." I work with CEQA on a 7
day-to-day basis. I know it's power. It's our people power. That's what we get out of CEQA. 8
While I don't necessarily think we should have no requirements, those should not replace—it's 9
a hard and fine line to go. That could be something that staff can work on later. I don't think 10
we are the forum that can solve that. I want that ability to just look at caps for now until 11
maybe we catch a better jobs to housing ratio or something. To just say maybe we need to 12
wait, we have some patience, let's build up the housing, let's deal with the environmental 13
issues. Housing will continue to increase. The cost will continue to increase if we build a lot 14
more office. We can put caps on office and let's look at what happens. I'm not suggesting caps 15
on housing if anybody is reading it that way. I thought I should bring it up. 16
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. If you have already spoken, if you could put your name sign down. 17
Thank you. Don, you're next. 18
Don McDougall: Speaking in real general terms about a few things. One is the housing 19
affordability. I think the terms that have been used is affordability, attainability, availability. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 25 of 83
Frankly, I like housing accessibility. Is it available and do the lower level of people that we're 1
talking about here, lower income, disabilities and so on, have access to that by any means? I 2
think Shani's comment about we should create partnerships wherever we can with nonprofits 3
to help us with that—everybody knows that I rant about partnerships. I think that's really 4
important. In fact, I think the other thing is I want to compliment staff for in here covering all 5
the different possibilities, even a separate program or policy, I forget, on cluster housing. I 6
think the one thing that is wrong here is we've dictated where we can't put housing. For 7
example, Town and Country says no housing. There's a big parking lot. Are we absolutely 8
certain that, if we're looking for affordable housing, isn't an opportunity to explore? I think that 9
we should not be prescriptive to eliminate at least exploration. I want to speak again in favor of 10
the idea of measures. I really like what staff has done and the committees. I think the 11
committees did a great job of coming up with the idea of requirements and the idea of 12
indicators. I like that. I think that there needs to be a transition of how we use them. I think 13
Jennifer's right. Do we have all the right ones? The answer to that is no. Should we continue 14
to explore it? I think that whatever we do we should start collecting measures to the extent 15
that we have the staff and affordability and the data available to do that. Even if we're not 16
using them, at least we're creating a base point. I agree with—I think it was Annette who said if 17
we're going to have them, we should look at them more frequently. I do want to comment that 18
at Council last night—I think everything we've done we've talked about the interconnectedness 19
of things. Alexander von Humboldt. The transportation and the land use, they're connected. I 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 26 of 83
think we've tried to do that. I think the other thing I want to comment on is—I think this is up 1
to staff. I want to—I think for the third time now—compliment staff with what they've done 2
here. I think it's up to staff to figure out if we're supposed to be detailed or suggestive. I think 3
Council has given confusing and we're confused. Do we want to be more detailed or more 4
suggestive? Thank you. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Whitney. 6
Whitney McNair: Thank you. Addressing the annual cap. I appreciate the changes that are in 7
the options, but I suggest that we take the two policies that are in the Comp Plan element 8
here—it's Policy L-1.14 and 15; it's also Number 17 in the staff report—and blend them 9
together. My suggestion is that there's a 50,000-square-foot cap within the City, an additional 10
50,000-square-foot cap at the Research Park with the ability to roll over the unused 11
development capacity with the Research Park. We'd already talked about the Medical Center 12
being exempt. I would include the Research Park can be exempt from this annual limit if the 13
City and Stanford enter into a mutually acceptable agreement with defined performance 14
standards providing for alternative means of addressing auto trips to and from the Research 15
Park. Any such agreement may not cause new or substantially more severe or significant 16
environmental impacts than those that would be caused under the annual limit. I think it takes 17
all the things we've been talking about and puts it into one comprehensive policy. As far as 18
Policy L-1.11, I don't support including hotels in any of the caps. There hasn't really been a 19
rationale that we've discussed here or provided of why we need to cap hotel rooms. If size of 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 27 of 83
hotels is an issue with recent hotel developments, then the City should be looking at 1
development standards within the Zoning Ordinance or study hotels separately. Just don't 2
outright cap them without the information to support that idea. Within the development 3
requirements, there is this one that says preserve low cost rents. That really can't be a 4
development requirement, but maybe that's a goal. Community indicators, there's a percent 5
commute trips to employment centers, which is new. I just don't understand the metric. It 6
says 505 trips by SOC. I just don't know what that means. Number 8 in the staff report in Policy 7
L-6.13 and the program—I've said this a lot of times in my written comments—there shouldn't 8
be a prohibition on office uses in mixed-use developments. I understand there's a concern 9
about office uses, but there may be places where a mix of uses including office is important. 10
That's it. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Amy. 12
Amy Sung: Right off the bat I wanted to say thank you. I read this draft and thinking that is like 13
really, really capture a lot of discussion that took place in the subcommittee meetings. Thank 14
you, Joanna and Elena. Wanted to start out with the housing that is affordable. I really think 15
that captured the spirit of what we face as a City. Thanks, Don. I learned a new term, housing 16
accessibility. Nonetheless, I think that what we can do is to use that as a basis for an inclusive 17
community. What we face is not just a particular section of the population. We hear an outcry 18
of all levels of housing need. What we need is to have housing choices that we accommodate, I 19
wanted to repeat, the young and the old. The young people—we are here to draft a 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 28 of 83
Comprehensive Plan that's supposed to last until 2030. This should be a guiding principle that 1
will last that long. The young people until then probably will be middle of the range. 2
Nonetheless, what we have to solve the problems today, I think it should be a Council decision, 3
but what we lay out should be long term. I think that is something that I wanted to emphasize. 4
Real quickly, I also wanted to bring back the ideas of putting housing in areas like Town and 5
Country and also in the surface parking lots. Stanford Shopping Center parking lot to me is just 6
a fabulous location for us to consider for housing. I also think that right now we are looking at 7
limiting the office space; however, I just think it is a danger of putting an outright prohibition 8
for that office space. Dewatering, this is very, very real. That is an issue that we need to look 9
at. I think that dewatering is real impact to the tree roots, the canopy and also the impact to 10
adjacent properties, because of the basement excavations. I think these are all real and needs 11
to be looked at and studied with a scientific foundation and basis, so that we address this issue. 12
However, I wanted to ask that basement will not be looked at as another area to fully restrict 13
how houses should be built. Thank you. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Our final of this half round is Alex. 15
Alex van Riesen: I just want to add my own thanks to all the work that's been put in. I find 16
myself agreeing with a number of comments, especially with Hamilton and Jennifer. I guess 17
one thing I wanted to come back to. The coordinated area plans have been mentioned a 18
number of times. I've heard comments, everything from they should all be done to maybe 19
prioritize one or two. This seems to me there needs to be a process established. I wanted to 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 29 of 83
suggest a process for prioritizing these plans. It seems like we had two decided, but now it 1
seems more up in the air. I guess behind that, what I wonder is what are the values that the 2
City or the Council has for deciding which places should be developed, when, and then follow 3
those. It seems like now there's some controversy about whether it should be the Fry's site, 4
which I think a number of months ago was more of a priority, and now maybe Downtown. I 5
think there's some argument for Downtown and Cal. Ave. because of the location of 6
transportation, but I think there's potentially more opportunity to do stuff with what's 7
happening at Fry's and in the other locations. I think that's the biggest concern. That's the 8
highest level. In the report, it's the thing where we have the least clarity, the understanding of 9
the coordinated area plans. I also wanted to urge the City Council to put the—I want to agree 10
with a moratorium on basements until a clear policy going forward is achieved. I think City 11
Council should do that immediately. What with being in a drought-stricken area and all the 12
implications that we're unclear on, I don't know why we're allowing that to continue to happen. 13
I think I read something—I think it's something Stephen put out—that the Council should 14
consider a gradual increase each year beginning at 20 percent and moving towards 25 percent 15
in terms of the amount of BMR housing. I thought rather than keep it at 20 or make it 25 is 16
something that's prorated and moves a little bit over each year. 17
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. First, I'd like to thank the land use and sustainability 18
subcommittees for their comments. If you could all put down your tags and then, if you didn't 19
speak in the first round, then you get to put up your tag now. We'll call you. We'll start again. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 30 of 83
If you could make your tags face me so I can see your names, that would be helpful. Lisa, 1
you're first. 2
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: This would be on the overall high-level comments, right? 3
Co-Chair Keller: Yes, these are your high-level comments on the element. 4
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I've got four items. Actually most of them aren't new; they're picked up 5
somewhere here. The first one is I would still propose language in Goal L-1 that adds the word 6
diverse. It would read a compact, diverse and resilient City, etc., with the diversity capturing a 7
lot of what we've talked about, but for sure economic, age, ability. I really mean the broader—I 8
think it sets the framework for a lot of the land use. I would still ask before it goes to Council 9
we add the word diverse, because pretty much, I think, all of us have talked about it in some 10
way. It can also cover the type of land use. I'm thinking more of the human diversity, but it can 11
also cover that. That's Number 1. Second on the housing, still very passionate, several of us 12
have said around affordable and below market and subsidized housing. To me it's all of those 13
things. I like the accessible, because I may package it. It really is how do we get Palo Alto back 14
to where all incomes, all different—just a mixture of us. The diversity of who can afford to live 15
here. That said, I also think that folks with less money may live in multifamily units, in higher 16
buildings. I'm not saying everyone gets a single-family residence on a big lot. That just isn't 17
practical, but some sort of diversity with that and really targeting, I think, City workers, teachers 18
and first responders, all that, and certain groups that we may want to set as a priority for the 19
good of the City, whether it's disability, age, students, whatever. The third is the urban forest. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 31 of 83
Sorry. My third big is around urban forest and parks and open space. Critical to maintain and 1
protect that as we go, even with our building, even with our changes. The last one, basements. 2
I very much agree with what Alex said. I think for the basements we need to change the 3
policies that—I think basements are fine—there be zero wasted groundwater coming out of the 4
basements. That's on the developer; that's on the homeowner. If they can commit to that, it 5
can go forward in the meantime while the City works out the policy on this. If not, I would also 6
do a moratorium. I think this is critical. As one of our public speakers said, it's just such a waste 7
of our very precious water. It's just horrible to see, and I think it's a fair thing. It is doable at a 8
reasonable cost from the limited things I know about it. That's my last one on the basements. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Bonnie. 10
Bonnie Packer: Like others, I want to congratulate the subcommittees for work really well 11
done. The last couple of meetings, I spoke out against the caps and items that seemed 12
somewhat draconian. I think this version has come up with what I wanted to call the thinking 13
person's cap. You've tied it so well to the development requirements and the community 14
indicators, which is what needed to be done. I congratulate you on that. I agree with what 15
people are saying about the coordinated area plans. I think a coordinated area plan is really 16
one of the best planning tools the City can use to really understand a particular area and figure 17
out development standards for that area, for the uses in that area, that would work well there 18
but wouldn't work in another part of the City. It's just that kind of fine-tuning, and you get 19
community input, is really worth the extra investment. My message to this City Council and 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 32 of 83
future City Council is try and find the means to pursue the coordinated area plans. I don't know 1
which area should get priority at this point. Fry's has a lease that's going to expire, I think, 2
that's driving that issue. They will decide that. I agree with what Lisa said about diversity. I 3
think there are some items about diversity in the community indicators. As that list gets 4
developed, other types of diversity could be included in there. Also, in my written comments I 5
made a point—this is maybe not a big point. The word livability, I think, is a subjective kind of 6
term. What's livability for me may not be livability for somebody else. I suggest removing the 7
word in the appropriate places in the Comp Plan, because I'm not sure what it means. I think 8
the community indicators is a way of arriving at that. I also suggest that you add using citizen 9
surveys, SurveyMonkey-type tools, whatever is available, as the years go on to find out what 10
the community is really thinking. The final thing, I'm heartened to hear so many people here 11
talking about the need for affordable, attainable, whatever you call it housing. In order to do 12
that, you have to be willing to have buildings that include these people who need the housing. 13
You can't say, "We need to be sure we're not negatively impacting the environment, but we 14
need affordable housing," but then say, "No, we can't built it because there's going to be a 15
negative impact." There's balancing that has to be done and priorities. That's it for now. 16
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Julia. 17
Julia Moran: Echoing everyone else's comments, thank you all, subcommittee, for the work. 18
This is clearly the beast of the committee. Better you than me. I'd have to agree with Shani 19
and Don. I think that we do need to make sure that we have a very strong policy in this about 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 33 of 83
our most vulnerable communities and partnering with nonprofits. More than anyone else 1
who's spoken to us, we've had people come to talk to us from these communities. If we're 2
going to listen to our citizens, we need to include this. I would also agree with Amy regarding 3
dewatering and basements. I think that it's important that we're being environmentally 4
responsible. I'm sorry, I can't remember your name. The woman from the emergency services 5
brought up some great suggestions of ways that we can—teeth we can use with regards to 6
basements. I don't want to muddle that with housing and not building housing. I think some of 7
these suggestions here have nothing to do with the environment. Not allowing people to put 8
bathrooms in basements is an entirely different issue and should not be included. I'd also agree 9
with Don regarding—I don't think that we should include in the Plan—I don't think we should 10
dictate where we can't put housing. I would add to that I don't think we should dictate where 11
we can't put childcare facilities. It's one thing to say we're not saying we must put housing here 12
and we must put childcare facilities. I disagree with saying that's absolutely not allowed. Just 13
quickly, lastly, in the section of—the list that's going on to the Council of (inaudible) Land Use 14
Element issues, most of these I disagree with. It seems to be a pretty skewed list. I hope that's 15
rounded out in the final list that goes on to the Council. I think there are a lot of things in here, 16
like the dewatering, where they will hinder new housing being developed and are put under the 17
name of other things. I think we need to focus on that. Thanks. 18
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Jason 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 34 of 83
Jason Titus: I'll be kind of short. The idea of having coordinated area plans for Downtown and 1
California Avenue, whether it's specifically—whether we do something that is actually called a 2
coordinated area plan or not, I feel that it's very important for us to recognize and convey in the 3
document that, where we have public transit, this is the only place where we can effectively 4
develop in ways that don't seem to bother people and create problems in all the ways that have 5
come up again and again across parking and traffic and all of this. If we don't spent time saying, 6
"How are we going to consciously manage the constrained resource we have around our public 7
transit," then I don't think we're going to be able to develop effectively. I think it's great for 8
Fry's to make sure we do good stuff, but it's not going to—we're going to be able to have a 9
much more effective management of things like affordable housing if we're thinking about it in 10
the context of how would people get to and from that housing without somehow substantially 11
increasing traffic or parking problems. I do think if you look around both those areas, there will 12
be in the next 15 years substantial redevelopment that happens. If you look at like where the 13
SurveyMonkey building happened or where the High Street developments were, the next block 14
down there is all—like on High near Alma, that's all auto repair. That will change, and how we 15
change that, I think—I would like to imagine that it would be done in a coordinated manner 16
considering transit, childcare, affordable housing, all of these things together and ideally with a 17
view. Whether that's officially called having an actual area plan or not, I think it needs to be 18
thought of holistically, not just one-off approvals or denials after long run-ups. Another thing. I 19
agree with what Julia was saying and others around—I'm hesitant for us to actually write into 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 35 of 83
the Plan, saying you shouldn't have housing in some specific area like in Midtown or at a 1
shopping mall. I think in particular it is a weird thing to think about, like Stanford Shopping Mall 2
parking as housing, but it is worth keeping in mind that how we—transportation, personal 3
transportation in particular, is changing a lot. Like, it is changing pretty rapidly. I think much 4
more rapidly than even people in this committee would have thought one year ago. The 5
number of companies that are now starting tests with driverless cars is pretty astonishing. 6
Fifteen years from now, what will Stanford Mall look like? I don't know. And Town and Country 7
and all that. I probably wouldn't write into the Plan that you can't putting housing in these 8
places, because that may be pretty—it's not very useful besides parking right now, and maybe 9
it could be. 10
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Mark. 11
Mark Nadim: First, I concur with Doria about the mixed use labeling or this mixed use zoning. 12
It should refer to residential and retail rather than residential, office and retail. We all know 13
that we need the BMR; everybody is talking about BMR, senior housing and low income. 14
Probably some of the best places for these developments are along El Camino and Cal. Ave. 15
The main issue is we need to be very specific on what the building size and what requirements 16
are applied to these buildings rather than going through the whole design process and then we 17
have an appeal based on a subjective item. That would delay the development years. We need 18
to be a lot more specific on what these buildings should look like. As for watering, we need to 19
look at studies of the effects of the dewatering to the area, to the region. The Central Valley 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 36 of 83
has been pumping out underground water for irrigation for several years now. There has to be 1
some studies that were done to evaluate what this has done to the land in the Central Valley. 2
That's it. Thank you. 3
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Len. 4
Len Filppu: Thank you. It's really been an honor to work with this committee. I'm enjoying the 5
mix of ideas and will add some now. I agree with Alex on the moratorium on basements. It's 6
something we ought to move forward with real quickly. Here are comments on some of the 7
outstanding Land Use Element issues that came in the memo. I agree that the plan should 8
prohibit hotel use on sites adjacent to single-family neighborhoods., but that should also 9
include low-density residential neighborhoods as well. That was Number 1. On Number 7, the 10
policy about Eichler neighborhoods, first of all it should be moved somewhere within L-3. It's in 11
the wrong place right now. I think that we do need to have some special regulations for Eichler 12
neighborhoods but understand that there are competing points of view within the Eichler 13
neighborhoods and neighbors. The policy should be developed with direct neighborhood input, 14
very important. On Number 10, I agree that planning for the impacts on schools should be 15
added to the Land Use Element, but I would argue why not have it in both, also keep it in 16
Community Services and Facilities. It's a critical issue. It's an issue that's been neglected in this 17
town for a long time. As the Comp Plan attempts to be consistent across all elements, making 18
sure such an important item is in both places makes sense to me. On Number 13, I agree that 19
the text should be added to prohibit housing in Charleston Center. I would include Midtown. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 37 of 83
These are neighborhood centers for primarily walkable retail. We ought to keep it that way. 1
We've seen some situations where we have not kept it that way. These are not always great 2
outcomes. My last one is Number 16, recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community 3
benefit, I say yes, let's delete it. It hasn't worked. There's been a history of this very loaded 4
phrase, community benefit, transforming from a Keith herring to a red herring. Thank you. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you, Len. Ellen. 6
Ellen Uhrbrock: The first thing that I want to say is I am in complete awe of everybody that can 7
do 469 pages in preparation for this meeting. I've admired very much all of your comments, 8
because I know now that you have read it. I'd like to start off with the high level thinking that 9
we really should emphasize the gateways that come into Palo Alto and the gateways 10
connecting us with our other communities like Stanford. Going up University Avenue and Palm 11
Drive, this could be a spectacular, welcoming gateway to both Stanford and to Palo Alto and the 12
others. I think that would be money extremely well spent. A lot of the gateways are near 13
heavy traffic areas, so this would be a good, over high level goal for the City. I'll add to that I 14
agree with all the housing affordability. Consider making parking an affordability element too. 15
When I got my first job after getting out of Stanford, it was at Stanford. I negotiated—this was 16
50 years ago. The first thing I negotiated was I don't type. That was a big barrier. The next 17
thing I negotiated for was a parking spot on the circle. Actually, businesses always are using 18
parking as a perk within their company parking lots, and they can do it within town. It gets 19
complicated to work out, but I think it would be kind of fun to work out. It would bring in 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 38 of 83
people that we want to be residents or workers or part of our community. I guess that's really 1
all I have to say, except that going back to the first element when you had the TMA and you 2
designed the SOV and the share the ride things. I have not seen, within this group or anybody I 3
know, anybody actually participating in it. I'd like to have a plan that we get going and be part 4
of the plan and not just observers that this is a good thing for other people to do. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Adrian. 6
Adrian Fine: Thank you. Just to start, I agree with many other folks here. This is a pretty good 7
product; although, I think there is a bit of a lack of focus on affordable housing. Just putting it 8
in the Comp Plan that we want affordable housing really isn't enough. Per Shani's comment, 9
we actually need to identify funding sources, cross-subsidies and partnerships to get it done. 10
This document doesn't do much in that regard. Given this land use chapter, we should also be 11
looking at housing densities and parking requirements as they relate to the overall cost of 12
housing. On the development requirements, I still have this question: why only new buildings? 13
The greatest impact in terms of traffic and congestion and pollution, things like that, is from 14
existing buildings and existing building users. Additional building will add marginal costs there, 15
but we should consider ways to mitigate the impacts of existing buildings and users. I think 16
Jason was speaking about this, that we've removed the ability, in the Comp Plan at least, to 17
look at housing in places like Midtown, Stanford, some of our CN, CC, CS zones. That's kind of 18
stringing our hands for the long term. I'm not sure we want to do that yet. I also think it's 19
funny that we've removed a bunch of high quality design metrics and requirements for the 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 39 of 83
hospital and employment centers. I wasn't really sure why that happened. I think we do want 1
those to be pedestrian-friendly, bike-friendly places for all residents and workers. On the 2
community indicators, I like that section, but I was wondering if there's a way to regionalize 3
some of those measures. Maybe look at nearby cities and see what they do in terms of 4
measuring them so that we can all kind of cross-evaluate projects. Recently we were looking at 5
the Facebook project in Menlo Park, and it was kind of hard to compare it to what kind of 6
impacts it would have in Palo Alto unless both cities are using the same metrics. I think that 7
might be helpful. On the basement dewatering, I agree with everyone here. It's clearly an 8
issue, but I think we should study it first before we make a broad decision here in the Comp 9
Plan. It may be an item outside of the Comp Plan itself for Council to talk about. I think that's 10
about it. Thank you all. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. A couple of things. With respect to school impacts, as Len 12
mentioned, it says here on page 6 of the staff report, move policies related to planning for 13
school impacts from the Community Services and Facilities Element to the Land Use Element. If 14
we choose not to do this, does that mean it goes back into the Facilities Element? It was 15
already taken out of that Community Services Element. You've got to put it somewhere. We 16
have not as a body agreed to delete it, so it needs to be put somewhere. Since the element 17
we're looking at is the Land Use Element, it must go there because we have not as a body 18
decided to remove it. I haven't heard anybody saying remove it from the element at all. I think 19
that's important. The next thing is that Fry's—with respect to coordinated area plan, Fry's may 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 40 of 83
be moving in a few years. Therefore, we want to control that, so that should be a priority. We 1
should also use that as a laboratory. If we could figure out how to do a coordinated area plan 2
efficiently and effectively, we can think about how many more we do. In particular, South El 3
Camino Real needs one, and that's important. The next thing is that in terms of what 4
percentage of our land is housing, it's actually a false measure. That's because, firstly, R-2 and R 5
MD are considered single-family residential when they're not. Secondly, things that are not 6
considered multifamily residential is, for example, Arbor Real which is actually not zoned for 7
housing. It's actually zoned for CS. We should revisit our land use map to reflect the actual 8
uses. Thereby, we'll actually know how much of our land is actually multifamily residential. In 9
addition, R-2 and R MD should be considered its own zoning of low-density residential. Then, 10
we will not confuse that with single-family residential, because it's actually different. The next 11
Housing Element is in 2022 and, therefore, we won't wait until 2030 to revisit our housing 12
policies. I noticed that it was mentioned by Adrian Fine, and I've also mentioned it. He 13
mentioned in the past the idea of value capture. I think we should value capture avoided 14
parking and increased density, and the City should get the value from that that is given to 15
developers for that increase. In particular, for the project at El Camino and Page Mill Road, if 16
that value capture were allowed to be obtained, that could pay for a subsidized master lease 17
which could be a mechanism for housing our City first responders and utility workers who need 18
to be here in an event of an emergency. I hadn't heard anybody create a mechanism for that, 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 41 of 83
but certainly value capture of that would be a way of doing that. I'm not sure if that can be 1
done other than as a PC. 2
Male: (inaudible) 3
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next thing is I think that the idea of accessible housing, 4
accessibility, really refers to—that term seems to be used for handicapped, and that's not 5
sufficiently broad in terms of what I would refer to as subsidized housing, which I think is the 6
broadest term. We have about 2,500 units of subsidized housing in Palo Alto. Some of it is 7
below market rate. Some of it is other kinds of subsidized housing. That's the term that's used 8
in general for housing. I think that we should use that in general. When we mean BMR, that's 9
specifically referred to, for example, increasing the percentage from 15 percent which most of 10
our developments are for-purchase housing, maybe increasing that to 25 over time. We're 11
thinking about how to do that. I think that makes sense. In terms of indicators, I'm in favor of 12
Option 2. Also, I'm intrigued by Shani's comment about not having indicators in there. I do 13
think we should do measurements. I'd like to actually have in here where the sources of this 14
data are. If we don't have the data, we're not going to be able to measure anything. Also, in 15
terms of development requirements, how can you have a development requirement, Number 16
8, that is encourage something or facilitate something or minimize—I guess minimize is 17
something. Facilitate and encourage don't sound like requirements to me. I have a little bit of 18
trouble with that. In terms of livability, I think that's a perfectly good term. We somehow got 19
allergic to the term quality of life, which some of us like. Now, if we're going to ban livability, I 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 42 of 83
think that's a problem. Let me close on the issue of dewatering. There are lots of levels of 1
aquifer. By the way, I serve on the Environmental and Water Resources Committee for the 2
Santa Clara Valley Water District. I think I know a little about this, but not as much as the 3
people who have been studying it a lot. There are different levels of the aquifer. It turns out 4
that Santa Clara Valley Water District charges us for the State Water Project, of which we 5
receive no value. Some of that money is actually used in other areas to fund recharge zones, so 6
that surface water actually recharges the shallow aquifer which in turn recharges the deep 7
aquifer. We have no recharge zones in Palo Alto. One of the things is if you deplete the 8
shallow aquifer, not only are you removing water that is watering trees, because trees do have 9
their roots go down and some shrubs do, but you're also eliminating water that would recharge 10
the deep aquifer. When you don't recharge the deep aquifer, then you can result in 11
subsidence. We do have emergency wells. If we were to draw on those, we could have more 12
subsidence. We did, as mentioned, have subsidence in the past. It is about 5 minutes after 13
7:00 approximately. I think we have a little bit more time to go around for people who raised. 14
If you could capture the names as they appear. We'll continue on. This time we'll take 1 1/2 15
minutes, if we can, so we have enough time. We have about a half hour, and we'll go on from 16
there. I think that, Shani, you were next. 17
Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. I wanted to explain why I among others thought that Charleston 18
Center is not good for housing. It's not because I don't think housing is needed. That specific 19
site, I think, the parking there will eventually make room for more retail and services. Right 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 43 of 83
next door in Mountain View, there are going to be 10,000 units in North Bayshore. There is no 1
services in North Bayshore. One of the closest areas to North Bayshore is Charleston Center. I 2
expect that area will need to grow, and it will need to grow up and it will need to grow wide. 3
That parking area will be needed for retail and services, so I don't think housing belongs there, 4
because you can't move people from their homes. If there's a business that doesn't—you can 5
always have more businesses. People need tutoring and they need dentists and they need 6
shops, and that's where they'll go. That's why; it's not because housing is not needed. I just 7
wanted to respond to you on that. I'm not going to go through all of these. I already 8
commented on some of the things. Policy L-1.3, promote infill development in urban service 9
area, is compatible with the surrounding is okay. It says and the (inaudible) scale and character 10
of the City. That does not mean anything, because in south Palo Alto, you don't want to build 11
something that is compatible with the character of California Avenue or Downtown. I think that 12
should be modified. 13
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next is Alex. 14
Alex van Riesen: I wanted to come back to the coordinated area plans for a minute. It seems 15
like we talk about Downtown and Cal. Ave. as the only ones that are on the transportation 16
corridor. I would argue, with regard to the Fry's site, whether we have the Fry's site by itself or 17
put in with Cal. Ave., that is also on the corridor. The distance from the Cal. Ave. station to Fry's 18
is nominal. I think that would make it, because of its current turnover that's going to occur and 19
that size, probably the primary place for development. That was my suggestion. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 44 of 83
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next is Doria. If you could put down your name tag after you 1
finish speaking, that would be helpful. 2
Doria Summa: Thanks. I wanted to agree with a lot of the concerns that I've heard. I, first of 3
all, want to encourage everybody to allow Shani's option of caps to be presented to Council. I 4
think it won't take work to do it. I think it's a very interesting one. I'm in favor of that. I 5
noticed also that we couldn't use quality of life because people didn't like that term and 6
livability we can't use. I don't know what we're going—I agree with Author. I don't know what 7
term we can use to replace those. We need something to capture that feeling of how people 8
are experiencing their life in Palo Alto. I don't have a problem at all with designating sites at 9
this time that are not appropriate for housing. I think it's perfectly appropriate to choose uses 10
where you want them. I'm really concerned that Palo Alto, as long as it can, maintains walkable 11
neighborhood centers, so people don't have to get into cars and drive places to get everything 12
they need. That includes having it delivered by UPS or FedEx, because those trucks are just 13
increasing daily, and it's really a nuisance. Walking is really healthy. I also agree that the way 14
the City measures the residential zones is a little bit misleading, and we could improve so 15
people would have a better understanding. I really want to put a plug in for Shani's idea, 16
because I think it's a really good one. Thanks. 17
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next is Annette. 18
Annette Glanckopf: A couple of fast points. I want to get back to affordable housing for first 19
responders and school teachers. I don't know if that's an urban myth or not. Talking to a lot of 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 45 of 83
firefighters, especially if you look at their schedules, they don't really want to live in cramped 1
apartments. I have not talked to anyone, even the younger ones, that really want to live in an 2
apartment. I think before we really get off on this track, we really need to do a little bit more 3
work. Another point, I'd like to see Cubberley more prominently mentioned in the Land Use as 4
far as active words. I agree with Arthur. There's a lot of very weak terminology in here, not 5
direct and a lot of fluffy adjectives. I'd like to see something about implementing the Cubberley 6
plan. I think dewatering is absolutely critical. What is in the Land Use is not very strong. It's 7
sort of high level. I think all of the heavy duty stuff should probably be in the Natural 8
Environment or the Safety Element, so I've not had my comments. I'll save my comments 9
there. As far as Midtown Center, I think it has a lot of the same characteristics as what was 10
described for Charleston. There is a real concern about loss of retail. The whole Midtown 11
Residents' Association, which is about 10,000, people, was formed on walkable retail. We keep 12
losing, losing, losing retail. If any part of those sites are developed, we're going to lose all these 13
mom and pop stores to larger, branded firms. That does concern me. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Mark. 15
Mark Nadim: A quick comment about the Charleston Center and Midtown Center. Actually, I 16
think those are best models for mixed-use development, where you have upper floors that are 17
all residential and the bottom floor is all retail. What Annette just mentioned, that the small 18
retail would be lost with new development, the mom and pop shops, that can be done as a 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 46 of 83
requirement or a contingency on the developer to rent—after the development to have the 1
same mom and pop shops come back into that center. I think that's a doable thing. Thank you. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next is Elaine. 3
Elaine Uang: Just a couple of points. On urban forest measures for Table L-2, urban tree 4
canopy cover, I think the Urban Forest Master Plan is going to be pushing forward a percentage 5
of City covered by trees, and it's about 40 percent over 10 years. The recommended frequency, 6
I think from speaking with Canopy folks, is actually every 5 years because I know that there is 7
some short staffing to do that. It's actually pretty difficult to take that measure, so every 4 8
years is a little bit too frequent. I wanted to just go back to housing and retail. I actually agree 9
with Mark that some of these places are actually great mixed-use opportunities. They can 10
provide that walkability, and it provides a built-in customer base. We talk a lot about retail, but 11
we're also not recognizing that retail in order to survive in this day and age of online shopping 12
needs people and people close by to frequent those places. Housing with respect to zoning, I 13
actually want to call out that a lot of places in our community—what a parcel is zoned for is not 14
necessarily reflective of what's there. I think case in point is College Terrace area where there 15
are a lot of small bungalows on 3,000-square-foot lots, some of which may have been 16
consolidated into single-family residential parcels. It makes it harder for anybody who comes 17
along with those parcels to—they're existing, nonconforming, which means that it's kind of 18
technically illegal to rebuild those again. There is a potential for losing housing stock because 19
what you can build legally new doesn't reflect what is actually there. Downtown there's 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 47 of 83
actually a couple of these where there may have small, three-unit multifamily that technically 1
doesn't conform with the zoning that exists right now. I think as a starting point our land use 2
map should reflect what is on the ground, not just what was arbitrarily assigned to it in the '70s. 3
Co-Chair Keller: Next is Bonnie. 4
Bonnie Packer: If Shani is recommending an arbitrary cap without means for evaluating it, I 5
don't think that's a good idea. I think what we have now in the Comp Plan, which gives people 6
a chance to look and see if the cap is really what's still needed when things have changed, then 7
that's a better way to go. I agree with what Mark and Elaine just said about mixed use in these 8
neighborhood shopping centers. That may be something that we might want to see in 5, 10 9
years. The other thing about the school impacts, Arthur you said nobody said to eliminate it. I 10
understand that we should be aware of what is happening in the School District and we work 11
with them, but we both also understand that there are legal limitations to how that's 12
expressed. If that is in the Comp Plan, it should be expressed within the context of the State 13
requirements about school impacts, how you use that information and whether you use it to 14
limit development. The other thing about housing for specific groups of people are laws about 15
fair housing don't allow you to exclude or have housing for just specific groups of people, 16
except for some exceptions like seniors and veterans in certain places. While theoretically it's a 17
good idea, it only works if other things happen like the School District owns the land and they 18
can have it for housing for teachers, but not otherwise. We just have to be aware of that. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 48 of 83
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I think the old policy did not refer to particular developments. It 1
referred to changes in policies and zoning. I think that is within State law as I understand it, and 2
I think you would agree. The second thing is with respect to Midtown and Charleston. We saw 3
what happened when Alma Plaza was redeveloped into Alma Village. The reason it's called 4
village is because it's mostly housing and a mere shadow of itself in terms of retail. We see 5
what happened with the College Terrace Center where we were promised that JJ&F would stay, 6
and that just isn't going to happen. On the idea that we would redevelop and allow an existing 7
retailer to go away and somehow come back in 2 years after the thing is redeveloped, how is 8
that retailer going to continue to live, continue to operate, continue to pay their employees? 9
They're not going to continue to exist. It's going to be replaced by something else at a higher 10
price and gentrified. That's typically what's happened in the redevelopment. I think that in 11
terms of the mix in Midtown and Charleston Center, that is very delicate and needs to be 12
retained. I think that—there's no more comments. Next we will go with next round with 13
Whitney. 14
Whiney McNair: Thank you. I just had a couple of additional comments. Number 2 in the staff 15
report talked about having a definitive statement, the net loss of retail uses should not be 16
allowed. I would just caution putting in really definitive statements like that. Cupertino is 17
struggling with that with the Vallco Shopping Center right now. There's a mandate to keep the 18
amount of retail that's there, and it's a failing shopping center where retail may be more 19
appropriate in a smaller building or the footprint's smaller or the type of retail may change over 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 49 of 83
time. Mandating a specific square footage doesn't allow for any flexibility. I'd just caution 1
putting in statements like that. It's the same as with no prohibition on office uses in mixed use. 2
It doesn't allow for any flexibility. Lastly, I think there's some idea floating around that we 3
would just go forward with a straight cap without any ability to look at it over time. Again, I'm 4
not sure what that is, but I just want to make sure that before anything goes forward, because 5
I'm not allowed to vote on it, that we understand what that is and the group talks about it and 6
makes sure what that is. Thanks. 7
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I think that, Jennifer, you haven't spoken yet in this round. 8
Jennifer Hetterly: I just wanted to call out a couple of the items in the outstanding issues. I 9
absolutely believe that the school impacts piece belongs in Land Use and not Community 10
Services and Facilities. Those impacts come from development, and Community Facilities and 11
Services is not about housing or population growth. I also support Number 11, which is add a 12
new policy requiring a conditional use permit for any new or expanded private school. I'm also 13
concerned that private schools may be incorporated in Policy L-1.2 about the cap exemptions 14
under institutional use. I'd like some clarification of that, whether private schools are 15
considered institutional use in that exemption. Also, Number 1, I do not believe that hotels 16
should be adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. 17
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Everybody has spoken at least once, so Shani is next. 18
Shani Kleinhaus: I think I need to clarify what I meant. I think we do need to have the 19
community indicators and measure what's going on in the community, but the requirements—20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 50 of 83
I'm worried about them replacing our ability to provide input with standards that just get a 1
check. I do think that we need to have the community indicators, but I think if we should be 2
able to do caps only plus those indicators without the requirements. There's a lot of 3
requirements already in the Green Building Code, and those should continue and the Green 4
Building Code get updated every 3 years and things could be added. That's about that. I have a 5
couple of more—I hope some of you would be willing to forward that. Doria is. If maybe 6
there's a couple more, then maybe that will go forward. Maybe I can write and explain it a little 7
better later. I'm worried about Policy L-77 or it's L-134 on page L-767, streamline to the 8
maximum extent feasible any future processes for design and review of historic structure to 9
eliminate unnecessary delay and uncertainty for the applicant. I don't believe in that. I think 10
we don't need to eliminate uncertainty for the applicants, because that's what it's all about. 11
There should be uncertainty for the applicants if they're going to destroy a beautiful, ancient 12
building. I think that I would like to see that changed. The mature oaks are part of our history 13
and should not be removed. That's on the same page. One last one. L-177 on Page L-87 is 14
including too many things that don't belong together very well. It needs some work. 15
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Next we have Bonnie. I think everybody else has spoken. 16
Everybody has spoken. At this point in time, I will entertain a motion. The motion I'd love to 17
have—I'm not allowed to make a motion as Chair, but I can suggest a motion, which somebody 18
else can make. The motion I'd like to have is to forward to the City Council the current draft of 19
the—Annette, did you want to say something first? 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 51 of 83
Annette Glanckopf: Have a question. I'd be happy to make the motion after this. We've talked 1
about a lot of things today. I don't know—there's a lot of bits and pieces that some of us have 2
turned in. I just wonder if that's going to be incorporated or if it's just going to be the draft as it 3
is. 4
Co-Chair Keller: That will—hear my motion. Hear my suggestion for the motion that you're 5
going to make. The motion that I’m entertaining, that I'm requesting is a motion that we 6
forward the current draft of the Land Use and Community Design Element to the City Council 7
along with the minutes of today's meeting, the verbatim minutes of today's meeting, all of the 8
documents that are submitted at places in today's meeting and any documents forwarded to 9
staff by a week from today, September 27th at 5:00 p.m. 10
Annette Glanckopf: I'm not sure there's enough time for them to read all this stuff, unless 11
that's the entire agenda of the City Council meeting. I'm happy to make the motion as said. 12
Doria Summa: Second. 13
Co-Chair Keller: We have a motion on the floor by Annette Glanckopf, with a second by Doria. 14
Does anybody wish to speak to the motion? I guess put up your name tags. I think Shani is 15
first. 16
Shani Kleinhaus: I would like ... 17
Co-Chair Keller: Wait a second. I think the maker and the seconder by policy get to speak first 18
to any motion. Annette, do you want to say anything first? 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 52 of 83
Annette Glanckopf: Just that I think there is a sense of urgency. As you said, the enemy of the 1
best is the enemy of good or something like that. I do think we need to move ahead. I am 2
concerned with the volume of material. I don't think we should turn in—my own feeling is I 3
don't think we should turn in the marked up copy as well as the other one. It just gets so 4
confusing. They probably have the original Comp Plan, and they can go back to it. I'm just 5
concerned with this vast amount of material, that they have plenty of time to get all of the 6
documents. 7
Co-Chair Keller: Hillary, would you like to talk about the draft? I think they'll give the current 8
version and the difference from the original version or something like that. I think that's what 9
you did for Transportation. 10
Hillary Gitelman: We're going to have to look at that. It's maybe that we've made so many 11
changes it'll be hard to reflect the difference from the original. We'll definitely give them a 12
clean copy and transmit all of the comments that we heard this evening and that we get in 13
writing. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Doria, do you want to say anything? 15
Doria Summa: Yes. I think that it makes sense to get this to Council for their first pass at it. I 16
don't think it's perfect, and I think there's a lot of little details that we haven't addressed. That 17
being said, I don't think this group is likely to come to any more consensus about the big issues, 18
so I think it's just best to move it along to Council with the choices. I would wish, if it's possible 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 53 of 83
with scheduling, we could have more than just a week to get our final comments in, but I don't 1
know if that's possible. I think it's good for the Council to review it at this time. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 3
Shani Kleinhaus: Can I make a friendly amendment to add an option of caps only and 4
community measures, so no standards? 5
Co-Chair Keller: I think you mean caps only, not the development requirements ... 6
Shani Kleinhaus: No development requirements. 7
Co-Chair Keller: ... but still have the community indicators. 8
Shani Kleinhaus: But still have the community measurements. 9
Annette Glanckopf: As maker of the motion, I accept that. 10
Co-Chair Keller: As one of the options to be included to the Council? 11
Doria Summa: I agree to accept that. 12
Co-Chair Keller: Don, I think you're next. Microphone please. 13
Don McDougall: I would suggest it's a good idea to include the written input along with this. I 14
think the transcript of the evening is not going to necessarily help, and it's an extra burden. I 15
would trust the staff, who we have all complimented tonight, would take the essence of what's 16
been said and help us with that. 17
Co-Chair Keller: I think that we are including the written input. The motion includes the 18
written input to today's meeting at places as well as the materials that will be received in the 19
week. Anybody else? I'll let staff ... 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 54 of 83
Female: (inaudible) 1
Co-Chair Keller: Hamilton, sorry. 2
Hamilton Hitchings: Thanks. I was at the City Council. There weren't a lot of CAC members, 3
but some were there last night. I think you're underestimating the significance of the changes 4
that Council provides. The stuff we're talking about is relatively minor to something like Tom 5
DuBois' comment that we should only have half the programs in the Transportation Element 6
that we do now. If we're sort of nitpicking on this stuff and they come back with significant 7
changes, it's really counterproductive for us to withhold that from them for significant 8
direction. I think it's in good enough shape for them to be able to provide the high-level 9
feedback that we need so we can continue to move forward with this, rather than just go 10
around in circles. I think providing our comments, if we have differences from what's in the 11
draft, will be sufficient, which is why I'm going to vote for the motion. 12
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I'm going to make a comment. Last time when this came last 13
night, it was supposed to come to the Council about 9:15 in the evening after a bunch of long 14
agenda items. Considering that the Council seems to want to deal with the Transportation 15
Element and the Land Use Element together, my recommendation is that you deal with the 16
Land Use Element first as the only agenda item on the meeting, and then you bring up the 17
Transportation Element afterwards for them to make additional comments related to that 18
together, and that you devote a single Council meeting to both items, and that you start 19
promptly at 6:00, no Study Sessions, just the typical Consent Items. That will give the Council 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 55 of 83
enough time to really devote time to it and allow the community to participate effectively in 1
that process. That's just a recommendation. That's not part of the motion. With that, any—2
you have a question, Shani? Cue the microphone please. 3
Shani Kleinhaus: Is Council going to get just the transcript or are you going to summarize it for 4
them? 5
Female: They'll get (inaudible). 6
Elaine Costello: We will do a staff report. 7
Shani Kleinhaus: All these comments will be kind of condensed and given as to ... 8
Elaine Costello: Really condensed with the major issues. I think a lot of the issues that—a lot 9
of the comments tonight were around the five major issues, and then there were some other 10
major issues. We will summarize those, and they will get all the other comments. 11
Shani Kleinhaus: How are they going to comment—like what I said about the architectural, 12
how does that move forward? That's a very small thing. Do they have to read the entire 13
transcript to see that? 14
Elaine Costello: We haven't figured out how every individual comment is going to get 15
transmitted. What we have tried to do—we probably will just run a long list like we did with 16
the 15. We might make it 30 or something. I think we are going to try and focus them in on 17
what were the major issues that were discussed tonight, which were very similar to things that 18
have gone on throughout the entire discussion. They will get all the wording changes. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 56 of 83
Co-Chair Keller: Maybe this is an opportunity for staff to comment on the request that we have 1
more than 1 week for comments. I'll let staff weigh in on that. 2
Elaine Costello: It's just we have a pretty ... 3
Co-Chair Keller: Are you on microphone? 4
Elaine Costello: I am on the microphone. Of course, if the group wants more than a week—let 5
me see. We really do need to get them in a week, because we sat down this afternoon for a 6
long time trying to lay out what's going to happen to get this to the Council. Really you need to 7
get it to them a month before, so we do need it in a week. If it's going to get included. We 8
want to be able to include it. 9
Co-Chair Keller: I also realized that if staff is going to be assembling it in some useful way, 10
that's going to take them time. Any other comments? Don, you're next. 11
Don McDougall: Just clarification. Number 1, I want to make sure everybody knows I was at 12
the Council meeting last night too, since everybody else is taking credit for that. Can we get 13
clarification of the motion? I think we agreed that we're going to submit as-is with written 14
comments. Are we including the transcript from tonight or are we trusting staff to consolidate 15
tonight? 16
Elaine Costello: We will always include the transcript from the CAC. 17
Don McDougall: Thank you. 18
Elaine Costello: There'll be the transcript. There'll be a summary, and there'll be all the written 19
comments. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 57 of 83
Don McDougall: Thank you. 1
Co-Chair Keller: The written comments received at the meeting today as well as the written 2
comments received by a week from today. Bonnie. 3
Bonnie Packer: I'd just like to be sure that Council understands that when we have our—it's 4
not really a discussion. We have everybody presenting an idea. The way it's set up and 5
understandably we don't have the opportunity to say, "That's an interesting idea, but did you 6
think of that?" A lot of ideas that were presented tonight, I didn't choose to say maybe, maybe 7
not. Just because somebody said something, it doesn't mean that is the sense of the whole 8
group. We each are saying our individual things. We're each individuals. We come at this from 9
our varying perspectives, which is good. They just have to understand that one person's idea 10
isn't the idea of the whole committee. We don't have the opportunity to find out whether it is, 11
because it could very well be or not. We don't know. 12
Co-Chair Keller: I appreciate that. I think that's well said. I also want to say that hopefully at 13
this meeting, I think it will be November 14th, is that right? 14
Elaine Costello: No. 15
Co-Chair Keller: No. 16
Hillary Gitelman: We're still futzing with the dates partly because of your observation that the 17
Council agendas are too full. I wanted to just follow on Bonnie and say that your observation is 18
absolutely correct. I think that one of the good things about getting this element to them is 19
that you've articulated with the subcommittee's help all these options. It's going to be clear to 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 58 of 83
the Council that this is not a consensus document. The consensus is there's a lot of options 1
here. With your transcript comments and your written comments, I think they'll get the full 2
scope of this. 3
Co-Chair Keller: I look forward to the Council weighing in on what they think are among the 4
choices and how that moves forward. Is there anybody else or can I call the motion? All in 5
favor of the motion, raise your hand please and if you're a voting member. All opposed to the 6
motion. No people opposed to the motion? All abstaining. We have one abstention. That 7
motion passes. Thank you very much. Let's take a moment to just stretch and sit down. Don't 8
take too long. Then, we'll start on the Natural Environment Element. Thank you. 9
2. Discussion: Natural Environment Element 10
a. Introduction of Natural Environment 11
b. Report from Natural Environment and Sustainability Subcommittees 12
c. Discussion of Draft Element 13
Co-Chair Keller: We have about 50 minutes left to our meeting. Will staff please start with the 14
introduction to the Natural Environment Element? 15
Elaine Costello: I'm just going to let Joanna get started and kind of give you an up ... 16
Joanna Jansen: Thank you very much, Elaine and Arthur. Tonight is your first meeting as a full 17
CAC on a new element, the Natural Environment Element. I know that a lot of you have been 18
looking forward to this one for a long time, and we're excited to kick it off tonight. This is the 19
first meeting, and we have three more CAC meetings scheduled on this. Each month from now 20
to the end of the year, October, November and December, we're going to be looking at this 21
element. As Elaine said, we spent some time on the schedule this afternoon. We'll also be 22
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 59 of 83
looking at the Safety Element at those three meetings as well. Natural Environment is moving 1
forward a little bit ahead of Safety. What you have right now is a rough draft. We have had 2
one subcommittee meeting on this element, back at the last week of August. The next task that 3
we're going to do after tonight, when we get your input and before the next subcommittee 4
meeting, which is coming up in early October, is sharpen and focus the element. So far, after 5
last night with the Transportation Element and the Council's previous review of the Community 6
Services Element, we're really hearing pretty consistently from them that they want to see 7
things that are concise, well organized, sharp. We are going to take that to heart and try to do 8
a better job as staff and the consultant team of kind of presenting you as the CAC and as the 9
subcommittee with something that reflects what we're hearing from Council, so that we can 10
get something back to them that reflects their feedback. One of the things that the 11
subcommittee looked at was the organization of the element. The organization merits a little 12
bit of discussion here, because this is one element where the Council motion from back in 13
December on this element is to split this current element into two elements. We would retain 14
a Natural Environment Element. The Council had some direction about adding goals to that 15
element, including a new goal about climate change and adaptation. The Council also wanted 16
to split Natural Environment into Safety and move the topics of hazardous waste, solid waste, 17
natural hazards and then a new topic of community safety and emergency management to a 18
new Safety Element. Given that pretty fundamental Council direction on the contents of this 19
element and of the new Safety Element, we wanted to spend some time with the 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 60 of 83
subcommittee and then tonight with you, going over different possible organization. You had 1
in your packet—I think it was Attachment J in this kind of large, 11x17. Tonight you probably 2
realize that you got—there's a new version of this at places or over on the countertop there. 3
We found a mistake in the one that was in your packet where the climate change was 4
mistakenly shown as part of the Safety Element. That was not correct. The Council motion 5
would have retained that in the Natural Environment Element. We've updated this 6
organization and then also the recommendation column to show climate change as part of 7
Natural Environment rather than as part of Safety. Again, all of this organization is part of what 8
we're here to talk about tonight. You can see one set of recommendations from the 9
subcommittee meeting discussions in the column that's called Subcommittee A. Ideas of 10
adding understory to the urban forest section, a new section on light pollution was suggested at 11
the subcommittee meeting. Changing terminology from hazardous waste to hazardous 12
materials in the Safety Element. We also received some written comments from a 13
subcommittee member that had a little bit more of a reconceptualization of the element into 14
these categories of land, water and air with some additional categories as well for topics that 15
don't fall into those three major ways of thinking about the natural environment. I think we as 16
staff and the consultants were interested in exploring whether or not that land, water and air 17
theme could be carried forward. You see that in the recommendation column as well as 18
retaining the other categories of noise, energy, the new category of light pollution and climate 19
change. This table is just an attempt to show you a comparison of the current organization as 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 61 of 83
well as a couple of different organizations that have been suggested since the PTC and the 1
Council started their discussions of this element. I think maybe it would be a useful thing for us 2
to spend some time on tonight. Before we get into that, I also just wanted to make sure we've 3
had a chance to give you a brief overview of the major topics that the subcommittee brought 4
up. Those are on pages 8, 9, 10 and 11 and 12 of your staff report. I'm not going to list all of 5
those right now, because I do want to leave the majority of the time for your discussion. One 6
comment just to make is that Natural Environment, I think, and particularly when we think 7
about a new topic of climate change and adaptation is one of many topics in the Comp Plan 8
where we want to make sure that we're seeing integration and consistency with the S/CAP. 9
Just to reiterate the point from your staff report that specific S/CAP strategies from the draft 10
S/CAP have been integrated into the policy framework that's before you tonight. That's one of 11
several types of changes that we went ahead and made to try to move this element forward 12
before you tackle it, so that you're not feeling you have to start from scratch. Of course, there's 13
many further changes that remain to be made and that's what we want to start with tonight. 14
Annette Glanckopf: I'm really confused. Maybe I could just cut to the chase and ask you, since 15
we have this whole packet, can you just fold this in half and say everything from the natural 16
hazards down is going to be in another chapter? 17
Joanna Jansen: Climate change is below natural hazards. At least based on the initial Council 18
motion, that would remain part of Natural Environment. You could fold ... 19
Annette Glanckopf: You can just (crosstalk) this and we're not going to talk about this tonight? 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 62 of 83
Joanna Jansen: The only comment I would make is that the subcommittee did have a different 1
idea about solid waste. They saw solid waste as a part of Natural Environment rather than a 2
part of the Safety Element. You may see some topics down on the lower half of the table that 3
some folks might feel should be part of Natural Environment rather than Safety. Other than 4
that, you really would focus on what's in the upper half or two-thirds of the table. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Lisa, you have a question? 6
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: I'm sorry. Just a question of the original open space, I think, also included 7
parks or did it not? It may be my memory. It was sort of in Land Use and it was sort of in the 8
Natural ... 9
Joanna Jansen: I think parks are primarily in Community Services and Facilities. 10
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: In Community Services only. 11
Joanna Jansen: Open space here is more like your ... 12
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: Like the Bay stuff. Thank you. 13
Joanna Jansen: ... wild, open space areas in the Bay and Foothills. 14
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt: It's not taking anything out. It just was never in the definition of open 15
space. 16
Joanna Jansen: We have changed the content of the open space category. 17
Co-Chair Keller: If you want to speak, please put up your tag. Hamilton. 18
Hamilton Hitchings: What is the difference between Subcommittee A, Subcommittee B? 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 63 of 83
Joanna Jansen: Subcommittee A was the kind of verbal discussion that we had during the 1
subcommittee meeting. Subcommittee B is written comments that ... 2
Hamilton Hitchings: You keep referring to the subcommittee meeting. Apparently it's not 3
either the natural environment subcommittee nor the safety subcommittee. What 4
subcommittee is it? 5
Joanna Jansen: It was a meeting of the natural environment subcommittee and the 6
sustainability subcommittee on August 30th. 7
Elaine Costello: We did get written comments from a member of the sustainability 8
subcommittee who could not attend that day about a suggested organization. We thought 9
there were some value in that, so we just showed it on the chart. 10
Female: That's B. 11
Elaine Costello: That's B, right. 12
Female: (inaudible) 13
Joanna Jansen: Yes. 14
Elaine Costello: Because we ended—because (inaudible). Yeah. 15
Co-Chair Keller: Just to get that in the record. Subcommittee B is an alternative from a 16
member of the subcommittee. Just as a clarification, what we're doing is—Sorry. That doesn't 17
even get on the record either. The issue is that the Subcommittee B recommendation is a 18
recommendation from one of the members of the subcommittee. The way we're doing this is 19
that the sustainability committee is meeting with the element committee the first time that the 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 64 of 83
element committee meets before the CAC meets. There was a meeting of the natural 1
environment subcommittee with the sustainability subcommittee that one time. The next time 2
the natural environment subcommittee will meet by itself without the sustainability 3
committee. The future meetings that happen will be the natural environment committee 4
alone. However, the sustainability committee will meet with the safety subcommittee once 5
before we as the CAC see the Safety Element. After we see the Safety Element, then the safety 6
committee will meet without the sustainability committee. I hope that's clear as mud or at 7
least a little better. I'm just trying to clarify that the sustainability committee is meeting once 8
with each element before we see it as a CAC. Do you want to ... 9
Elaine Costello: No, we had a number. We have Bonnie ... 10
Co-Chair Keller: Bonnie, go ahead. 11
Elaine Costello: ... and we have Don and we have Shani. 12
Bonnie Parker: I'm just observing from the committee list that the people—the same people 13
are on the sustainability committee as are on the natural environment committee. That's just 14
an observation. Is this the time for me to make just a couple of suggested organizational 15
changes? 16
Co-Chair Keller: Actually is staff finished with their report? 17
Joanna Jansen: I can be. 18
Co-Chair Keller: If you have any clarifying questions, that's fine. Otherwise, why don't we let 19
staff finish? Then what we can do—this is really clarifying questions that people had. What we 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 65 of 83
also want to do is go with the process that we have of starting with the subcommittees first to 1
speak. We'll do that. Maybe continue. Anybody have a burning, quick question? Don, did you 2
have a burning, quick question? 3
Don McDougall: I'll wait (inaudible) 'til you do the subcommittee. 4
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Go ahead. You want to finish? 5
Joanna Jansen: I think I'm finished. 6
Co-Chair Keller: If you are on the natural environment subcommittee or you're on the 7
sustainability subcommittee, then you raise your tent and then we'll call on you. That's all. 8
Let's start with Don. You go first. 9
Don McDougall: Partly to Hillary. One of the things that Council continually says is that the 10
preamble is too long. It was commented last night that there was 26 pages here or whatever. I 11
would note that 14 of those pages are maps and definitions. You could put those in an 12
appendix or somewhere else as opposed to in the preamble, and then your preamble would be 13
a lot shorter. In the preamble, we have land use definitions, publicly owned conservation lands, 14
public parks and whatever. When we get to this, I'd like to defend the Subcommittee B thing. 15
It's Subcommittee A with just a little better organization so we understand what the 16
components are. I would suggest that instead of Foothills and Bay, maybe we should be 17
referring to the publicly owned conservation land to be consistent with the definitions that 18
we've created. Under Subcommittee B, I don't think the climate change and climate adaptation 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 66 of 83
box should be left empty. That should continue to be a separate box, I believe. Neither should 1
energy or light pollution be left out. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. Microphone. 3
Shani Kleinhaus: I usually speak too loud. I think that urban parks, there are policies now that 4
talk about the urban parks as a continuation of the natural experience for people. I don't want 5
to see urban parks left out of the natural environment. I'm looking at your recommendation, 6
because I think it's a pretty good representation of the other various things here. Soil is 7
missing. Soil is a big thing. We see people putting dyed mulch that poisons the soil. We see 8
people putting those (inaudible) under the plastic turf. That kills the soil. We see salinization 9
due to irrigation with recycled water. We need to think about how to solve that problem in a 10
more comprehensive way and not poison our soil. Soil is something we kind of think of as dirt, 11
but it's really something we all need. I would like to see that somewhere in the parks. I think 12
under risk and safety—I'm not sure how to do this. Water supply should be in there, because 13
we don't know that we'll always have Hetch Hetchy water. I know that we already deal with 14
this to some extent, so maybe that's something that we should have. Another hazard that we 15
kind of don't think about but has been quite a problem for Palo Alto is the trains and what 16
people use them for. I don't know if we want to say something about the trains being a hazard. 17
Maybe it's not a natural hazard, but still. The last thing is about solid waste. There is a 18
comment in here that solid waste was not commented on as an issue. What we see these days 19
is that the value of recyclables is going down, and it's very hard to sell them to China now. I just 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 67 of 83
do it very, very quick, googling on how many fires at recycling plants in California happened in 1
the last few months. I counted four, one in San Jose, one in San Carlos, one in Maywood which 2
is (inaudible), one in Newark which was huge. This is all just this year. Then, there was another 3
one in Arizona. What happens to that is we send all this recycling material with a lot of good 4
will and they don't have anything to do with that. Accidental fires happen. I can't blame 5
anyone. I don't know that anybody actually ignited those, but this seems to be a huge increase 6
from what happened in previous years. We might want to think about what to do with 7
recyclable in some other way. I don't have solutions here, but it's something we need to think 8
about. It's something we want to do, but there's no market anymore. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Are we timing this by the way? Thank you. Jennifer. 10
Jennifer Hetterly: I was going to make the same point about soil. I think that needs to be here 11
somewhere. I would put it with—I don't know—either land or water. Storm water, I think, 12
maybe belongs better with climate change and adaptation, because that's so closely tied to 13
increased flooding and storm water management and sea level rise together. Also, I wanted 14
to—I'm not going to go on. I wanted to draw everybody's attention to the (inaudible) 15
groundwater piece that was submitted in the at-places comments. There's an FAQ that is really 16
informative and useful. I encourage everybody to read it. It talks a lot about groundwater, and 17
it talks a lot about soil impacts. It's not just about basements. Please do read it carefully before 18
we have a further discussion about this element. Thanks. 19
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Elaine. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 68 of 83
Elaine Uang: Mine are picky thing. Under safety, I think you've got solid waste twice, both for 1
infrastructure. I generally do like the recommendation and the way that this is organized. I'm 2
just kind of poking around at some other elements. It is interesting. The infrastructure piece, 3
I'm glad that there is an infrastructure piece. I think that's actually really important and 4
captures a lot of the things that—I guess safety is probably the right place. It captures a lot of 5
things that are important to the urban landscape but also in service of protecting our natural 6
environment. I think maybe the only thing might just be, since we're talking a lot about water 7
resources, this sort of overarching category of watershed management, which isn't really 8
captured either under water resources, but it could be in a couple—the water thing is really 9
tough because you've got to bridge everything. I think this is probably as good as it gets, but 10
maybe watershed management could be placed under water resources. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Were you on the committee, Adrian? What we'll do is if you did 12
not just speak, then please put up your tent. We'll go around. If you put up your tent, I guess 13
next is Bonnie. Yes, go ahead. 14
Annette Glanckopf: Are we just talking about the organization now or are we talking about 15
general comments? 16
Co-Chair Keller: Any comments that you have overall. 17
Elaine Costello: It can be both. 18
Co-Chair Keller: Bonnie. 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 69 of 83
Bonnie Packer: Just some comments about the organization. I'm just looking at the 1
recommendation column. One thing that struck me is that the infrastructure way on the 2
bottom deals a lot with water. Why wouldn't that be put in the natural environment section 3
under water resources? We could have water resources, and then a section within that on the 4
infrastructure related to water. It might make more sense. I don't see what infrastructure has 5
to do with safety. The other thing I thought of was climate change and climate adaptation. It 6
may flow better if that particular chapter of the element comes right after energy. A lot of 7
energy policies and programs have to do with reducing greenhouse gases, etc. I think that 8
would be a natural flow into that. Also, in the energy section, you might highlight if some of the 9
policies are specifically related to climate change issues, that there be some kind of indicator, 10
maybe mark it in green throughout the element that these are issues that are addressing 11
climate change. It's kind of like what we did with transportation when we noticed that traffic 12
congestion was affected by a lot of the policies. Climate change is one of these things that a lot 13
of the policies in here may affect how we address climate change. The other couple of things 14
on safety. I wonder if we want to add a category about privacy in terms of—I haven't thought 15
this through. Just in terms of internet privacy, that kind of thing. I don't know if there's 16
something that the City can do or what it would do, but I'm just throwing that idea out there. 17
The solid waste, we have electronic recycling. I didn't see any mention of electronic recycling in 18
this—other types of recycling. This is on the detail level on the lower hierarchy. It's a safety 19
thing, and it has to do with urban forest and street trees. You've got to be careful about those 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 70 of 83
roots. They lift up the sidewalks and create a safety problem. Somehow addressing the 1
relationship of our urban forest with our urban environment and the unintended consequences 2
like the roots. Some trees don't have the root problem, and others do. That kind of thing. 3
Mountain bikes on trails is another safety and environmental impact issue that we may want to 4
study. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Julia. 6
Julia Moran: I just have a couple of quick things. One of the things, looking at Goal N-3, the 7
urban forest. One of the bullet points was Downtown tree health. I am happy to have 8
Downtown trees may benefit from targeted support policy or programs. I think we also need to 9
look at other areas. Personally when I drive down Middlefield and I cross Oregon Expressway, I 10
find a significant difference between the trees on the south side of Palo Alto and the north side. 11
I think we need to be looking at the south side. I think like months ago, I couldn't find it. 12
Someone said that as we've added trees, it's disproportionately been added to the north side of 13
Palo Alto. If we're going to look at targeted areas, we need to look at the south side of Palo 14
Alto. Also, why there aren't trees. I think one of the things is the rolled curbs. It's the 15
responsibility of property owners. With the drought, people have turned off their water bills. 16
We need to put something in here of being better at not just educating people but providing 17
outreach to people who perhaps can't afford their water bills to keep the tree canopy. It might 18
not necessarily be a south side issue, but it seems to be to me. In the recycled water section, I 19
don't know. I'm just throwing this out there. That seems more like a Citywide thing. I don't 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 71 of 83
know if we've looked at educating people about household gray water use. I know certain 1
cities allow it and some don't. I don't know what Palo Alto's view is on that. Perhaps 2
something to add in as well. Thanks. 3
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Jason. 4
Jason Titus: A couple of things. One was actually the same thing around water. I was glad to 5
see that there was things around rainwater capture. That seemed like a good thing to be 6
planning for. To do that well, that's usually something for new construction or renovation to be 7
able to actually have any substantial water storage. Also gray water is something that it seems 8
like would be worthwhile calling out just because that is something that is much easier for 9
existing households to be able to do. Actually I had one other thing, but I didn't write it down, 10
and I don't remember what it was. 11
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Mark. 12
Mark Nadim: Looking at the table, I'm a bit confused of what—what am I supposed to 13
understand from this table? I think we need to do a little bit more work on this to either fill 14
more boxes or—I don't know. I don't know what it is for. Looking at the Natural Environment 15
Element, there is a graph on page whatever. It's a graph of the projected water demand, which 16
is very outdated. I'm sure the water usage in Palo Alto is much lower now than what it used to 17
be. For Foothills Park or actually the open space which is about one-third of the City area to the 18
south, southwest of the City, it's our natural environment. It's a treasure for us. Currently the 19
Foothills Park is exclusive to Palo Alto residents' use. Every few years we hear people who want 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 72 of 83
to open it to the rest of the public, to other cities. I think that's the wrong thing to do. The 1
more people using it, the higher the risk of a wildfire. We look at what happened in the recent 2
forest fires that were caused by humans. The more humans you have, the higher the risk of 3
fire. As for the urban forest, we have a lot of non-native trees. Now with the drought, a lot of 4
the trees are dying. It would be great to replace all these aged or the dying trees with native 5
trees rather than just bringing trees from all over the world. Thank you. 6
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Annette. 7
Annette Glanckopf: I'm really confused why we want to break this thing up. I agree with 8
Bonnie that this infrastructure thing should be moved up to the natural environment, and 9
climate change should be after energy. I actually wrote that down. Again, natural hazards 10
certainly belongs in safety. I would vote to keep it as a chapter because there's very little left in 11
safety at this point. Some high-level comments. We're talking a lot about trees. There's 12
nothing in here that talks about Canopy, which is our tree organization. I have a longtime 13
concern about the right type of tree planted in the wrong place or vice versa. I think we need 14
to do a better job in our tree policies to make sure that we plant—maybe it's native trees or 15
whatever—trees where roots are not going to mess up the sidewalks, etc., and that need little 16
watering. I could go on about that. Talking about preserve (inaudible) trees and we're talking 17
about incentives for carbon benefits. To me, I don't really understand that whole policy. If 18
we're talking about increasing carbon benefits, it might be private development rather than 19
public. To me it's either in the wrong place or not that. On the groundwater section, this is 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 73 of 83
where we really, really need to buff it up or fluff it up with the dewatering. I don't have any 1
policies that I'd like to suggest. I'm very concerned as well as the watering group on the 2
cumulative impact of multiple buildings in a certain geographic area. I'll come back the next 3
time with something like that. Many of these points are not really strong enough in my benefit. 4
We talk a lot about educating customers throughout the Comp Plan. I'm really concerned that 5
we develop these massive programs with massive literature that no one reads or they just 6
throw away. I think we need to be very, very careful when we do that. I think we can do more 7
with rainwater onsite. It'd be interesting to either have some new Code to develop 8
underground water systems to collect water or incent people to have more rain barrels. That's 9
not really a widely used program. I love the idea of permeable paving materials, but it's really 10
much more expensive. I'd like to see some incentives for people to do that. Anyway, I've got 11
lots more comments. 12
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Len. 13
Len Filppu: Thank you. Under water—I'm not sure exactly where this fits. I want to talk about 14
grass. Under water resources, to save—Man, I want to talk about grass, man. Invariably, when 15
a new house is sold, they put in new lawns and everything's all green and then people water. 16
That's what I did when I bought my house. Over years you get into this habit of continuing to 17
keep this little patch of green grass growing, even though it doesn't work in this environment. 18
It's not natural to the environment. It's inappropriate. It's a big waste of water. I wonder if 19
there's—I know the City used to have a program where they would help fund changing lawns 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 74 of 83
from grass to more indigenous plants and whatnot. I just wonder if the Comp Plan might be an 1
area where we educate people about grass. It takes enormous amounts of water to try to keep 2
a green lawn in this town. They're still all over despite the drought. I learned my lesson. I 3
wonder if others might be able to do so too. I'd like to see something about the wastefulness 4
of our green grass. Thanks. 5
Co-Chair Keller: Hamilton. 6
Hamilton Hitchings: I like the general organization. I do agree with Annette that safety is 7
rather short, but I think there's a lot that the City needs to do over the next 15 years in 8
improving our safety infrastructure, so that when things go wrong there will be much less 9
impact and our City will be more resilient. Certainly myself, Annette and Lydia have spent a lot 10
of time volunteering and working and being trained by the City in public safety, and we're all 11
emergency responders if there's a big earthquake. I just had a few comments on the specific 12
organization. First of all, I feel that it's important that flood be under safety. For some reason, 13
under Subcommittee B there was a proposal that it be moved under. Because I was part of the 14
flood of '98, wading around in the middle of the street, I talked to neighbors who woke up in 15
their bedroom with 6 feet of water on De Soto Drive. I think it's critical, and we have some 16
important projects on that. Infrastructure is very important because when there's an 17
earthquake, it's important we have our electric grid and supply. There's some very important 18
infrastructure projects like the Public Safety Building and fire station improvements that will 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 75 of 83
need to be done. Lastly, we need to add crime as one of the bullets under public safety. Thank 1
you. 2
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Shani. 3
Shani Kleinhaus: I'm looking at the key issues about the creek setbacks. I mentioned that 4
before, I think. There is some (inaudible) in other groups, that they're looking at creek 5
corridors. Especially for the areas up in the hills, 50 feet and what you can do in it is probably 6
not enough. If you look at the County, they're requiring 150 feet. If you look at the habitat plan 7
for Santa Clara County, it's 100 feet. If you look at San Jose, it's 100 feet. I think Palo Alto can 8
look at that again. I don't expect that to be 100 feet from a concrete channel, but we do have 9
some land where we could look at that again. There is many other issues. As we build too 10
close to the creeks, then we have to reinforce those creeks, because people get flooded. 11
There's a lot of benefit at looking upstream at what we can do there. Flood management could 12
be part of that, but that's really not Palo Alto's jurisdiction. At least we can look at how we plan 13
next to creeks. The Stanford HCP, I think people need to understand what that is, what an HCP 14
is, what the Stanford HCP is. It says here that the Comp Plan Update could substantially affect 15
special status species if it allows development in certain areas. HCPs are created to allow 16
development in sensitive areas. What they provide is the permits to build on a sensitive area. 17
In return, pay fund or protect area somewhere else. We need to understand this in relation to 18
these land uses and consider those in discussion. Those are things that I wanted to especially 19
mention. The issue with the streamside review area, I think, we do need to update the plans 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 76 of 83
there. What's in here is just the tip of the iceberg of how important it is to protect creeks. One 1
thing that Julia talked about. The Urban Forest Master Plan actually is looking at the 2
discrepancy between north and south and looking to find why and to remedy that. I don't 3
know if it will be successful, but there is definitely attention to that. Just so you know. I'm 4
looking for some drought solutions. Drought is another issue that we have. Somehow it keeps 5
coming up, but we don't actually have that as a category anywhere. I don't know if we need it 6
as a category by itself, but we need to talk about drought as something that we need to deal 7
with. There's something about the urban forest in coordination with PG&E, but I think it's really 8
Palo Alto Utilities that we have to deal with here and not PG&E. That's about it for now. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Whitney. 10
Whitney McNair: Thank you. I would love to take Shani up on the offer to meet with staff to 11
talk about the Habitat Conservation Plan. Just for reference, within the staff report the Habitat 12
Conservation Plan is sort of incorrectly described. It talks about the plan covering lands within 13
the City of Palo Alto including Lagunitas. It's Lagunitas Reservoir, and actually that's within the 14
county. The only area that's within the City of Palo Alto that's not already developed, that's 15
covered by the Habitat Conservation Plan is actually Coyote Hill. That's the area east of Page 16
Mill Road, the undeveloped area right now. The rest of the area is either within the 17
unincorporated Santa Clara County or in the Research Park is already developed land. There 18
are several policies in the open space section that refer to maintaining the Stanford Lower 19
Foothill property that's predominantly within the City. I just don't know which areas the plan is 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 77 of 83
talking about. It would be helpful to clarify specific areas. It even talks about Policy N-1.9, all 1
development in the Foothill portion of the planning area, i.e., above JSB. That area's not within 2
the City and wouldn't have to comply with the City's open space development criteria. It's 3
actually governed by the County and the community plan within the County. There are very 4
stringent regulations within the County. It's a concern that I've had even in the Land Use 5
Element, that it doesn't accurately describe what's within the county and governed by the 6
County plan and what's within the City of Palo Alto. We've gone a long way in the Land Use 7
Element to take out areas outside the sphere of influence, but still it's hard to distinguish what's 8
on Stanford lands, outside of the City of Palo Alto's jurisdiction. The only other thing I'd 9
comment is on Policy N-12.1. It's the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent 10
below 1990 levels by 2030. That's much more aggressive than Governor Brown's new 11
legislation of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. I just want to make sure either that's 12
consistent. This is where we're bringing in the S/CAP and targets are mirroring each other. 13
Thank you. 14
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Alex. 15
Alex van Riesen: Can I make one comment? I think if you're not speaking, you can turn your 16
mic off. I think that's some of the feedback. I heard someone talking during one of ... Maybe 17
they're just the voices in my head. 18
Female: (inaudible) 19
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 78 of 83
Alex van Riesen: Yeah, you guys were on. We heard all the vicious things you were saying. I 1
was thinking another way to organize this instead of land, water—what was it? Land, water 2
and air. Why don't we change it to earth, wind and water? I thought it might be a little 3
catchier. I like the organization. The only one that struck me, near the end under the Safety 4
Element, was the natural disasters. It might make—I appreciated Shani's comment. I would 5
suggest moving fire down to community safety and emergency, and put drought in there, and 6
call them something like natural threats. They might be disasters; that's even a scarier word. 7
Some category or collective threats that seismic, flood and drought are things that will affect 8
the City as a whole. Unless you guys were thinking like a fire that was going to take out all of 9
Palo Alto. That wasn't what you were probably thinking. I also didn't see anything more 10
content-wise. Does stuff like other forms of energy get picked up in this element? Like solar or 11
geothermal or stuff like that, is that just ... I was thinking something that talks about—with 12
things that are changing, it seems like energy sources and renewables should be predominant 13
somewhere in this. Is there a plan or any kind of thought for a connected city, sort of the digital 14
idea of how are we going to be a city—are we going to go wireless? What's the view of that for 15
Palo Alto and the effect of that on the environment? I also thought under the urban forest, 16
under the comment stronger protections, I also noticed there was no comment about 17
replacement of trees due to drought or disease. It was sort of not allowing the canopy or 18
whatever—I was also wondering how drought is affecting that and affecting the overall amount 19
of trees and the canopy. 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 79 of 83
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I have a few comments. The first is that we have under natural 1
environment climate change and climate adaptation. I guess I'm done. Thank you. We have 2
sea level rise there. Yet, we have flooding under natural hazards. I think those should go 3
together. Separating those seems strange to me. I'm not sure whether climate change and 4
climate adaptation may be safety issues. I'm not sure how you handle that. Think about that a 5
little bit more. I agree with adding drought. I also pointed out in terms of sea level rise that the 6
description on page 14 of the staff report refers to safer Bay levees between San Francisquito 7
Creek and Redwood City. In fact, we are actually studying it on our side of the San Francisquito 8
Creek to south Palo Alto through Adobe Creek. In fact, I made the motion for the Planning 9
Commission to initiate that in terms of working with the JPA on that. I'd like to see that added. 10
The other thing is in terms of grass we do participate in the Santa Clara Valley Water District's 11
program for cash for grass, which is replacing grass with cash. In fact, Palo Alto matches the 12
amount that the Water District provides. I think it may also be worthwhile thinking about—I'm 13
not sure where this fits in. Sometime in the not too distant future, there'll be a new Stanford 14
General Use Permit. I'm not sure where that fits in and what the policies of that are, but 15
somewhere in the Comp Plan we might think about what Palo Alto wants to have out of a new 16
General Use Permit Finally, in terms of the issue of waste, I would like us to think about the 17
idea of extended producer responsibility, which is the standard technical term for the idea of 18
you make it, you deal with it. If you're dealing with recycling and waste and all that kind of 19
stuff, promoting the idea of (inaudible) responsibility and whether we actually implement 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 80 of 83
policies on it or whether we simply work in terms of encouraging government agencies to adopt 1
it, it is something that is a solution to the problem instead of trying to subdivide it into different 2
categories and deal with it. With that, unless there is—Annette, you have a burning issue? 3
Annette Glanckopf: I just wanted to sort of resonate with what Alex said. The whole Safety 4
Element really needs to be aligned with what emergency management is doing right now. 5
They're in the process of doing this big threats and hazards, natural environment, human made 6
and biological. Alex was right on. Drought is included. Flood's included in that. When we 7
come back or when I go to the safety committee, I'd like to make sure that's aligned, because it 8
is not now. You were right on. 9
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. I hope we don't have to add pestilence, hail and boils. 10
Don. 11
Don McDougall: Just a quick comment. I think if we looked at the Safety Element instead as a 12
risk element or a risk management element, because that's what you're dealing with here, then 13
it would be easier to categorize what kind of risk are we dealing with, a natural risk or are we 14
dealing with a manmade risk or whatever within that section. It's really risk that we're dealing 15
with in all of those pieces. 16
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Elaine, you wanted to say something? Microphone. 17
Elaine Uang: This conversation jogged my brain a little bit. I think along with the risk comes 18
the infrastructure. Obviously there's defining the risks and the challenges and then how do you 19
deliver the solutions and manage that. I do think that Alex's point about the digital 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 81 of 83
infrastructure is particularly important. I might even just consider reshaping this and not just 1
calling it safety, but safety and infrastructure because I think those two things go together. One 2
is defining what the problem can be, and then the other is the delivery mechanism for those 3
solutions. 4
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. Hillary would like to add a few remarks. 5
Hillary Gitelman: I just wanted to make one observation. Sort of like when we've been 6
working on other elements and we're incorporating by reference and tiering off of them, like 7
Urban Forest Master Plan is a good example, Parks Master Plan. We've talked about those in 8
the context of other elements. For this element, there are other plans going on. Annette 9
referred to one, the threat hazard mitigation plan. There's a much more specific and detailed 10
planning effort going on around that. I don't think our role is to repeat that, but to be 11
compatible and consistent and supportive of those goals. To the extent that the committee 12
members want further education about what those other plans contain and what the status of 13
them are, we can provide that to you. I just don't want us to have to rethink everything that's 14
already been put in motion. 15
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you. I'll add one remark about creeks. I think that we should think 16
about, as is mentioned here, separating the notion of the riparian corridors in wildland creeks 17
as opposed to the creeks in the flatlands that we've spent tens of millions of dollars 18
channelizing Adobe Creek and Barron Creek and Matadero Creek. We're not going to tear 19
down those creek walls and eliminate the houses in order to create a riparian corridor. That's 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 82 of 83
just not going to happen. When we update our riparian corridor ordinance, which I think makes 1
sense to improve it for the wild creeks, we should also make sure that we don't onerously affect 2
the people who are near the channelized creeks that are going to stay that way. Alex, you have 3
the last word. 4
Alex van Riesen: Two quick things. For your comment, Hillary. Is it possible when you redo 5
this, rather than duplicating, maybe you could put an asterisk where there's any other plan, like 6
Annette was mentioning, and then note that at the bottom with a website that we could go to 7
from that. The other thought I had was just a quick thing when I was reading this. On the Point 8
6 or whatever, hazardous waste, I was just struck by the very thing that said discourage the use 9
of toxic and hazardous materials. That just seems sort of soft. I was just sort of curious. Is it 10
possible to use the word eliminate or is it just a part of life that you have to have toxic and 11
hazardous materials? I was just curious why it was only discourage or wag your finger viciously 12
at them. 13
Hillary Gitelman: Did you drive here this evening? Gasoline could be considered one. 14
Alex van Riesen: I get it. That's what it is? Okay. 15
Hillary Gitelman: They're ubiquitous. 16
Co-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. I think we've done a great job. I'm impressed. We 17
finished the Land Use Element and recommended that on to the City Council. We did a very 18
admirable job in not quite an hour on the Natural Environment Element. 19
Feedback for Continuous Improvement: 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 83 of 83
Future Meetings: 1
Next meeting: October 18, 2016 – Rinconada Library (Embarcadero Room) 2
Topic: Natural Resources Element II 3
4
Adjournment: 8:25 p.m. 5
Co-Chair Keller: With that, we will be adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Thank you very much. 6
Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13, 2016 *
1
Month Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Schedule of Meetings & Topics
Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan
Update
City Council
Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions
October Discussion of the first half of the
Natural Environment Element and
Introductory Discussion of the Safety
Element (October 18)
CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee reviews
revised 1st half of the Natural Environment Element
(October 5)
November Discussion of the second half of the
Natural Environment Element and the
Safety Element ( November 15)
CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee reviews
revised 2nd half of the Natural Environment Element
(November 1)
CAC Safety Subcommittee reviews revised Safety
Element (November 3)
CAC Safety Subcommittee reviews revised Safety
Element ( if needed)
City Council review of CAC
recommended Land Use Element
(November 28)
December Recommendation on Natural
Environment and Safety Elements
(December 13)
January
2017
Discussion of the Business & Economics
Element (January 17)
CAC Business & Economics Subcommittee reviews the
Business and Economic Element
CAC Business & Economics Subcommittee reviews the
revised Business and Economic Element
City Council review of the Revised
Transportation and Land Use
Elements (tentative for January 23)
February Recommendation on Business &
Economics Element (February 21)
CAC Governance & Implementation Subcommittees
review Implementation & Users Guide/Governance
Publish Scenario 5 and 6 Supplement to the Draft EIR
for 45-day public review period
City Council Review of CAC
recommended Natural Environment
and Safety Elements
March Discussion and Recommendation on the
Implementation Plan (March 21)
PTC Hearing on the Scenario 5 and 6 Supplement to the
Draft EIR
City Council Review of CAC
recommended Business & Economics
Element
City Council Hearing on the Scenario 5
and 6 Supplement to the Draft EIR
City Council Selection of a preferred
Alternative for the EIR
April Discussion and Recommendation on the
intro/users guide/governance topics
(April 18)
May Final CAC Session (“Putting it all
Together”) & review for Internal
consistency (May 16)
Comp Plan Monthly Schedule October 13, 2016 *
2
Month Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Schedule of Meetings & Topics
Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan
Update
City Council
Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions
June, 2017 Revised Draft Comp Plan Update Disseminated for
Public Review
July, 2017 PTC Review & Recommendation to the City Council on
the Draft Comp Plan Update (Multiple meetings)
August Final Review of Transportation & Land
Use Elements
Final Review of Natural Environment
&Safety Elements
September Publication of the Final EIR
Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring Plan & CEQA
Findings
Final Review of Business & Economics,
Community Services & Facilities
Elements
Final Review of Users
Guide/Governance & Implementation
Plan
October City Council Final EIR Certification
Hearing
Review of City Council’s Changes &
Errata; Adoption of the Updated
Comp Plan
*All dates and topics subject to change. This schedule assumes that City Council comments on CAC work products will be addressed by staff and
reviewed by the CAC in a final “putting it all together” session in the spring of 2017 once the Council has reviewed all of the elements.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7499)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Plan Bay Area Update
Title: Plan Bay Area Update
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report. No action is requested.
Executive Summary
On October 4, 2016, staff provided the City Council with an informational report regarding the
draft “preferred scenario” disseminated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for their ongoing update to Plan Bay
Area, the regional transportation and land use plan.
The regional agencies have now provided a revised preferred scenario, which they will consider
for adoption on November 17, 2016. Following adoption, the preferred scenario will form the
basis of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which will be circulated for comments in the
Spring of 2017. A Final EIR will follow, with adoption of the updated Plan Bay Area in the
Summer of 2017.
The revised preferred scenario includes higher household and job growth between 2010 and
2040 than prior iterations, although the totals are still less than in past ABAG projections, and
are generally consistent with what the City itself expects the future to hold.
Table 1 and 2 below compare the new, revised numbers from ABAG/MTC to ABAG Projections
2013 and the City’s Comp Plan Update EIR scenarios and update the comparisons provided in
the October 4, 2016 informational report.
Please note that the numbers provided express the regional agencies’ expectations in terms of
future households and jobs; they do not predict new square footage or parking ratios. Also, the
current update to Plan Bay Area does not include development of a new Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), and thus has no immediate effect on the City’s Housing Element.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Transportation funding priorities articulated in the plan update are not anticipated to change
dramatically, and will continue favoring Priority Development Areas (PDAs), of which the City
has one near California Avenue. The ABAG/MTC scenario assumes 340 of our new households
and 1,040 of our new jobs will be in our PDA near Cal Ave.
Planning staff is available to answer any questions regarding the summary tables below or the
attached materials from ABAG/MTC.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Table 1. Comparison of the Plan Bay Area “Preferred Scenario” and Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2013
ABAG Projections
2013
Plan Bay Area
Preferred Scenario
REVISED
Nov 2016
Santa Clara County
2010 Households a 604,204 597,100 604,204
2040 Households a 818,400 846,600 860,800
2010-2040 Households (% Change) a 35.45% 249,500 (41%)
256,596 (42%)
2010 Jobs 926,270 911,500 911,530
2040 Jobs 1,229,520 1,269,700 1,289,900
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 32.74% 358,200 (39%)
378,370 (42%)
City of Palo Alto
2010 Households a 26,493 26,550 26,493
2040 Households a 34,370 29,150 32,900
2010-2040 Households (% Change) a 7,877 (29.73%) 2,600 (9.79%)
6,407 (24%)
2010 Jobs 89,690 102,000b101,940b
2040 Jobs 119,470 123,200126,500
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 29,780 (33.20%) 21,200 (20.78%)
24,560 (24%)
Notes: (a) Households are not directly comparable to housing units. Household is defined as an
occupied Housing Unit. In Palo Alto, a 5% vacancy rate is assumed on Housing Units to estimate
number of Households.
(b) Staff will be requesting an explanation of this change in the baseline. MTC provided staff with
a technical explanation for the increase in the 2010 baseline number of jobs and the plan’s focus
is on the net change between 2010 and 2040, which is less than in prior projections.
Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, November 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 2. Comparison of the Plan Bay Area “Preferred Scenario” and Palo Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan Update EIR Scenarios
Palo Alto
Comp Plan EIR
Scenarios 1-4a
Palo Alto
Comp Plan EIR
Scenarios 5-6 a
Plan Bay Area
Preferred Scenario
REVISED
Nov 2016
City of Palo Alto
2010 Households b 26,493 26,493 26,550 26,493
2040 Households b 30,013-33,041 31,485-35,856 29,150 32,900
2010-2040 Households (% Change) b 3,520-6,548
(13.29-24.72%)
4,992-9,363
(18.84-35.34%)
2,600 6,407
(9.79%) (24%)
2010 Jobs 89,690 89,690 102,000 101,940
2040 Jobs 108,159-119,470 106,318 123,200 126,500
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 18,469-29,780
(20.59-33.20%)
16,628
(18.54%)
21,200 24,560
(20.78%) (24%)
Notes: (a) To allow an apples-to-apples comparison, Comp Plan EIR scenarios, which include growth
projections to 2030 have been extrapolated to 2040.
(b) Households are not the same as housing units, which is the metric used in the Comp Plan EIR. In Palo
Alto, a 5% vacancy rate is assumed to estimate number of Households.
Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, November 2016
Attachments:
Attachment A: PBA 2040 Final Preferred Scenario and Investment Strategy_Nov 4_2016
(PDF)
TO: MTC Planning Committee and the
ABAG Administrative Committee
DATE: October 28, 2016
FR: ABAG Deputy Executive Director and
MTC Executive Director
RE: Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Preferred Scenario and Investment Strategy
Background
The Plan Bay Area 2040 Preferred Scenario encompasses a 2040 regional pattern of household
and employment growth and a prioritized set of transportation investments comprising $310 billion of anticipated revenues. Staff presented the Draft Preferred Scenario in September and
provided an update on local jurisdiction and stakeholder feedback in October. At today’s
meeting, staff seeks the Joint Committee’s referral of the Final Preferred Scenario and
Investment Strategy to the MTC Commission and ABAG Executive Board for approval on
November 17th.
Comments Received on the Draft Preferred Scenario Between the Draft Preferred Scenario’s release in late August and the end of the comment
period in mid-October, staff received 63 letters from local jurisdictions, transportation agencies,
stakeholder organizations, and individuals. These comments with initial staff responses are summarized in Attachment A and all comments have been posted at http://planbayarea.org/your-
part/your-comments.html. Staff will provide formal responses to all commenters before the end
of December.
Staff has also engaged directly with local jurisdictions via planning director workshops in all nine counties and over twenty one-on-one meetings. Staff coordinated with the Congestion
Management Agencies and transit operators regarding the investment strategy and land use
projections, and met with numerous stakeholder organizations to discuss various issues including
the Preferred Scenario’s approach to jobs/housing balance, housing production, affordability, and
open space. Staff has also presented the Draft Preferred Scenario to various committees and working groups, including the Partnership Board, the Regional Advisory Working Group,
Regional Equity Working Group, Policy Advisory Council, the ABAG Regional Planning
Committee and Executive Board.
The comments reflect a range of issues about the Draft Preferred Scenario’s approach to identifying a feasible pattern for regional growth and investment. Comments on land use varied
widely, but generally focused on the Plan’s strategies to drive a more efficient regional
distribution of housing and employment while respecting local plans and aspirations. While
several local jurisdictions expressed concern about housing projections in excess of local
expectations, a greater number of jurisdictions expressed concern that the Draft Preferred Scenario had not adequately accounted for “pipeline development”— permitted or entitled
housing or commercial space expected to occur in the near-term. Numerous jurisdictions also
Agenda Item 5a
MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee Agenda Item 5a
October 28, 2016
Page 2 expressed concern that employment projections fell short of expectations. An overarching
concern of many commenters is how severe constraints on the supply of housing, particularly
workforce housing, near major job centers will affect the livability of the region for future
generations.
As context and an important reminder, the Final Preferred Scenario does not mandate any
changes to local zoning rules, general plans or processes for reviewing projects, nor is it an
enforceable direct or indirect cap on development locations or targets in the region. As is the
case across California, the Bay Area’s cities, towns and counties maintain control of all decisions to adopt plans and permit or deny development projects. Plan Bay Area 2040 does not establish
new state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers for each jurisdiction.
RHNA operates on an eight-year cycle, with the next iteration not due until the 2021 RTP/SCS.
Because RHNA numbers are not at stake this cycle, MTC and ABAG are characterizing this
update to the region’s long-range plan as limited and focused.
Comments from transportation agencies and stakeholders also reflected a range of issues
including the effect of the housing and employment distribution upon the efficiency, reliability,
and resiliency of the transportation network. Some commenters expressed concern about the
Plan’s level of proposed investments in transit, express lanes, active transportation, and investments benefitting lower-income communities. A number of commenters also expressed
concern that a continuing regional jobs/housing imbalance could perpetuate issues of highway
congestion, transit crowding, and long commutes for many Bay Area residents.
Final Preferred Scenario Modifications Staff worked to incorporate much of the feedback received into the Final Preferred Scenario. In
terms of land use, staff made a series of modifications to the set of regional strategies influencing
the housing and employment growth distribution and revised the 2010 household counts for
consistency with the 2010 U.S. Census. The final list of strategies assumed in the Final Preferred Scenario is included in Attachment B1. Staff also worked to adjust assumptions on the square footage of office space per employee, incorporated available information on pipeline
development, and made some technical corrections based on local input. For transportation, staff
worked closely with the congestion management agencies, transit operators and stakeholders to
clarify the investment strategy’s funding assumptions. Staff also incorporated some
modifications to the final project list (Attachment C1), most notably the inclusion of a number of express lanes segments that had not been included in the draft.
Final Preferred Scenario- Summary of Household and Employment Distributions
Incorporating the changes described above, the Final Preferred Scenario modifies the housing
and employment growth distribution described previously in the draft. Based on the regional sub-geographies of “Big 3 Cities,” “Bayside,” and “Inland, Coastal, Delta,” the most significant
changes between the final and draft versions can be summarized as follows:
• More overall employment and housing growth in the Big 3. Overall, the Big 3 cities experience a slightly higher share of employment growth (43% vs 40% in the draft) and
housing growth (46% vs 43% in the draft). San Jose and Oakland’s employment forecasts
have increased relative to the draft, a change resulting largely from changes in the office
square foot per employee assumption, adjustments to zoning in priority development
areas (PDAs), and incorporation of potential opportunity sites.
MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee Agenda Item 5a
October 28, 2016
Page 3
• More balanced jobs/housing ratios between Bayside and Inland, Coastal, Delta. The
Final Preferred Scenario forecasts a slightly higher share of employment growth in the
Inland, Coastal, Delta communities (17% vs 14% in draft) and a lower share of employment growth in Bayside communities (40% vs 46% in draft). This change reflects
a more thorough accounting of pipeline projects, as well as overall modifications to
regional forecasting assumptions.
• PDAs are forecast to take on more housing and employment growth. The Final Preferred Scenario forecasts 77% of household growth and 55% of employment growth to occur
within PDAs, an increase of 2-3 percentage points over the draft. This change reflects
adjustments to some PDA zoning, and other regional strategies assumed in the forecast.
Tables 1 and 2 below describe the changes in the Final Preferred Scenario across these three geographies. Attachment B2 describes the Final Preferred Scenario’s household and
employment projections by local jurisdiction, including PDA totals.
Table 1: Comparison of Final Preferred Scenario Household Forecast Summary
Subarea1
Households 2010 (000s)
Households 2040 Draft (000s)
Households 2040 Final (000s)
Share of Regional
Growth Draft
Share of Regional
Growth Final Grand Total 2,608 3,427 3,427 100% 100%
Big 3 Cities 801 1,151 1,174 43% 46%
Bayside 1,035 1,319 1,313 33% 33%
Inland, Coastal, Delta 772 957 940 24% 21%
in PDA 553 1,172 1,182 75% 77%
outside PDA 2,055 2,255 2,244 25% 23%
Table 2: Comparison of Final Preferred Scenario Job Forecast Summary
Subarea1 Jobs 2010
(000s)
Jobs 2040 Draft
(000s)
Jobs 2040 Final
(000s)
Share of Regional
Growth Draft
Share of Regional
Growth Final
Grand Total 3,423 4,698 4,698 100% 100%
Big 3 Cities 1,144 1,648 1,700 40% 43%
Bayside 1,410 2,002 1,917 46% 40%
Inland, Coastal, Delta 869 1,048 1,081 14% 17%
in PDA 1,433 2,094 2,140 52% 55%
outside PDA 1,989 2,605 2,559 48% 45%
Note(s):
1) *Big 3 Cities (the region’s three largest cities – San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland)\ *Bayside (generally cities directly adjacent to San Francisco Bay – e.g., Hayward, San Mateo, San Rafael and Richmond)
*Inland, Coastal, and Delta (generally cities just outside of Bayside – e.g., Walnut Creek, Dublin, Santa Rosa, Antioch, Brentwood, Dixon)
MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee Agenda Item 5a
October 28, 2016
Page 4 Transportation Investment Strategy
As the transportation component of Plan Bay Area 2040, the Draft Investment Strategy
comprises a 24-year fiscally constrained set of transportation projects and programs that support
the region’s land use and transportation goals. The total plan investment totals $310 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Of this total, roughly $74 billion is considered to be
discretionary revenue. Additionally, $19 billion in revenue and projects from upcoming local
transportation measures on the November 8th ballot are assumed. Attachments C1-9 describe the
numerous funding assumptions and detail the specific investments.
Similar to Plan Bay Area 2013, Plan Bay 2040’s proposed investment strategy focuses largely on
maintenance and modernization of the existing system, as opposed to expanding it via roadway
capacity expansion or extension of fixed guideway transit. In fact, 90 percent of the Plan’s total
investment, 90 percent of the Plan’s regional discretionary investment, and 86 percent of the
November measures focus on maintenance and modernization activities, a continuing reflection of the region’s “fix-it-first” priority with an additional focus on upgrading and enhancing our
existing infrastructure to boost capacity, improve service, and relieve congestion. Specifically,
the investment strategy elevates the importance of Core Capacity transit and goods movement
investments, which are further described in Attachments C1-9.
The investment strategy’s focus on operations and maintenance results in the Plan moving in the
right direction toward its state of good repair goals— however, much of this success hinges on
the successful passage of the upcoming local transportation measures in next week’s election.
Without these investments included in the Plan, positive movement toward these goals will be
more challenging. Staff is closely monitoring these measures and, if necessary, will modify the Investment Strategy to reflect the results prior to the MTC Commission and ABAG Executive
Board meeting on November 17th.
Performance Target and Equity Measure Results
Similar to the Draft Preferred Scenario, the Final Preferred Scenario meets 5 targets, moves in the right direction on 5 targets, and falls short on 3 targets. This breakdown underscores the
challenges the region faces in terms of equity and affordability going forward, even as we meet
our environmental goals and make progress in improving our regional transportation system.
While regional affordability and displacement are expected to worsen over the coming years, the
Final Preferred Scenario either performs on par or better than other scenarios previously analyzed, indicating that adverse trends are being mitigated to the extent financially feasible
given significant constraints on the supply of housing. Note that the complete table of target and
equity results for all scenarios is included in Attachments D1 and D2.
With regards to equity measures, we can see that the Plan makes progress for lower-income communities and communities of concern in terms of improving access to jobs, improving health
outcomes, and growing jobs in middle-wage industries. Notably, like the Draft Preferred
Scenario, the Final Preferred Scenario minimizes displacement risk in communities of concern
to a greater extent than in other more affluent Bay Area communities. Still, the most important
finding of the equity analysis is that housing affordability remains the most significant regional challenge – and that lower-income communities will be hit the hardest over the coming years.
Given these results, staff recommends prioritizing work on this topic area as part of Plan
implementation in 2017.
MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee Agenda Item 5a
October 28, 2016
Page 5 Next Steps
Next week, Bay Area voters will cast their ballots on five transportation ballot measures, as well
as several bond measures focused on affordable housing. In addition to integrating feedback
heard at today’s meeting, staff will work to incorporate the results of these ballot initiatives prior to the joint meeting of the Commission and Executive Board on November 17. At this time, the
Final Preferred Scenario assumes passage of all transportation measures and incorporates
funding assumptions for housing that align with the housing bonds on the ballot. Success or
failure of these measures at the ballot box may require some revisiting of assumptions included
in the preferred scenario.
Once adopted, the preferred scenario will be subject to an environmental assessment under
CEQA to inform decision-makers, responsible and trustee agencies, and Bay Area residents of
the range of potential environmental impacts that could result from its implementation. This
analysis along with federal air quality conformity requirements will incorporate a deeper level of transportation analysis that will be factored in when generating the final 2040 air quality results
and other transportation-related performance results of the preferred scenario. The environmental
analysis will also analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the adopted preferred scenario that
could feasibly attain most of the Plan’s objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant environmental impacts. Staff plans on discussing potential alternatives for the environmental analysis at your December 2016 or January 2017 meeting.
Recommendation
We recommend your referral for approval of the Final Preferred Scenario described herein.
Brad Paul Steve Heminger
Attachments:
• Presentation Slides
• Attachment A: Draft Preferred Scenario Summary of Comments
• Attachment B1: Land Use Policies Included in the Preferred Scenario
• Attachment B2: Distribution of 2040 Household and Employment Forecasts
• Attachment C1: Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditure Plan – Total Plan Revenue
• Attachment C2: Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditure Plan – Regional Discretionary Funding
• Attachment C3: Needs Assessment – Transit Operations Funding Detail
• Attachment C4: Needs Assessment – Transit Capital Funding Detail
• Attachment C5: Needs Assessment – Local Streets and Roads Funding Detail
• Attachment C6: Goods Movement Projects in Plan Bay Area 2040
• Attachment C7: Core Capacity Transit Projects in Plan Bay Area 2040
• Attachment C8: Climate Program in Plan Bay Area 2040
• Attachment C9: Transportation Project List
• Attachment D1: Performance Target Results
• Attachment D2: Results for Equity Target Measures
SH:MM
J:\COMMITTE\Planning Committee\2016\11_PLNG_Nov 2016\5a_PBA 2040 Preferred Scenario memo_v2.docx
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/1flatworld/12224999016
FINAL PREFERRED SCENARIO:UPDATES TO THE REGIONAL GROWTH PATTERN & INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Ken Kirkey, MTC –November 4, 2016Joint MTC Planning Committee with the ABAG Administrative Committee1
November is an important month for Plan Bay Area 2040.
August 31Draft Preferred Scenario Released
September 9Joint Committee
September 7 -29County Workshops & One-on-One Meetings
October 14Joint Committee & End of Public Comment Period
November 4Joint Committee
November 17Commission and Executive Board Consider Adoption
2
Local jurisdictions, stakeholders, and members of the public provided robust feedback on the Draft Preferred Scenario.
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/smadness/5036967711/Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markhogan/12317139805
Specific issues included:
•Technical corrections on pipeline data, opportunity sites, and zoning assumptions to better match local plans
•Requests to increase jobs-housing ratios to improve commutes and to boost regional affordability
•Requests for implementation action plans on issues like affordability, physical activity, preservation of open space, and transportation funding advocacy
20 staff-to-staff meetingswith individual cities 9 county-level meetingswith planning directors 3
Image Source: The Noun Project
Most comments received on the Draft Preferred Scenario came from local jurisdictions.
63 letters total
Summary and responses can be found in Attachment A.
40 from cities and counties
16 from stakeholder organizations
5 from other public agencies (incl. CMAs)2 from individuals 4
In response, staff updated strategies in the Final Preferred Scenario, as well as baseline data inputs, when appropriate.
CHANGES TO POLICIES/STRATEGIES INFINALPREFERREDSCENARIO
CHANGES TO BASELINE DATA ANDMODELASSUMPTIONS
Icon Sources: The Noun Project
Adjusted zoning in PDAs to align with PBA 2040 performance targets
Incorporated or added office or commercial development caps to reduce employment growth in job-rich cities
Updated employee office space density to trends more similar to status quo
Incorporated missing pipeline projects to better reflect current development underway
Made technical corrections on other land use baseline data (e.g., current zoning)
Added back select express lane projects not included in Draft Preferred Scenario
Staff continues to evaluate the feasibility and viability of adding housing bonds to the Final Preferred Scenario.
Staff is also updating forecasts for several jurisdictions where the Final Preferred Scenario has less growth than their current RHNA allocation.5
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/97408355@N06/15178052123
The Final Preferred Scenario builds upon the Draft Preferred –with a few notable changes.
6
Land use strategies influence the location of future housing and jobs.
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/neighborhoods/4283507357; Icon Sources: The Noun Project (Mint Shirt, Creative Stall, Avery, Boatman, Gomez)
The Final Preferred Scenario has the following key strategiesfor land use:
•Assign higher densities than currently allowed by cities to select PDAs.
•Keep current urban growth boundaries in place.
•Preserve and incorporate office space caps in job-rich cities.
•Assume for-profit housing developments make 10 percent of units deed-restricted in perpetuity.
•Reduce the cost of building in PDAs and TPAs through eased parking minimums and streamlined environmental clearance.
•Assume subsidies stimulate housing and commercial development within PDAs.
•Assess commercial development fee based on VMT to improve jobs-housing ratio and to fund affordable housing in PDAs.7
25%
75%
24%
33%
43%
23%
77%
21%
33%
46%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
outside PDA
in PDA
Inland, Coastal,
Delta
Bayside
Big 3 Cities
Compared to the Draft Preferred Scenario, the Final Preferred Scenario boosts housing growth in the “Big 3” cities.
Where will the region plan for the 820,000new households?30%
40%
30%
2010: 2.6 millionhouseholds
34%
38%
28%
2040: 3.4 million households
8
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
48%
52%
14%
46%
40%
45%
55%
17%
40%
43%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
outside PDA
in PDA
Inland, Coastal,
Delta
Bayside
Big 3 Cities
New strategies included in the Final Preferred Scenario shifted some job growth away from Bayside communities.
Where will the region plan for the 1.3 millionnew jobs?33%
41%
26%
36%
41%
23%
2010:3.4 million jobs
2040:4.7 million jobs
9
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
More information for local jurisdictions interested in detailed forecasts is publicly available.
Primary changes as a result of policy and technicalchanges since September’s draft release include:
Reduced job growth in San Francisco
Increased job growth in San Jose (and Oakland), with lower job forecasts for other Silicon Valley cities
Reduced housing growth in North Bay, especially in Sonoma County
Shifted housing growth from Contra Costa to other high-population, job-rich counties
10
As noted previously, the Final Preferred Scenario assumes passage of transportation ballot measures next Tuesday.
$29B $48B $44B $156B $14B $19B
Federal State Regional Local Anticipated 2016 Transportation Ballot Measures
$310 billion
Year of Expenditure $
Revenue Envelope for Plan Bay Area 2040
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/beejjorgensen/3495038
11
The Final Preferred Scenario allocates over 90 percent of funds towards maintenance and modernization, similar to Plan Bay Area.
$158 billion
51%
$67 billion
22%
$54 billion
17%
$31 billion
10%
Total Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditures -$310 billion
(in billions of $YOE)
Operate and Maintain -
Transit
Operate and Maintain -
Roads/Freeways/Bridges
Modernize
Expand
90%
10%
Operate, Maintain, and Modernize
Expand Existing System
12
Future regional discretionary revenues support maintaining the existing system while balancing modernizing and expanding.
$39.7B,
54%
$8.0B,
11%
$18.8B,
25%
$7.5B,
10%
Regional Discretionary Revenue -$74 billion
(in billions of $YOE)
Operate and Maintain -
Transit
Operate and Maintain -
Roads/Freeways/Bridges
Modernize
Expand
Major Discretionary Fund Sources Amount (in billions)
FTA Formula Funds + Other Cond. Discr. Sources $30.5
STP-CMAQ $4.7
New Starts/Small Starts/ Core Capacity $5.0
Cap and Trade $4.8
STA-Pop $1.9
ATP + ITIP $1.2
High Speed Rail $0.7
Future Regional Measures $8.9
Other Federal $2.3
Anticipated/Unspecified $14.0
13
Discretionary revenue is used to close the gaps on transit operating expenses over the next 24 years.
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0
AC Transit
BART
Caltrain
GGBHTD
SFMTA
SamTrans
VTA
Draft Transit Operating Needs and Funding, 2017 -2040
(In billions of YOE$)
Committed Revenue Regional Discretionary Revenue (e.g. TDA/STA/AB1107)
$3.9
$5.5
$32.7
$13.4
= 24-Year Operating Need & Revenue
$15.7
$5.4
$35.2
$X.X
OVERVIEW OF REGIONALTRANSITOPERATIONS:SERVICE & FUNDING
Icon Sources: The Noun Project (Clarke; Aarthus)
Service Levels+7.5%
greater than the original Plan Bay Area
Annual Costs+25%
greater than the original Plan Bay Area
Note: statistics cited focus solely on operating existing service. Funding for projects that increase service is included within the modernize and expand investment categories.14
Maintenance funding is directed to highest asset need, but does not fully achieve a state of good repair for transit capital.
$1.1
$6.4
$0.7
$0.5
$0.8
$5.1
$0.1
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0
AC Transit
BART
Caltrain
GGBHTD
SamTrans
SFMTA
VTA
Draft Transit Capital Needs and Funding, 2017 -2040
(In billions of YOE$)
Committed Investment November Ballot Measures
Discretionary Investment Remaining Need (State of Good Repair)15
Funding for local streets and roads also brings us closer, but not completely, to a state of good repair.
$2.4
$0.7
$0.7
$0.3
$1.3
$2.3
$1.8
$2.6
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
Napa
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Solano
Sonoma
Draft Local Streets and Roads Needs and Funding, 2017 -2040
(In billions of YOE$)
Committed Investment November Ballot Measures
Discretionary Investment Remaining Need (State of Good Repair)16
Future regional funding is also directed to three key issue areas for Plan Bay Area 2040.
Closing the GHG Gap Sustainable Goods Movement Core Capacity Transit 17
Most of the Plan’s GHG emission reductions will come from MTC’s Climate Initiatives Program.
Transportation and land use strategies are not enough to meet the climate goals of SB375, requiring the following additional programs:
Transportation Demand Management Alternative Fuel/Vehicle Strategies Car Sharing and Vanpool Incentives
18
Strategy Local/Comm.Regional Discr.Total Plan Investment
Regional Climate Initiatives Program $36 million $490 million $526 million
Total = 11%reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005
Almost $3 billion of discretionary funding would go toward modernizing the region’s goods movement network.
The draft investment strategy seeks to improve goods movement operations while also increasing the environmental sustainability of the sector.
Strategy Local/Comm.Regional Discr.Total Plan Investment
Modernizing Infrastructure $2,300 million $2,200 million $4,500 million
Clean Fuels and Impact Reduction $350 million $350 million
Smart Deliveries and Operations $300 million $300 million
Increase efficiency within the Port of Oakland Reduce emissions of small trucks Reduce neighborhood impacts
Fund strategic highway investments
19
The Final Preferred Scenario investment strategy would provide transit crowding relief throughout the region’s core.
Major investments include:
•Extending BART to Silicon Valley
•Extending Caltrain to downtown San Francisco
•Increasing frequencies and capacity on BART
•Electrifying and modernizing Caltrain
*Includes funding from local/committed sources, regional discretionary sources and November 2016 ballot measures 20
•Bus rapid transit in San Francisco and Silicon Valley
•More vehicles for SFMTA, AC Transit, VTA and WETA
•Transit priority infrastructure in San Francisco and along the Bay Bridge approaches
Location Total Plan Investment*
Transbay Corridor $5.8 billion
Peninsula Corridor $7.3 billion
Within San Francisco $3.9 billion
Within Santa Clara County $8.3 billion
Planning for future capacity projects $0.8 billion
Changes between the Draft Preferred and Final Preferred did not have any significant impacts on overall performance results.
TARGET ACHIEVED (5)
Final performance results will differ slightly from those shown here, as the final scenarios will incorporate successful housing bonds and a complete network of all transportation projects. The final results will also be analyzed against the 2040 Plan horizon year.
Climate Protection
Adequate Housing
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation
Middle-Wage Job Creation
Goods Movement/ Congestion Reduction
RIGHT DIRECTION (5)
Healthy and Safe Communities
Affordable Housing
Non-Auto Mode Shift
Road Maintenance
Transit Maintenance
WRONG DIRECTION (3)
Housing + Transportation Affordability
Displacement Risk
Access to Jobs
PERFORMANCETARGETSUMMARY
FOR THE FINALPREFERREDSCENARIO
Refer to Attachment D1 for detailed results.
21
Transportation investments are being targeted to benefit low-income Bay Area residents…
Share of Population
Share of Investment Benefit
Transit Roadway Total
Low-Income 24%48%27%40%
Minority 59%61%52%57%
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALLOCATIONFOR FINAL PREFERRED SCENARIO
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pfsullivan_1056/4487394472; https://www.flickr.com/photos/24208255@N07/3802154159; https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootleggersson/7946832080
22
… but ultimately transportation isn’t the primary challenge –rather, it’s finding an affordable place to live.
Share of Population
Share of Investment Benefit
Transit Roadway Total
Low-Income 24%48%27%40%
Minority 59%61%52%57%
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALLOCATIONFOR FINAL PREFERRED SCENARIO EQUITY MEASURE SUMMARYFOR FINAL PREFERRED SCENARIO
Equity Measure
Are DisadvantagedCommunities Outperforming the Region?
AreDisadvantaged Communities Making Progress?
Access to Jobs Yes Yes
Risk of Displacement Yes No
Healthy and Safe Communities No Yes
Middle-Wage Job Creation n/a Yes
Housing + Transport Affordability No No
Affordable Housing No No
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pfsullivan_1056/4487394472
23
While the Final Preferred Scenario makes progress on many fronts, regional affordability challenges remain. Implementation actions on this front are a key priority for MTC and ABAG in 2017.
Photo Credit: D. Vautin24
Staff requests that the MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative Committees refer the Final Preferred Scenario to the Commission and Executive Board for approval.
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/smadness/5036967711/25
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties Alameda County Community
Development Agency
The Alameda County Community Development Agency recommends specific
policies to be incorporated into UrbanSim, including anti-displacement
policies, second unit allowances, compliance with the Surplus Land Act for
publicly-owned land, and inclusionary zoning assumptions.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes inclusionary zoning within all PDAs and
subsidies for affordable housing in PDAs. Additional policy suggestions will be
assessed as staff develops the Plan document in advance of final Plan
adoption.
Cities and Counties
City and County of San Francisco,
San Francisco County Transportation
Authority, and San Francisco
Municipal Ttansportation Agency
Officials from San Francisco expressed concern that the household and
employment projections for San Francisco are too high. They expressed
concern with housing affordability and displacement, recommending specific
legislative actions to address the housing crisis.
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates a strict maintenance of Prop M and
decreased upzoning in PDAs. Staff acknowledges the regional concern
regarding housing and transportation affordability. Staff will work to address
these policy issues further in the Plan Bay Area 2040 document.
Cities and Counties City of Alameda
The City of Alameda projects lower household growth than does the Draft
Preferred Scenario, particularly in areas outside the City's PDAs, due to lower
levels of transit accessibility.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes reduced PDA upzoning for households,
which should align more closely with local expectations.
Cities and Counties City of Benicia The City of Benicia projects higher employment levels than what are shown
in the Draft Preferred Scenario.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward improving
jobs/housing balance in the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due to
constraints on the total number of forecast regional jobs and available
building stock, it was not always possible to match local employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties City of Brentwood
The City of Brentwood projects higher employment levels than the Draft
Preferred Scenario. This concern was raised during the last Plan Bay Area
process as well.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward improving
jobs/housing balance in the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due to
constraints on the total number of forecast regional jobs and available
building stock, it was not always possible to match local employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties City of Brisbane The City of Brisbane expressed concern that housing in the Bi-County PDA
significantly exceeds local expectations.
In an attempt to respond to the housing production and affordability
challenge of the region, one of the goals of Plan Bay Area 2040 is to focus
growth within PDAs. The Final Preferred Scenario reflects this planning
objective.
Cities and Counties City of Cloverdale
The City of Cloverdale expressed concern on the accuracy of DPS
employment forecasts, noting a projected decrease in total employment and
the number of PDAs.
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates a refined employment growth
model to better forecast growth in cities like Cloverdale, which results in
employment growth more commensurate with household growth forecast.
Cities and Counties City of Cupertino
The City of Cupertino expressed concern that the Draft Preferred Scenario
(DPS) employment growth forecast exceeds local planning expectations. The
City requests parcel-level data for further analysis.
The Final Preferred Scenario reflects corrected development projects
records, lowered PDA upzoning, and included a cap on commerical
development for the City of Cupertino.
1
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties City of Dublin
The City stated that the DPS 2040 household projections are lower than
what exists today around the Dublin Transit Center / Dublin Crossing PDA
and downtown Dublin.
The final preferred scenaro has incorporated pipeline projects and increased
PDA upzoning, which results in increased housing projections in some
communities.
Cities and Counties City of East Palo Alto
The City of East Palo Alto is concerned with several outcomes of the draft
preferred scenario, including jobs-housing balance, mobility management,
displacement, traffic, and poor air quality. The City requests one more public
meeting before formally adopted by MTC and ABAG boards.
Staff recognizes that housing affordability and jobs-housing balance is a
regional concern. Compared to the draft, the final preferred scenario
achieves higher household growth overall in San Mateo County. Issues
related to housing affordability, displacement, and support for middle-wage
jobs will continue to be evaluated in the preparation of the Plan document.
Cities and Counties City of Gilroy The City of Gilroy expressed concern that both household and employment
projections are too low.
The Final Preferred Scenario projects more jobs in Santa Clara County than
the draft preferred, increasing the jobs-housing ratio of the county.
Cities and Counties City of Lafayette The City of Lafayette requests lower household growth and changes to the
2010 base year.
The Final Preferred Scenario modifies the 2010 base year for housing and
also reflects lowered PDA upzoning for households.
Cities and Counties City of Livermore
The City of Livermore expressed concern that the housing totals outlined in
the DPS are lower than the City's expectations and requests addition of the
BART to Livermore project, which will include a new PDA increase housing.
The Final Preferred Scenario has incorporated pipeline projects and increased
PDA upzoning, which results in increased housing projections in some
communities. BART to Livermore/ACE Project Development and Construction
Reserve is included in the Plan's investment strategy.
Cities and Counties City of Los Altos
The City of Los Altos generally supports the Draft Preferred Scenario but
requests slightly higher households in their PDA and lower employment
levels to reflect the City's certified Housing Element.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward improving
jobs/housing balance in parts of Santa Clara county. Due to constraints on
the total number of forecast regional households jobs and available building
stock, it was not always possible to match local household or employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties City of Mill Valley
The City of Mill Valley stated they look forward to reviewing the numbers in
the Final Preferred Scenario, and that they may provide additional
comments.
Comment noted.
2
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties City of Mountain View
The City of Mountain View expressed concern that the DPS 2040 projections
for employment are too low while the projections for housing are too high,
especially compared to other cities in Santa Clara County.
The final preferred scenario projects more households and jobs in Santa Clara
County relative to the draft preferred, and achieves an improved
jobs/housing balance in some of the County's communities.
Cities and Counties City of Novato
The City of Novato is concerned with changes between PBA 2013 and PBA
2040, the decrease in concentration of development in PDAs between the
two Plans, and the feasibility of affordable housing subsidies.
Plan Bay Area 2040 uses a slightly different methodology for 2010 baseline
employment numbers relative to Plan Bay Area 2013- information on this
methodology has been supplied to all local jurisdictions. The Final Preferred
Scenario increases levels of household and employment growth in PDAs
relative to the draft. It also includes a set of regional strategies in an effort to
move toward the region's housing production and affordability goals. Staff
acknowledges that the implementation of specific housing policies remains a
local decision.
Cities and Counties City of Oakland
The City of Oakland expressed concerns that the household estimates in the
DPS are too high while the employment estimates are too low. The City
recommends several policy levers to incorporate in the Final Preferred,
including "by-right" legislation, regional jobs-housing linkage fee, housing
trust fund, stronger connections between transportation funding and
housing policy, among other suggestions.
The latest projections incorporate adjusted assumptions on employee
density in Oakland and some PDA upzoning for some commercial
development opportunities. The DPS assumes a commercial development
fee based on VMT to improve jobs-housing ratio and to fund affordable
housing in PDAs.
Cities and Counties City of Petaluma Household and employment forecasts for the PDAs in the City of Petaluma
exceed expectations relative to the rest of the City.
The Final Preferred Scenario made a number of technical corrections and
reduced PDA upzoning for households, which should align more closely with
local expectations.
Cities and Counties City of Pleasanton
The City of Pleasanton projects lower household growth due to a growth
management ordinance and questions 2010 baseline data for housing and
employment.
The final preferred scenario made some adjustments to PDA zoning which
should align more closely with growth expectations. The Final Preferred
Scenario will untilize the same baseline housing information (based upon the
U.S. Census) that served as the baseline for PBA 2013. ABAG's updated
regional forecast revised 2010 baseline employement information and that is
reflected in minor changes between PBA 2013 and PBA 2040 in some
jurisdictions.
Cities and Counties City of Pleasanton The City of Pleasanton expressed concern about specific parcels in the
UrbanSim land use model.
The Final Preferred Scenario has made a series of technical corrections to
parcels, and reflects lower PDA zoning for housing for the City, which should
better reflect growth expectations.
Cities and Counties City of San Carlos
The City of San Carlos expressed concern that the DPS household and
employment figures are lower than the numbers in San Carlos' 2030 General
Plan. New housing and commercial development in San Carlos recently
approved or under construction exceeds the figures listed in the DPS.
Because we are using an economically-based model (UrbanSim) to test out
development feasibility for every parcel in the region, data forecasts for a
given city/town/PDA may differ from local plans and may be different from
the prior Plan Bay Area.
Cities and Counties City of San Jose
The City of San Jose believes the DPS's employment forecast is low
compared to the City's local planning targets, as well as historic growth
patterns and long-term regional goals.
Several policy changes have been made in the final preferred scenario,
including a modification on the assumption on square feet per employee,
increased commercial upzoning and decreased residential upzoning in San
Jose PDAs, updated development projects records, and incorporation of
employment growth caps in some neighboring cities.
3
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties City of San Leandro
The City of San Leandro expressed concern that the household and
employment numbers in PDAs declined substantially from PBA 2013 to the
DPS while city-wide job growth projections are much higher than PBA 2013.
Since PBA 2040 uses revised housing and employment control totals, as well
as an economically-based model (UrbanSim) to test out development
feasibility for every parcel in the region, data forecasts for a given
city/town/PDA may differ from local plans and may be different from the
prior Plan Bay Area.
Cities and Counties City of San Pablo
The City of San Pablo would like to further consider the implications of
inclusionary zoning for future residential housing development as well as the
possibility of easing residential parking minimums.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes a set of regional strategies in an effort
to move toward the region's housing production and affordability goals. Staff
acknowledges that the implementation of specific housing policies remains a
local decision.
Cities and Counties City of San Rafael
The City expressed concerns about DPS employment growth projections and
questioned whether the estimated growth can be accommodated without
transportation and utility infrastructure improvements. They also question
the use of 2010 as a baseline for the Plan.
Plan Bay Area 2040 includes a preferred growth distribution as well as a
fiscally constrained set of corresponding transportation investments,
including a number of major capital investments in Marin County. Similar to
Plan Bay Area 2013, Plan Bay Area 2040 uses the same time horizon of 2010-
2040, in keeping with the Plan's approach as a limited and focused update.
Cities and Counties City of San Ramon
The City of San Ramon expressed concern that employment and household
projections are lower than the City's General Plan and the distribution of
growth is too heavily concentraed in the PDA.
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates a number of pipeline development
projects and more accurate employment zoning in the PDA.
Cities and Counties City of Santa Rosa
The City of Santa Rosa believes that DPS household projections are higher
than local expectations and employment is lower than the Santa Rosa
General Plan. The City believes the DPS should be amended to recognize
Santa Rosa's role as a regional jobs center.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes reduced PDA upzoning for households
in Santa Rosa, which should align more closely with local expectations. It
also takes some steps toward improving jobs/housing balance in many parts
of the region, including the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due to
constraints on the total number of forecast regional jobs and available
building stock, it was not always possible to match local employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties City of Sausalito
The City of Sausalito expressed concern that both household and
employment projections in the DPS exceed local expectations. The City has
specific parcels designated for conservation that should be off-limits to
development in a regional forecast.
A number of technical corrections at the parcel-level were made in the Final
Preferred Scenario.
Cities and Counties City of South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco projects higher household and employment
growth than the DPS. The City anticipates significant transit-oriented
development due to Caltrain and other transit improvements.
The Final Preferred Scenario has incorporated available information on
pipeline projects, increasing the housing and/or employment projections for
some places.
Cities and Counties City of Sunnyvale The City of Sunnyvale is concerned that the number of households is too high
relative to their recently updated Land Use and Transportation Element.
The Final Preferred Scenario forecasts a higher share of both jobs and
housing in jobs-rich areas like Silicon Valley. This reflects the Plan's
performance targets, including improving access to job opportunities.
4
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties City of Vallejo
The City of Vallejo expressed concern that household and employment
projections in the DPS are lower than Vallejo’s own draft General Plan, but
generally supports the Plan's principles.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward improving
jobs/housing balance in many parts of the region, including Bayside and the
Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due to constraints on the total
number of forecast regional households jobs and available building stock, it
was not always possible to match local household or employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County expressed concern that the DPS projects an increase in
households over PBA 2013 but a reduction in employment. The County
requests a better jobs/housing balance to bring jobs to the area and improve
congestion, and would like a Priority Production Areas program in the Plan.
The Final Preferred Scenario achieves an improved jobs-housing balance in
the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due largely to the
incorporation of pipeline projects, Contra Costa sees an forecasted increase
in employment relative to the Draft.
Cities and Counties Mayors Lee, Edwin M; Liccardo,
Sam; Schaaf, Libby
The mayors of Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose would like to see
balanced, walkable, and bikable communities with jobs and housing linked by
regional transit. They also expressed concern with the housing affordability
performance of the DPS and the need to grow middle-wage jobs and invest
in transit.
The Plan's investment strategy makes a considerable investment in transit,
including operations and maintenance to several multi-billion dollar
expansions of BART and Caltrain. The investment strategy also provides
significant funding for multimodal streetscapes. Staff acknowledges that the
Final Preferred Scenario does not overcome the region's housing affordability
crisis. Staff will work to address these policy issues in the Plan Bay Area 2040
document.
Cities and Counties Solano County
Solano County expressed concern that DPS household projections exceed
local expectations. The County is primarily agricultural with no urban services
and therefore should have lower household projections.
The Final Preferred Scenario reflects lower household growth in
unincorporated Solano County. The preferred scenario uses consistent
jurisdictional boundaries between 2010 and 2040- some development
currently shown in county unincorporated areas will likely be in local
jurisdictions.
Cities and Counties Town of Corte Madera The Town of Corte Madera believes the growth forecasts to be inaccurate
based on an analysis of specific parcels.
The Final Preferred Scenario reflects numerous technical fixes at the parcel
level- while the Land Use model uses local general plans as a foundation, it
will not capture perfect information about every single parcel in the region.
Cities and Counties Town of Hillsborough The Town of Hillsborough projects lower employment levels in the baseline
and in 2040 than those shown in the Draft Preferred Scenario.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes an update to employment data for the
Town of Hillsborough.
Cities and Counties Town of Los Gatos The Town of Los Gatos supports the household and employment projections
provided in the DPS. Comment noted.
Cities and Counties Town of Portola Valley
The Town of Portola Valley assumes a significantly lower 2010 employment
number, and also projects lower employment levels than the Draft Preferred
Scenario.
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates an adjustment to the base year
employment number, which in turn affects the 2040 employment projection.
5
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties Town of San Anselmo
The Town of San Anselmo is concerned that the DPS is based on inaccurate
Town General Plan data and that household growth should be focused in
PDAs.
The Final Preferred Scenario has removed some hillside parcels from
development consideration in the regional forecast.
Individuals Eklund, Pat
Ms. Eklund expressed concern and asked for more information related to
base year household and jobs counts, in particular what changed in ABAG's
employment counts; a reduction in PDA growth relative to PBA 2013;
additional information on UrbanSim; and additional information on the
assumed land use strategies.
2010 household base year figures have been revised since the draft. The
Final Preferred Scenario achieves a higher level of PDA growth for
households and employment relative to the draft. Since PBA 2040 uses
revised housing and employment control totals, as well as an economically-
based model (UrbanSim) to test out development feasibility for every parcel
in the region, data forecasts for a given city/town/PDA may differ from local
plans and may be different from the prior Plan Bay Area. Staff has provided
information on methodogy and the incorporation of regional policies, and can
provide more details as requested.
Individuals Severinghaus, Jean Ms. Severinghaus expressed concern that the targets for the Draft Preferred
Scenario fall short on ideal health and activity goals.
The Final Preferred Scenario makes a modest improvement toward meeting
the Healthy and Safe Communities Target. In a mature region, increasing
regional non-auto mode share is a difficult target to achieve. This and other
policy objectives will be addressed in the Plan Bay Area 2040 document.
Stakeholder
Organizations 6 Wins for Social Equity Network
The 6 Wins for Social Equity Network expressed concern on issues related to
affordability and displacement, funding for transit operations including youth
and means-based fare passes, the need for development growth in all "high-
opportunity" areas, and support for middle-wage jobs.
Staff acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing and
transportation affordability. The final preferred scenario continues significant
investment in existing transit operations with several projects related to
implementing the means-based fare study. Issues related to housing
affordability, displacement, and support for middle-wage jobs will continue
to be evaluated in the preparation of the Plan document.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)
The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency expressed concern of
the increase in growth compared to Plan Bay Area, and the impact this
additional growth may have on water supply.
Staff acknowledges the concern for water management and the impact of
household growth on existing water supplies. Adoption of the Preferred
Scenario will initiate the EIR analysis, which will include an analysis of surface
water and groundwater resources in relation to the proposed Plan. The
focused growth pattern of the preferred scenario will generally result in
lower water use per capita than greenfield development.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Building Industry Association (BIA)
Bay Area
The Building Industry Association (BIA) expresses concern that although the
region needs many new rental units, we should also be mindful of the
economic security and opportunity offered by home ownership.
The land use model for the scenario developmental process differentiates
between single-family and multi-family, but does not differentiate between
rental and ownership housing units.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative
(DDDC)
The Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative (DDDC) expressed concern about
some differences in projects, programs, and investment levels between the
Regional Goods Movement Plan and PBA 2040.
The Final Preferred Scenario and Investment Strategy includes many of the
same projects and programs included in the Regional Goods Movement Plan,
including future programs to encourage and fund the deployment of zero-
emissions freight and reduce impacts on local communities. Due to fiscal
constraint, the investment strategy is not able to incorporate all aspects of
the Goods Movement Planning work.
Stakeholder
Organizations Greenbelt Alliance
The Greenbelt Alliance believes the DPS needs to more explicitly identify
policy gaps for open space preservation, affordable housing, transit and PDA
infrastructure and include clear actions and measures to close the gap.
Staff recognizes the concern for open space preservation, affordable housing,
and transit infrastructure. Staff will work to address these policy issues
further in the Plan Bay Area 2040 document.
6
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Stakeholder
Organizations Greenbelt Alliance et al.
The Greenbelt Alliance expressed support for the DPS' ability to direct
growth to the urban footprint, but would like to see additional emphasis on
policies to: redirect growth from "edge" jurisdictions; improve social equity,
including the environment, health, affordcability, displacement, and open
space; and implementation.
The Preferred Scenario continues to focus regional growth, including 45% of
household growth in the Big 3 cities, and 77% of growth within PDAs. Staff
acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing and production
affordability. Staff will work to address these policy issues further in the Plan
Bay Area 2040 document.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Non Profit Housing Association of
Northern California (NPH)
The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California expressed concern
on housing affordability and displacement, a better balance between jobs
and housing particularly in jobs-rich communities, and the need for further
analysis and public outreach. NPH suggests including additional policy
strategies to encourage housing production and affordability and an
implementation plan(s) to further address these policy issues.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward increasing housing in
some jobs-rich areas. Due to technical and resource limitations, staff is
unable to include many of the requested strategies, but public feedback is
being used to help identify policies that would support improved
performance to expedite implementation – above and beyond what is
reflected in the adopted Plan and its associated performance results. Staff
acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing and transportation
affordability. Staff will work to address these policy issues further in the Plan
Bay Area 2040 document.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Rose Foundation for Communities
and the Environment
The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment expressed
concern on affordable housing, displacement, transit service and passes, and
an implementation/action plan.
Staff acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing and
transportation affordability. The final preferred scenario continues significant
investment in existing transit operations with several projects related to
implementing the means-based fare study. Issues related to housing
affordability, displacement, and support for middle-wage jobs will continue
to be evaluated in the preparation of the Plan document.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Safe Routes to School National
Partnership et al.
The Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy,
Walk SF, Center for Climate Protection, Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, and
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition jointly expressed concern on physical activity
and public health goals, invesments to achieve them, and the need for an
implementation plan.
Staff notes that the final preferred scenario makes a modest improvement
toward meeting the Healthy and Safe Communities Target. In a mature
region, increasing regional non-auto mode share is a difficult target to
achieve. This and other policy objectives will be addressed in Plan Bay Area
2040 as part of the Plan Document process and implementation efforts
Stakeholder
Organizations
San Mateo County Union
Community Alliance (SMCUCA)
SMCUCA expressed concern that MTC's model for middle-wage jobs
projections is inaccurate. They state that current census data shows that the
Bay Area is on a path to greater income inequality, and that PBA should focus
on incentives, policy changes, and programs (such as OBAG) to create more
middle-wage jobs.
Staff recognizes the concern from stakeholders about the future outlook for
middle-wage jobs, especially in a region with a rapidly rising cost of living. As
was noted during the target-setting process, ABAG and MTC do not currently
have the ability to forecast jobs by wage. Future implementation work, which
is not constrained by model limitations, may be able to better incorporate
policy ideas or monitoring actions to spotlight this issue at the intersection of
the regional economy and social equity.
Stakeholder
Organizations Santa Clara Valley Water District The Santa Clara Valley Water District expressed concern on water usage and
management.
Staff acknowledges the concern for water management and the potential
benefit of water use efficiency practices. Adoption of the Preferred Scenario
will initiate the EIR analysis, which will include an analysis of surface water
and groundwater resources in relation to the proposed Plan.
7
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Stakeholder
Organizations Sierra Club
The Sierra Club expressed concerns about the Draft Preferred Scenario's
accomplishment of SB 375 goals, in particular in-commuting;
implementation; housing affordability; and more information on specific
projects and plan development process.
The Plan scenarios forecast a supply of housing to accomodate the in-
commute, and staff acknowledges long commute times are a major regional
concern. Adoption of the Preferred Scenario will initiate the EIR analysis,
which will include further analysis of the impact of the proposed plan on
environmental resources. Staff acknowledges the regional concern regarding
housing and transportation affordability. Staff will work to address these
policy issues further in the Plan Bay Area 2040 document.
Stakeholder
Organizations SPUR
SPUR sugguests that MTC/AGAG use the PBA 2040 as an opportunity to
explore possibilities for new legislation, affordable housing strategies, and
providing further incentives to communities willing to take on a greater
share of housing. SPUR requests that MTC add an implementation chapter at
the end of the plan that will address specific housing targets.
Staff acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing production and
affordability. Staff will work to address these policy issues further in the Plan
Bay Area 2040 document and implementation efforts moving forward.
Stakeholder
Organizations SV@Home
SV@Home expressed concern with household projections, stating they are
lower than housing plans approved by local jurisdictions and that the DPS will
exacerbate the existing jobs-housing imbalance in Santa Clara County.
The final preferred scenario projects more households and jobs in Santa Clara
County relative to the draft preferred, and achieves an improved
jobs/housing balance in some of the County's communities.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
Alameda County Transportation
Commission (Alameda CTC)
The Alameda County Transportaiton Commission expressed support for the
goods movement strategy, requested modification of their express lane
project, and requested more information on the implementation plan for
specific regional transportation programs and potential funding advocacy.
The I-680 NB Sunol express lane has been added to the final preferred
scenario with future express lane segments included as environmental and
design phases. As we move into plan implementation, staff will work to
further clarify regional programs.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
Contra Costa Transportation
Authority
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority expressed concern with low
employment projections and high housing growth in Contra Costa County
and similar estimates for Solano County. The agency also expressed support
for Priority Production Areas.
The final preferred scenario projects more jobs in Contra Costa County than
the draft preferred, increasing the jobs-housing ratio of the county.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency supports the DPS's
emphasis on transit operations, state of good repair, transit modernization
and core capacity-enhancing projects.
Comment noted.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
Solano Transportation Authority
(STA)
The Solano County Transportation Agency requests modifications to their
express lane project, an update to the housing distribution between the
county and the City of Fairfield, and increased employment in Solano County.
The I-80 Express Lane project from Airbase Parkway to I-505 is included in
the final investment strategy, with the remaining express lanes includes as
environmental and design phases. The preferred scenario uses consistent
jurisdictional boundaries between 2010 and 2040- some development
currently shown in county unincorporated areas will likely be in local
jurisdictions. In general, the Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps
toward improving jobs/housing balance in the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of
the region.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
Sonoma County Transportation
Authority
The Sonoma County Transportation Authority expressed concern that
housing projections have increased since the last Plan, and expressed
concern about parcel-level discrepencies. SCTA requests more collaboration
to verify and validate UrbanSim inputs.
The Final Preferred Scenario reflects numerous technical fixes at the parcel
level. It also takes some steps toward improving jobs/housing balance in
many parts of the region, including the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the
region.
8
Attachment B1: Land Use Policy Assumptions included in Final Preferred Scenario
Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Preferred Scenario
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates current zoning as its most fundamental planning assumption. However, the 2015 PDA Assessment emphasized that in their current form, many PDAs may not be able
to accommodate forecasted growth and require additional policy interventions to increase their
development potential. As a result, staff assumed a range of regional policy and investment strategies in
the draft preferred land use scenario to increase development potential in PDA’s, and influence the overall regional pattern.
Zoning Assumes upzoning of residential lands in some Priority Development Areas (PDAs) to increase development potential.
Urban Growth Boundaries
Assumes 2010 Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs), Urban Limit
Lines (ULLs) or city boundaries if no UGB/ULLs exist are maintained. Assumes any new development avoids all Priority
Conservation Areas (PCAs).
Commercial / Office
Development Caps
Assumes San Francisco’s office cap (Proposition M) of 1 million
square feet of total space allowed annually is maintained.
Inclusionary Zoning Assumes inclusionary zoning in all jurisdictions with PDAs and requires that new housing developers set aside 10% of all new units
as affordable housing.
Subsidies and Streamlining
• Assumes $200 million available annually to subsidize housing
construction within any PDA throughout the region.
• Assumes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Tiering or Streamlining will increase development profitability by 1% in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs).
• Assumes the CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) move
from a Level of Service (LOS) traffic impact analysis to Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) via Senate Bill (SB) 743 will result in slightly more development profitability for areas with efficient
VMT and slightly less profitability in inefficient VMT areas.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee
Assumes a fee is assessed on new commercial developments in areas that generate high VMT. The funds generated by this fee are
available regionally to subsidize housing construction in PDAs. The
subsidized units in PDAs are assumed to be deed-restricted.
Parking Policies
Assumes Regional Parking Minimums are decreased in the Bay
Area’s core PDAs to make residential development projects 1% more
profitable.
Attachment B2: Distribution of 2040 Household and Employment Forecasts
Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Preferred Scenario
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Total 30,123 35,100 29,260 42,400
PDA 1,780 5,500 6,940 16,900
Total 7,401 7,850 4,420 5,190
PDA 320 470 2,160 2,230
Total 46,029 55,400 90,350 121,700
PDA 6,620 12,900 28,600 36,400
Total 14,913 26,500 18,080 31,100
PDA 3,090 11,000 4,970 13,600
Total 5,694 18,900 15,860 20,000
PDA 2,350 15,100 13,490 14,700
Total 71,004 90,200 86,150 118,500
PDA 23,190 40,700 38,120 56,500
Total 45,365 54,300 60,870 77,800
PDA 4,380 9,500 7,570 8,490
Total 29,134 39,700 42,710 45,850
PDA 860 10,400 24,040 23,690
Total 12,972 14,050 17,340 22,900
PDA 220 470 390 420
Total 153,791 241,500 179,070 272,800
PDA 112,600 197,700 158,200 241,200
Piedmont Total 3,801 3,850 1,820 1,930
Total 25,245 30,600 60,090 75,400
PDA 1,300 5,150 12,600 23,300
Total 30,717 37,300 49,710 59,600
PDA 4,630 10,300 9,750 9,960
Total 20,433 22,850 20,990 28,100
PDA 500 2,200 270 230
Total 48,516 56,300 28,820 29,680
PDA 10,110 13,100 6,780 7,440
Total 545,138 734,200 705,540 952,900
PDA 171,950 334,500 313,880 455,100
County Total
Alameda Alameda
Albany
Berkeley
Dublin
Emeryville
Fremont
Hayward
Livermore
Newark
Oakland
Pleasanton
San Leandro
Union City
Alameda County
Unincorporated
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 2 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda Alameda Total 32,252 40,300 20,110 25,700
PDA 1,390 5,300 2,010 2,720
Brentwood Total 16,494 26,100 11,620 11,990
Clayton Total 4,006 4,100 1,990 2,090
Total 44,278 64,400 54,270 95,500
PDA 3,890 21,300 10,430 40,300
Danville Total 15,420 16,020 11,840 13,100
Total 10,142 12,100 5,320 5,910
PDA 740 2,150 3,800 4,060
Total 8,115 9,650 4,950 5,420
PDA 870 1,700 1,140 1,140
Total 9,223 9,970 8,990 9,940
PDA 1,700 2,240 6,550 7,500
Total 14,287 15,300 20,710 26,100
PDA 710 1,040 6,800 9,400
Total 5,570 5,920 4,570 5,700
PDA 30 180 1,420 1,630
Total 10,727 16,400 3,410 5,350
PDA 770 5,900 1,610 3,050
Total 6,553 6,830 4,840 5,500
PDA 230 330 2,660 3,150
Total 6,775 7,290 6,700 8,500
PDA 360 640 5,180 6,200
Total 19,527 26,500 11,840 15,600
PDA 5,130 8,550 5,130 6,700
Total 13,708 14,310 16,360 19,800
PDA 860 1,030 6,370 7,600
Total 36,093 54,900 30,680 61,800
PDA 8,360 24,000 13,370 35,300
Total 8,761 9,800 7,430 9,100
PDA 1,990 2,570 4,870 5,870
Total 25,284 30,300 47,950 71,800
PDA 220 1,950 25,530 44,900
Total 30,443 37,500 50,860 58,100
PDA 4,940 10,400 27,410 29,150
Total 57,706 67,700 35,790 41,100
PDA 4,340 12,000 8,650 11,150
Total 375,364 475,400 360,230 498,100
PDA 36,500 101,200 132,920 219,900
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
Contra Costa County
Unincorporated
County Total
San Pablo
Contra Costa Antioch
Concord
El Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
Martinez
Moraga
Oakley
Orinda
Pinole
Pittsburg
Pleasant Hill
Richmond
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 3 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda AlamedaBelvedere Total 928 990 310 320
Corte Madera Total 3,793 4,280 6,500 7,160
Fairfax Total 3,379 3,700 1,550 1,660
Larkspur Total 5,908 6,420 7,500 7,670
Mill Valley Total 6,084 6,380 5,980 6,550
Novato Total 20,279 21,200 26,380 28,300
Ross Total 798 840 360 380
San Anselmo Total 5,243 5,520 3,310 3,420
Total 22,764 25,550 43,430 49,000
PDA 1,670 2,560 9,070 10,020
Sausalito Total 4,112 4,370 5,220 5,880
Tiburon Total 3,729 3,900 2,840 2,930
Total 26,193 28,450 18,410 21,650
PDA 1,410 1,790 660 740
Total 103,210 111,600 121,790 135,000
PDA 3,080 4,350 9,730 10,750
Total 5,657 6,300 5,380 8,150
PDA 410 490 1,290 1,600
Calistoga Total 2,019 2,110 2,220 2,360
Total 28,166 30,600 33,920 42,900
PDA 370 710 5,440 12,600
St. Helena Total 2,401 2,700 5,700 5,980
Yountville Total 1,050 1,100 2,770 2,820
Napa County
Unincorporated
Total 9,583 11,850 20,690 21,110
Total 48,876 54,600 70,680 83,400
PDA 780 1,210 6,740 14,100
Total 345,811 483,700 576,850 872,500
PDA 182,430 310,100 473,990 741,700
Napa American Canyon
Napa
County Total
San Francisco San Francisco
Marin
San Rafael
Marin County
Unincorporated
County Total
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 4 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda AlamedaAtherton Total 2,330 2,460 2,140 2,170
Total 10,575 11,600 7,920 9,450
PDA 2,870 3,480 3,590 3,840
Total 1,821 6,400 5,220 16,900
PDA 0 4,350 560 9,500
Total 12,361 13,750 28,020 42,600
PDA 7,010 8,250 11,500 17,200
Total 412 940 3,930 4,320
PDA 320 760 1,510 1,960
Total 31,090 35,800 18,430 22,500
PDA 8,540 11,550 4,640 4,790
Total 6,940 8,700 5,130 6,650
PDA 820 1,580 980 1,370
Foster City Total 12,016 15,100 15,800 27,200
Half Moon Bay Total 4,149 4,580 4,920 5,380
Hillsborough Total 3,693 3,910 2,120 2,270
Total 12,347 17,700 34,630 42,500
PDA 180 870 6,220 11,400
Total 7,994 9,750 5,920 11,600
PDA 590 2,150 2,890 8,100
Pacifica Total 13,967 14,520 5,930 7,100
Portola Valley Total 1,746 1,800 1,500 1,520
Total 27,957 38,100 59,290 86,700
PDA 650 8,500 20,640 24,100
Total 14,701 17,950 12,890 14,800
PDA 3,710 6,550 9,280 10,300
Total 11,524 14,000 16,300 19,150
PDA 40 110 1,210 1,740
Total 38,233 50,800 50,970 68,000
PDA 11,320 19,600 25,370 32,900
Total 20,938 25,300 38,720 54,200
PDA 5,390 9,100 8,290 9,110
Woodside Total 1,977 2,130 1,970 2,000
Total 21,066 22,750 21,610 25,050
PDA 2,380 3,170 3,320 3,310
Total 257,837 318,000 343,330 472,000
PDA 43,830 80,000 99,990 139,500
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
San Mateo County
Unincorporated
County Total
San Mateo
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Redwood City
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 5 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda Alameda Total 16,163 18,750 25,450 32,700
PDA 580 1,470 5,190 6,650
Total 20,181 22,950 26,810 38,000
PDA 2,170 3,450 9,810 12,250
Total 14,175 19,600 17,840 22,300
PDA 1,390 3,850 4,560 4,750
Total 10,745 11,720 14,140 17,250
PDA 10 40 2,240 2,750
Los Altos Hills Total 2,829 3,020 1,580 1,670
Los Gatos Total 12,355 13,040 18,890 20,600
Total 19,184 30,400 42,020 58,000
PDA 790 9,600 5,630 9,850
Monte Sereno Total 1,211 1,320 530 560
Total 12,326 15,800 19,290 19,600
PDA 260 1,350 1,530 1,260
Total 31,957 58,300 48,480 73,300
PDA 5,780 27,300 25,200 40,100
Total 26,493 32,900 101,940 126,500
PDA 510 840 3,910 4,950
Total 301,366 448,300 387,510 554,900
PDA 67,550 203,600 229,160 340,400
Total 43,021 57,000 102,950 170,600
PDA 330 6,900 10,300 10,780
Saratoga Total 10,734 10,960 8,750 9,090
Total 53,384 84,200 65,720 108,600
PDA 6,340 35,800 21,820 33,100
Santa Clara County
Unincorporated
Total 28,080 32,450 29,640 36,200
Total 604,204 860,800 911,530 1,289,900
PDA 85,710 294,200 319,340 466,800
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
County Total
Santa Clara Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Milpitas
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 6 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda Alameda Total 10,686 11,850 12,840 17,100
PDA 620 1,290 9,250 12,850
Total 5,856 7,250 4,850 5,400
PDA 450 600 280 340
Total 34,484 40,200 43,170 50,000
PDA 2,260 4,500 6,330 6,700
Rio Vista Total 3,454 6,300 2,350 2,520
Total 8,918 10,000 2,500 2,860
PDA 1,090 1,850 1,090 1,000
Total 31,092 33,600 29,310 33,550
PDA 860 2,000 4,970 4,570
Total 40,559 46,900 30,900 35,050
PDA 390 1,550 2,630 2,770
Solano County
Unincorporated
Total 6,709 13,300 4,240 4,510
Total 141,758 169,400 130,160 151,000
PDA 5,680 11,800 24,550 28,250
Total 3,182 4,850 1,710 2,100
PDA 800 2,450 590 630
Total 2,978 4,150 2,630 2,960
PDA 350 1,330 690 570
Healdsburg Total 4,385 4,620 8,330 8,980
Total 21,737 24,500 29,990 39,800
PDA 510 1,170 3,520 5,800
Total 15,808 21,000 12,130 13,900
PDA 1,300 5,050 5,130 4,860
Total 63,591 80,000 76,570 92,100
PDA 16,740 30,000 41,160 45,900
Total 3,276 3,840 4,970 5,280
PDA 2,040 2,560 4,650 4,790
Sonoma Total 4,955 5,270 7,140 7,980
Total 8,962 10,750 7,720 8,900
PDA 1,110 2,250 870 1,150
Sonoma County
Unincorporated
Total 56,951 60,000 51,540 61,600
Total 185,825 219,100 202,730 243,600
PDA 22,860 44,800 56,600 63,700
Total 2,608,000 3,427,000 3,423,000 4,698,000
PDA 552,800 1,182,200 1,437,700 2,139,800Regional Total
County Total
Sonoma Cloverdale
Cotati
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Windsor
County Total
Solano Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Suisun City
Vacaville
Vallejo
Attachment C.1
Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditure Plan - Total Plan Revenue ($310 billion)
(in Millions of $YOE, sorted by regional discretionary funding)
Investment Strategy Amount in the RTP Local/ Committed
Nov. 2016
Measures
Regional
Discretionary
Operate and Maintain
Transit Capital Preservation $31,213 $5,947 $3,685 $21,581
Transit Operations $121,792 $105,741 $16,051
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $37,152 $25,768 $3,604 $7,780
Cost Contingency and Debt Service $5,100 $3,000 $2,100
Highway and Bridge Preservation $30,331 $30,081 $250
Modernize
Transit Efficiency and Service Improvements $22,576 $8,705 $4,821 $9,050
Goods Movement $5,432 $2,494 $124 $2,814
Highway Operations and Interchanges $6,976 $3,400 $1,220 $2,356
Multimodal and Bike Ped $6,140 $3,257 $1,288 $1,595
Regional and County Access Initiatives $2,056 $652 $215 $1,189
Planning, Local Road Operations, and Safety Improvements $3,661 $1,876 $1,007 $778
Climate $819 $141 $25 $653
Express Lanes (Conversions) and Pricing $6,411 $6,026 $47 $338
Expand
Transit Expansion $20,579 $12,777 $1,596 $6,206
Express Lanes (Expand) and Roadway
Expansion $10,055 $7,777 $1,029 $1,249
Total $310,293 $217,642 $18,661 $73,990
Notes: Amount in the RTP does not include project costs and funding that occurred before the Plan period (e.g. before FY
2016-17) Local/committed fund sources are any locally generated transportation funding source, like county sales tax, vehicle registration fees, and impact fees. This category also includes future extensions of county sales tax measure and
anticipated state regional transportation improvement program (RTIP) funds per county. November 2016 measures include upcoming sales tax measures for Contra Costa, San Francisco and Santa Clara
counties, BART’s bond measure, and AC Transit’s parcel tax measure. After a measure passes, it will be considered local/committed for the final Plan Bay Area 2040 adoption.
Regional discretionary fund sources include future STP/CMAQ, Cap and Trade, New/Small Starts, future bridge tolls, a regional gas tax, and anticipated/unspecified funding
Total revenue is higher than what was presented in September due to the addition of express lanes segments that
generate revenue.
Attachment C.2
Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditure Plan – Regional Discretionary Funding ($74 billion)
(in Millions of $YOE, sorted by regional discretionary funding)
Investment Strategy
Federal State Regional Other
STP-CMAQ
New/ Small Starts
Other Federal1
Cap and Trade HSR ATP/ ITIP STA-Pop Future Reg.Measures2 Cond. Discr.3 Anticipated Total
Operate and Maintain
Transit Capital Preservation $1,590 $1,130 $13,974 $4,887 $21,581
Transit Operations $100 $695 $15,256 $16,051
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $840 $3,940 $3,000 $7,780
Cost Contingency and Debt Service $550 $1,100 $450 $2,100
Highway and Bridge Preservation $250 $250
Modernize
Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $558 $1,859 $2,421 $113 $461 $940 $711 $1,987 $9,050
Goods Movement $2,063 $501 $250 $2,814
Highway Operations and Interchanges $140 $210 $269 $555 $1,182 $2,356
Multimodal and Bike Ped $70 $663 $591 $230 $40 $1,595
Regional and County Access Initiatives $93 $697 $399 $1,189
Planning, Local Road Operations, and Safety Improvements $371 $407 $778
Climate $334 $319 $653
Express Lanes (Conversions) and
Pricing $50 $229 $60 $338
Expand
Transit Expansion $10 $3,140 $750 $557 $397 $126 $1,226 6,206
Express Lanes (Expand) and Roadway Expansion $220 $27 $119 $40 $843 1,249
Total $4,733 $4,999 $2,300 $4,847 $670 $1,208 $1,853 $8,893 $30,506 $13,983 $73,990
Notes 1)Other Federal includes FAST; Cap and Trade includes TIRCP, LCTOP-Pop, AHSC, Goods Movement2)Future regional measures include potential increases to bridge tolls and a regional gas tax.
3)Conditioned Discretionary and Existing Bridge Tolls includes FTA Formula Funds, TDA, AB1107, AB664, 2% Bridge Toll, and 5% State General Fund
Attachment C.3
Needs Assessment - Transit Operations Funding Detail
(in millions of $YOE)
The following table presents the amount of funding required to sustain existing service levels (year 2015) for every year in the plan period (e.g. through 2040) by transit operator. Note that in this plan period, the total need is equal to the revenue available to fund existing transit service levels. Projects that increase service levels above year 2015 conditions are funded in specific projects in the plan and are not included in this table.
Transit Operator Service Levels (in revenue vehicle hours) Total Need Committed Investment Discretionary Investment Total Investment
ACE 1,117,485 $1,300 $1,221 $79 $1,300
AC Transit 40,513,851 $13,416 $10,046 $3,370 $13,416
BART 49,139,746 $32,654 $32,640 $14 $32,654
Caltrain 5,286,000 $5,484 $5,484 $0 $5,484
CCCTA 7,125,552 $1,332 $582 $750 $1,332
City of Dixon 186,291 $39 $3 $35 $38
ECCTA 5,307,150 $786 $203 $583 $786
City of Fairfield 2,287,392 $355 $125 $230 $355
GGBHTD 6,908,679 $3,915 $3,549 $366 $3,915
LAVTA 3,366,264 $522 $176 $346 $522
Marin Transit 6,059,722 $972 $677 $295 $972
NCTPA 2,647,608 $310 $56 $254 $310
City of Petaluma 710,836 $82 $23 $59 $82
City of Rio Vista 96,000 $15 $2 $13 $15
SFMTA 91,585,085 $35,199 $32,074 $3,125 $35,199
SamTrans 16,272,000 $5,377 $3,957 $1,420 $5,377
SMART 245,316 $713 $713 $0 $713
City of Santa Rosa 2,481,912 $536 $141 $395 $536
Solano County Transit 2,623,440 $455 $185 $270 $455
Sonoma County Transit 3,069,116 $496 $77 $419 $496
Union City Transit 2,211,407 $211 $68 $144 $211
City of Vacaville 1,120,654 $166 $13 $153 $166
VTA 49,893,621 $15,734 $12,251 $3,483 $15,734
WCCTA 2,578,325 $312 $161 $151 $312
WETA 404,701 $1,413 $1,315 $98 $1,413
TOTAL 303,238,153 $121,792 $105,741 $16,051 $121,792
Attachment C.4
Needs Assessment - Transit Capital Funding Detail
(in millions of $YOE)
The following table presents the expenditure plan for transit capital preservation in Plan Bay Area 2040 by transit operator. With the proposed investments,
several transit operators would exceed the funding required to maintain current asset condition levels. Only two operators would be able to fund replacements and maintenance at a rate large enough to achieve optimum asset condition. The region would carry a $16 billion state of good repair backlog.
Transit Operator
Total Transit Capital Need Amount Funded in the Expenditure Plan Remaining Need/Surplus
State of Good Repair Committed Investment November 2016 Ballot Measures Discretionary Investment5 State of Good
Repair
AC Transit $2,934 $306 $600 $951 ($1,076)
ACE $291 $1 $176 ($114)
BART3 $18,121 $214 $2,700 $8,826 ($6,381)
CalTrain4 $3,634 $1,472 $1,444 ($718)
CCCTA County Connection $263 $68 $195 $0
Delta Breeze $9 $0 $4 ($5)
Dixon $8 $2 $5 ($1)
ECCTA Tri Delta Transit $134 $51 $83 ($0)
FAST $95 $57 $7 ($30)
GGBHTD $990 $84 $373 ($533)
LAVTA $183 $10 $109 ($64)
Marin Transit $147 $0 $65 ($83)
NCTPA $82 $0 $61 ($21)
Petaluma Transit $32 $18 $14 ($0)
SamTrans $1,208 $1 $442 ($765)
Santa Rosa CityBus $72 $2 $21 ($49)
SCT $197 $24 $104 ($69)
SFMTA $12,664 $1,536 $385 $5,615 ($5,129)
SMART $629 $569 $60 $0
SolTrans $240 $1 $139 ($99)
Union City Transit $32 $0 $18 ($14)
Vacaville City Coach $54 $0 $22 ($32)
VTA $3,495 $1,455 $1,907 ($133)
WestCAT $92 $1 $34 ($58)
WETA $1,442 $73 $804 ($565)
Attachment C.4
Transit Operator
Total Transit Capital Need Amount Funded in the Expenditure Plan Remaining Need/Surplus
State of Good Repair Committed Investment November 2016 Ballot Measures Discretionary Investment5 State of Good Repair
Grand Total $47,050 $5,947 $3,685 $21,478 ($15,939)
Total = $31,110 million
Notes: 1) There is approximately $100 million in transit capital revenues that could not be assigned to a specific operator, but are projected to be available for transit capital
maintenance in the region.
2) Revenue from San Francisco's Transportation Sustainability Fee, Proposition B, and sales tax reauthorization is assumed to be distributed to BART, Caltrain, and SFMTA according to current Prop K proportions.
3) $900 million in capital replacement needs for BART train control was transferred to "Transit Efficiency and Service Improvements” within the Modernize investment category of Attachment C.1. 4) $315 million in capital replacement needs for Caltrain vehicles was transferred to "Transit Efficiency and Service Improvements” category of Attachment C.1.
5) Discretionary funding has been distributed by a combination of formula and remaining need.
Attachment C.5
Needs Assessment - Local Streets and Roads Funding Detail
(in Millions of $YOE)
The following table presents the expenditure plan for local streets and roads (LS&R) operations and maintenance in Plan Bay Area 2040 by county. With the proposed investments, only San Francisco County would meet and exceed its funding need to reach optimal pavement conditions and state of good repair of remaining roadway assets. All other counties would have a remaining need of at least $400 million to maintain existing conditions, with a regional
shortfall of almost $6 billion.
County
Total LS&R Need Amount Funded in the Expenditure Plan Remaining Need/Surplus
To State of Good Repair Committed Investment November 2016 Ballot Measures Discretionary Investment* To State of Good Repair
Alameda $8,649 $4,683 $1,546 ($2,420)
Contra Costa $6,116 $3,338 $917 $1,133 ($729)
Marin $1,722 $831 $221 ($670)
Napa $1,473 $969 $168 ($335)
San Francisco $7,903 $5,988 $1,267 $966 $318
San Mateo $3,935 $2,012 $657 ($1,266)
Santa Clara $11,320 $5,492 $1,420 $2,097 ($2,311)
Solano $2,963 $782 $429 ($1,752)
Sonoma $4,846 $1,672 $564 ($2,610)
REGION TOTAL $48,926 $25,768 $3,604 $7,780 ($11,775)
Total = $37,152 million
* Regional discretionary funds distributed by OBAG 2 formula
Attachment C.6
Goods Movement Projects in Plan Bay Area 2040
The projects in the plan related to goods movement support the recommendations of the Regional Goods Movement Plan, which was adopted in March of 2016. The Regional Goods Movement Plan recommended improvements for the
Port of Oakland, strategic highway operations benefiting truck corridors and programs for reducing the impact of
freight activity on adjacent neighborhoods.
In the materials presented to the MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative Committees in September 2016,
approximately $5 billion of project funded was classified as “goods movement.” Of that amount, about $2 billion of
funding would come from future local funding and previously committed funding amounts. Almost $3 billion would
come from regional discretionary funding, which is primarily federal and state sources. The following table presents goods movement categories and a funding breakdown between local/committed funding and regional discretionary
funding. The highest amount of regional discretionary funding is assumed to go toward projects that improve
operations within and around the Port of Oakland, ITS projects on the freight highway network, interchange
reconstructions, and a future program on increasing the proliferation of zero and near-zero emission trucks as well as other neighborhood impact reduction initiatives.
Goods Movement Investment Strategy, sorted by Regional Discretionary Funding (all values in millions
of $YOE)
Goods Movement Investment Amount in the RTP*
Local/
Committed Funding
Nov. 2016
Measure
Regional
Discretionary Funding
Global Competitiveness in Goods Movement
Suite of projects to improve operations and increase rail access at the Port of Oakland such as 7th Street Grade
Separation, Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal, and
Oakland Army Base transportation components
$1,177 $52 $1,125
Smart Deliveries and Operations Future program for deploying communications infrastructure to increase active traffic management
along freight corridors and to/from the Port of Oakland
$300 $300
Modernizing Infrastructure
Set of highway projects and interchange improvements along freight corridors such as along I-880, I-80, US-
101, I-580, I-680, and SR-4.
$3,348 $2,187 $124 $1,037
Sustainable Goods Movement
Future program for implementing the recommendations of the Freight Emission Reduction Action Plan and
developing programs for impact reduction in
neighborhoods with high levels of freight activity.
$350 $350
Other Freight and Rail
Program and projects for minor freight improvements and rail operations on track operated by public operators. $255 $255
Grand Total $5,430 $2,494 $124 $2,812
* Amount in the RTP does not include project costs and funding that occurred before the Plan period (e.g. before FY 2016-17)
Attachment C.7
Core Capacity Projects in Plan Bay Area 2040
The projects in the plan related to increasing capacity in the core of the region are linked to on-going planning on the
Core Capacity Transit Study (CCTS), a multi-agency study to identify and prioritize major transit investments serving the San Francisco Core. The CCTS is a collaboration of five transit operators (SFMTA, BART, AC Transit, WETA, and Caltrain), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority.
Although not yet complete, initial planning work has informed the project list in terms of near-term and medium-term
priorities. As a placeholder for other short, mid and long term projects currently under consideration in CCTS, the Plan also includes reserve funding for further implementation of recommendations developed after Plan Bay Area 2040 is adopted. Additionally, there is on-going work on increasing transit capacity to connect housing and jobs within
Santa Clara County.
The following table presents the investment strategy for core capacity projects, organized by corridor. There is also a placeholder for planning and design work for recommendations that may come out of the study and that may be in
any of the corridors. The Core Capacity investment strategy includes projects that are a subset of several investment
categories in the expenditure plan of Attachment C.1, namely Transit Efficiency and Transit Expansion.
Core Capacity Investment Strategy (all values in millions of $YOE)
Core Capacity Investment Amount in the RTP*
Local/
Committed Funding
Nov.
2016 Measure
Regional
Discretionary Funding
Transbay Corridor
Investments include BART service increases, WETA ferry service increases, new ferry terminals at Berkeley, Mission
Bay, and Alameda Point, AC Transit service increases and
Bay Bridge operational projects.
$5,764 $1,306 $1,200 $3,258
Peninsula Corridor Investments include the Transbay Transit Center, extending
Caltrain to the Transbay Transit Center, electrifying Caltrain, and station improvements in the Peninsula
$7,281 $2,387 $572 $4,322
Within San Francisco
Investments include Muni service increases, bus rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard, Muni
Forward, and other operational improvements for SFMTA.
$3,858 $1,629 $1,060 $1,169
Planning for future capacity improvements Placeholder for future planning and design work for
additional capacity increasing projects identified through the Core Capacity Transit Study and other planning work.
$785 $120 $250 $415
Core Connectivity in Santa Clara County Investments include extending BART to San Jose,
increasing VTA core bus routes, El Camino Real BRT,
extending light rail to Eastridge Transit Center and Winchester, as well as a reserve for future transit
improvements in the SR-85 corridor and to the San Jose
International Airport.
$8,292 $3,648 $2,319 $2,325
Grand Total $25,980 $9,090 $5,401 $11,489
* Amount in the RTP does not include project costs and funding that occurred before the Plan period (e.g. before FY 2016-17)
Attachment C.8
Climate Program in Plan Bay Area 2040
Plan Bay Area 2040 transportation investments and land-use development patterns alone will not be sufficient to
reach the region’s statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. It is anticipated that over 11
percentage points of the Plan’s 2035 target will be achieved through climate strategies that are part of MTC’s Climate Initiatives Program, such as transportation demand management programs, alternative fuel/vehicle strategies and car sharing. These types of climate strategies are referred to as “off-model” because the region’s travel demand
and land use models that factor in the region’s future transportation investments and land-use development patterns
are not sensitive to these types of initiatives. The plan includes $526 million of funding for the regional Climate Initiatives Program, as well as another $56 million for incentivizing higher levels of carpooling, and $237 million for county-sponsored initiatives.
The types of projects and programs that would be funded through implementation of this category include: 1 Various transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, car sharing, vanpool incentives, alternative
fuel/vehicle initiatives, targeted transportation alternatives, trip caps and existing commuter benefits
ordinances.
2 Regional carpool incentives such as private sector ride-matching applications that target utilization of express lane corridors as well as first/last mile solutions to transit. 3 Various county-sponsored climate programs such as additional transportation demand management strategies
and promotion of emission reduction technology.
Climate Initiative Program Funding in Plan Bay Area 2040 (all values in millions of $YOE)
Climate Initiative Amount in the RTP* Local/Committed Funding
Regional
Discretionary Funding
1. Regional Climate Initiatives Program $526 $36 $490
2. Regional Carpool Program $56 $8 $48
3. County-Sponsored Climate Programs
in Alameda, San Francisco, Solano,
and Marin counties $237 $122 $115
Grand Total $819 $166 $653
* Amount in the RTP does not include project costs and funding that occurred before the Plan period (e.g. before FY 2016-17)
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-01-0001 Alameda Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $658 $79 $360 $219
17-01-0002 Alameda Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $150 $55 $10 $85
17-01-0003 Alameda County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $732 $23 $618 $91
17-01-0004 Alameda Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $461 $71 $300 $90
17-01-0005 Alameda PDA Planning Modernize Planning and Programs $61 $6 $50 $5
17-01-0006 Alameda Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $203 $175 $28
17-01-0007 Alameda Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $203 $66 $110 $27
17-01-0008 Alameda Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $762 $135 $572 $55
17-01-0009 Alameda New Alameda Point Ferry Terminal Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $177 $177
17-01-0014 Alameda I-680 Southbound Express Lanes (SR-237 to SR-84)
Upgrades Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $39 $21 $18
17-01-0015 Alameda 7th Street Grade Separation East Modernize Goods Movement $558 $3 $555
17-01-0016 Alameda Oakland Army Base transportation infrastructure
improvements Modernize Goods Movement $314 $213 $26 $75
17-01-0017 Alameda Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal (OHIT) Phases 2 and
3 Modernize Goods Movement $205 $26 $179
17-01-0018 Alameda 7th Street Grade Separation West Modernize Goods Movement $171 $3 $168
17-01-0019 Alameda I-580 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM)Modernize Goods Movement $146 $146
17-01-0020 Alameda SR-262 Mission Boulevard Cross Connector
Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $112 $111 $1
17-01-0021 Alameda I-880 Whipple Road Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $80 $77 $3
17-01-0022 Alameda Outer Harbor Turning Basin Modernize Goods Movement $65 $65
17-01-0023 Alameda I-880 Industrial Parkway Interchange Reconstruction Modernize Goods Movement $57 $55 $2
17-01-0024 Alameda I-880 A Street Interchange Reconstruction Modernize Goods Movement $54 $52 $2
17-01-0025 Alameda Oakland International Airport Perimeter Dike Modernize Goods Movement $53 $3 $0 $50
17-01-0026 Alameda Minor Freight Improvements Programmatic Modernize Goods Movement $51 $2 $49
17-01-0027 Alameda Middle Harbor Road Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $33 $33
17-01-0028 Alameda I-580/I-680 Interchange Improvement Project Modernize Goods Movement $300 $300
17-01-0029 Alameda SR-84/I-680 Interchange Improvements and SR-84
Widening Modernize Goods Movement $278 $5 $121 $152
17-01-0030 Alameda I-880 Broadway/Jackson Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $244 $2 $242
17-01-0031 Alameda I-880 at 23rd/29th Avenue Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $111 $67 $44
17-01-0032 Alameda SR-84 Widening (Ruby Hill Drive_to Concannon
Boulevard)Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $88 $59 $29
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-01-0033 Alameda I-580 Vasco Road Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $81 $76 $5
17-01-0034 Alameda I-580 Greenville Road Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $68 $64 $4
17-01-0035 Alameda I-580 First Street Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $62 $59 $3
17-01-0036 Alameda SR-92/Clawiter Road/Whitesell Street Interchange
Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $62 $53 $9
17-01-0037 Alameda Ashby I-80 Interchange with Bicycle and Pedestrian
Ramps Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $60 $59 $1
17-01-0038 Alameda I-580 Interchange Improvement at Hacienda/Fallon
Road - Phase 2 Modernize Goods Movement $58 $49 $9
17-01-0039 Alameda I-580 SR-84/Isabel Interchange Improvements Phase 2 Modernize Goods Movement $43 $40 $3
17-01-0040 Alameda I-80 Gilman Street Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $42 $2 $37 $3
17-01-0041 Alameda I-880 Winton Avenue Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $41 $35 $6
17-01-0042 Alameda I-680 Overcrossing Widening and Improvements (at
Stoneridge Drive)Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $19 $16 $3
17-01-0043 Alameda 42nd Ave & High St Access Improvement at I-880
On/Off Ramp Modernize Goods Movement $18 $8 $9 $1
17-01-0044 Alameda I-680 Sunol Interchange Modification Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $18 $15 $3
17-01-0045 Alameda Santa Rita Road I-580 Overcrossing Widening Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $10 $9 $1
17-01-0046 Alameda Coliseum City Transit Hub Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $181 $9 $133 $39
17-01-0047 Alameda I-880 to Mission Boulevard East-West Connector Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $236 $41 $195
17-01-0048 Alameda Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $89 $76 $13
17-01-0049 Alameda Fruitvale Avenue (Miller Sweeney) Lifeline Bridge
Project Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $86 $73 $13
17-01-0050 Alameda SR-84 Mowry Avenue Widening (Peralta Blvd to
Mission Blvd)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $51 $43 $8
17-01-0051 Alameda Tassajara Road Widening from N. Dublin Ranch Drive
to City Limit Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $48 $41 $7
17-01-0052 Alameda Auto Mall Parkway Widening and Improvements Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $30 $26 $4
17-01-0053 Alameda Dougherty Road Widening Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $23 $4 $17 $2
17-01-0054 Alameda Union City Boulevard Widening (Whipple to City Limit)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $17 $15 $2
17-01-0055 Alameda SR-84 Peralta Boulevard Widening (Fremont Blvd to
Mowry Ave)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $13 $2
17-01-0056 Alameda Thornton Avenue Widening (Gateway Boulevard to
Hickory Street)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $13 $2
17-01-0057 Alameda Dublin Boulevard Widening - Sierra Court_to Dublin
Court Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $6 $1 $5
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-01-0058 Alameda Irvington BART Station Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $256 $153 $103
17-01-0059 Alameda Union City Intermodal Station Phase 4 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $78 $66 $12
17-01-0060 Alameda East Bay BRT Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $180 $178 $2
17-01-0061 Alameda Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway BRT Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $10 $8 $2
17-01-0062 Alameda BART to Livermore/ACE Project Development and
Construction Reserve Expand Transit Expansion $553 $7 $435 $111
17-01-0063 Alameda Broadway Shuttle Expansion Expand Transit Expansion $37 $29 $8
17-02-0001 Contra Costa Access and Mobility Program Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $391 $259 $132
17-02-0002 Contra Costa Innovative Transportation Technology Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $128 $128
17-02-0003 Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $369 $123 $206 $40
17-02-0004 Contra Costa County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $139 $87 $47 $5
17-02-0005 Contra Costa Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $792 $1 $318 $449 $24
17-02-0006 Contra Costa Additional Local Road Preservation/Rehab Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $917 $917
17-02-0007 Contra Costa Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $527 $4 $523
17-02-0008 Contra Costa Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $44 $44
17-02-0009 Contra Costa Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $749 $4 $351 $340 $54
17-02-0010 Contra Costa SR4 Integrated Corridor Mobility Modernize Goods Movement $15 $15
17-02-0011 Contra Costa I-80 ICM Project Operations and Maintenance Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $3 $3
17-02-0012 Contra Costa
I-680 Northbound Managed Lane Completion through
680/24 and Operational Improvements between N.
Main and Treat Blvd
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $99 $85 $14
17-02-0013 Contra Costa I-680 Northbound HOV lane extension between N.
Main and SR-242 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $54 $54
17-02-0014 Contra Costa Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing Lane,
Clearbrook Drive to Crest of Kirker Pass Road Modernize Goods Movement $19 $19
17-02-0015 Contra Costa Vasco Road _ Byron Highway Connector Road
(Formerly named: SR-239: Airport Connector)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $89 $89
17-02-0016 Contra Costa Construct SR 242/Clayton Road on and off-ramps Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $66 $5 $61
17-02-0017 Contra Costa SR-239 Feasibility Studies and Project Development Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $42 $42
17-02-0018 Contra Costa I-80/SR4: New I-80 EB off-ramp at Sycamore Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $15
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-02-0019 Contra Costa I-680/SR4 Interchange Improvements - All Phases Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $599 $158 $107 $334
17-02-0020 Contra Costa SR-4 Operational Improvements - All Phases Modernize Goods Movement $303 $164 $124 $15
17-02-0021 Contra Costa Reconstruct I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $120 $56 $64
17-02-0022 Contra Costa I-680 Southbound HOV Lane between N. Main and
Livorna Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $83 $83
17-02-0023 Contra Costa State Route 4 Widening and Balfour Road IC
Construction Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $69 $69
17-02-0024 Contra Costa
I-80/SR-4 Interchange Improvements - New Eastbound
Willow Avenue Ramps, replace SR-4 to I-80 Ramp, and
new EB off ramp at Sycamore
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $68 $68
17-02-0025 Contra Costa SR-24/Brookwood Ramp Modifications Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $48 $20 $28
17-02-0026 Contra Costa I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Modification - Phases
1 & 2 Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $26 $20 $6
17-02-0027 Contra Costa Construct Additional Auxiliary Lanes on I-680 - South of
I-680/SR-24 Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $20 $20
17-02-0028 Contra Costa I-80 Eastbound and Westbound Pinole Valley Road On-
ramp Improvement Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $10 $10
17-02-0029 Contra Costa Eastbound SR-24: Construct Auxiliary Lane, Wilder
Road to Camino Pablo Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $7 $7
17-02-0030 Contra Costa Widen Brentwood Boulevard - Havenwood Way to
north city limit; and Chestnut to Fir Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $34 $34
17-02-0031 Contra Costa Widen Willow Pass Road, Lynwood Drive to SR 4 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $20 $20
17-02-0032 Contra Costa Widen Ygnacio Valley Road-Kirker Pass Road, Cowell to
Michigan Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $20 $20
17-02-0033 Contra Costa Widen Camino Tassajara Road, Windemere to County
Line Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $17 $17
17-02-0034 Contra Costa West Leland Road Extension Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $16 $16
17-02-0035 Contra Costa Lone Tree Way Widening Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $16 $16
17-02-0036 Contra Costa Pittsburg-Antioch Highway Widening Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $15
17-02-0037 Contra Costa Widen Main St, SR 160 to Big Break Rd Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $13 $13
17-02-0038 Contra Costa Main Street Bypass Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $4 $4
17-02-0039 Contra Costa Hercules Train Station - All Phases Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $97 $15 $82
17-02-0040 Contra Costa Martinez Intermodal Project: Phase 3 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $7 $7
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-02-0041 Contra Costa
Privately Run Ferry Service including Small-Scale (non-
WETA complying) Landside Improvements from
Antioch, Martinez, and Hercules to San Francisco
Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $73 $58 $15
17-02-0042 Contra Costa Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Service Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $53 $53
17-02-0043 Contra Costa BART Capacity, Access and Parking Improvements -
non vehicles Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $46 $46
17-02-0044 Contra Costa Landside Improvements for Richmond Ferry Service Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $25 $25
17-02-0045 Contra Costa El Cerrito del Norte BART Station Modernization, Phase
1 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $22 $22
17-02-0046 Contra Costa Civic Center Railroad Platform Park & Ride Complex Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $8 $8
17-02-0047 Contra Costa East County Rail Extension (eBART), Phase 1 Expand Transit Expansion $525 $525
17-02-0048 Contra Costa East County Rail Extension (eBART), Phase 2 -
environmental and reserve Expand Transit Expansion $111 $81 $30
17-02-0049 Contra Costa West County High Capacity Transit Investment Study
Implementation - Phase 1 Expand Transit Expansion $15 $15
17-02-0050 Contra Costa Brentwood Intermodal Transit Center Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $52 $52
17-02-0051 Contra Costa I-680 Transit Improvements including Express Bus
Service, ITS components, and Park & Ride Lots Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $130 $130
17-02-0052 Contra Costa Widen San Ramon Valley Boulevard form 2 to 4 lanse -
Jewel Terrace to Podva Road Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $1 $1
17-03-0001 Marin Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $30 $9 $21
17-03-0002 Marin Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $1 $1
17-03-0003 Marin County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $4 $4
17-03-0004 Marin Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $20 $20
17-03-0005 Marin Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $42 $6 $36
17-03-0006 Marin Implement Marin Sonoma Narrows HOV Lane and
corridor improvements Phase 2 (Marin County)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $136 $111 $25
17-03-0007 Marin US 101/580 Interchange Direct Connector - PAED Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $15 $15
17-03-0008 Marin Tiburon East Blithedale Interchange - PAED Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $12 $12
17-03-0009 Marin Access Improvements to Richmond San Rafael Bridge Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $7 $7
17-03-0010 Marin Highway Improvement Studies Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $5 $5
17-03-0011 Marin Widen Novato Boulevard between Diablo Avenue and
Grant Avenue Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $17 $13 $4
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-03-0012 Marin
Sir Francis Drake Boulevard/Red Hill Avenue/Center
Boulevard (known as "The Hub") - project
development
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $6 $6
17-03-0013 Marin San Rafael Transit Center (SRTC) Relocation Project Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $36 $36
17-03-0014 Marin Larkspur Ferry Terminal Parking Garage - Planning
Study Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1 $1
17-03-0015 Marin SMART Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Rail
Extension Expand Transit Expansion $42 $2 $40
17-03-0016 Marin Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $49 $49
17-04-0001 Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $98 $35 $63
17-04-0002 Napa County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $7 $7
17-04-0003 Napa Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $4 $1 $3
17-04-0004 Napa Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $51 $10 $41
17-04-0005 Napa Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $30 $0 $23 $7
17-04-0006 Napa Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $246 $156 $90
17-04-0007 Napa Countywide Intelligent Transportation Systems
Program Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $9 $9
17-04-0008 Napa State Route 29 Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $35 $35
17-04-0009 Napa Soscol Junction Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $61 $5 $56
17-04-0010 Napa SR29 Gateway Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $32 $12 $20
17-05-0001 San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $887 $16 $598 $243 $30
17-05-0002 San Francisco Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $118 $83 $25 $10
17-05-0003 San Francisco County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $418 $290 $100 $28
17-05-0004 San Francisco Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $383 $279 $90 $14
17-05-0005 San Francisco PDA Planning Modernize Planning and Programs $51 $2 $47 $2
17-05-0006 San Francisco Additional Local Road Preservation/Rehab Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $1,267 $1,267
17-05-0007 San Francisco Transit Preservation/Rehabilitation Operate and
Maintain Transit Capital Preservation $2,256 $1,871 $385
17-05-0008 San Francisco Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $906 $43 $863
17-05-0009 San Francisco Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $182 $137 $45
17-05-0010 San Francisco Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1,121 $110 $144 $867
17-05-0011 San Francisco San Francisco Late Night Transportation Improvements Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $91 $10 $39 $42
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-05-0012 San Francisco SFgo Integrated Transportation Management System Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $89 $48 $17 $24
17-05-0013 San Francisco Expand SFMTA Transit Fleet Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1,488 $814 $193 $481
17-05-0014 San Francisco Muni Forward (Transit Effectiveness Project)Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $612 $208 $159 $245
17-05-0015 San Francisco Rail Capacity Long Term Planning and Conceptual
Design - All Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $450 $100 $250 $100
17-05-0016 San Francisco Better Market Street - Transportation Elements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $415 $0 $215 $200
17-05-0017 San Francisco Core Capacity Implementation - Planning and
Conceptual Engineering Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $335 $20 $315
17-05-0018 San Francisco Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion -
Phase II Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $43 $43
17-05-0019 San Francisco Establish new ferry terminal at Mission Bay 16th Street Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $17 $17
17-05-0020 San Francisco HOV/HOT Lanes on U.S. 101 and I-280 in San Francisco Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $90 $22 $47 $21
17-05-0021 San Francisco Geary Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $300 $0 $57 $243
17-05-0022 San Francisco Presidio Parkway Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $1,595 $859 $736
17-05-0023 San Francisco Yerba Buena Island (YBI) I-80 Interchange
Improvement Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $169 $105 $64
17-05-0024 San Francisco Balboa Park Station Area - Southbound I-280 Off-Ramp
Realignment at Ocean Avenue Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $11 $1 $10
17-05-0025 San Francisco Balboa Park Station Area - Closure of Northbound I-280
On-Ramp from Geneva Avenue Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $6 $6
17-05-0026 San Francisco Bayshore Station Multimodal Planning and Design Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $13 $13
17-05-0027 San Francisco Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point Local
Roads Phase 1 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $501 $14 $487
17-05-0028 San Francisco Southeast San Francisco Caltrain Station -
Environmental Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $11 $1 $10
17-05-0029 San Francisco Downtown Value Pricing/Incentives - Pilot, Transit
Service, Supportive Infrastructure Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $876 $826 $50
17-05-0030 San Francisco
Treasure Island Mobility Management Program:
Intermodal Terminal, Congestion Toll, Transit Service,
Transit Capital
Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $974 $925 $49
17-05-0031 San Francisco Southeast Waterfront Transportation Improvements -
Phase 1 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $406 $406
17-05-0032 San Francisco Geneva-Harney Bus Rapid Transit Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $256 $156 $100
17-05-0033 San Francisco Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $215 $215
17-05-0034 San Francisco Arena Transit Capacity Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $137 $137
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-05-0035 San Francisco EN Trips: All Components Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $122 $101 $21
17-05-0036 San Francisco Regional/Local Express Bus to Support Express Lanes in
SF Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $82 $56 $26
17-05-0037 San Francisco Parkmerced Transportation Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $76 $76
17-05-0039 San Francisco Geneva Light Rail Phase I: Operational Improvements,
Planning and Environmental Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $18 $18
17-05-0040 San Francisco T-Third Mission Bay Loop Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $7 $7
17-05-0041 San Francisco T-Third Phase II: Central Subway Expand Transit Expansion $1,578 $1,578
17-05-0042 San Francisco Historic Streetcar Extension - Fort Mason to 4th & King Expand Transit Expansion $87 $4 $83
17-06-0001 San Mateo Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $247 $21 $138 $88
17-06-0002 San Mateo County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $41 $1 $28 $12
17-06-0003 San Mateo Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $289 $14 $197 $78
17-06-0004 San Mateo Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $58 $1 $46 $11
17-06-0005 San Mateo Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $64 $43 $21
17-06-0006 San Mateo County-wide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
and Traffic Operation System Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $93 $80 $13
17-06-0007 San Mateo Modify existing lanes on U.S. 101 to accommodate
HOV/T lane Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $365 $15 $250 $100
17-06-0008 San Mateo
Add northbound and southbound modified auxiliary
lanes and/ or implementation of HOT lanes on U.S. 101
from Oyster Point to San Francisco County line
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $222 $5 $172 $45
17-06-0009 San Mateo Improve operations at U.S. 101 near Route 92 - Phased Modernize Goods Movement $258 $2 $250 $6
17-06-0010 San Mateo Improve U.S. 101/Woodside Road interchange Modernize Goods Movement $171 $7 $98 $66
17-06-0011 San Mateo US 101 Produce Avenue Interchange Modernize Goods Movement $146 $10 $100 $36
17-06-0012 San Mateo U.S. 101 Interchange at Peninsula Avenue Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $89 $9 $65 $15
17-06-0013 San Mateo Reconstruct U.S. 101/Broadway interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $83 $83
17-06-0014 San Mateo Reconstruct U.S. 101/Willow Road interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $80 $60 $8 $12
17-06-0015 San Mateo Construct auxiliary lanes (one in each direction) on U.S.
101 from Marsh Road to Embarcadero Road Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $79 $79
17-06-0016 San Mateo
Improve access to and from the west side of
Dumbarton Bridge on Route 84 connecting to U.S. 101
per Gateway 2020 Study - Phased
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $39 $3 $13 $23
17-06-0017 San Mateo Route 101/Holly St Interchange Access Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $34 $1 $25 $8
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-06-0018 San Mateo Improve local access at I-280/I-380 from Sneath Lane
to San Bruno Avenue to I-380 - Environmental only Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $32 $30 $2
17-06-0019 San Mateo State Route 92-82 (El Camino) Interchange
Improvement Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $30 $25 $5
17-06-0020 San Mateo
Hwy 1 operational & safety improvements in County
Midcoast (acceleration/deceleration lanes; turn lanes;
bike lanes; pedestrian crossings; and trails)
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $29 $4 $21 $4
17-06-0021 San Mateo Environmental Studies for 101/Candlestick Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $25 $5 $15 $5
17-06-0022 San Mateo Westbound slow vehicle lane on Route 92 between
Route 35 and I-280 - Environmental Phase Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $25 $20 $5
17-06-0023 San Mateo Route 1 Improvements in Half Moon Bay Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $19 $10 $7 $2
17-06-0024 San Mateo Reconstruct U.S. 101/Sierra Point Parkway interchange
(includes extension of Lagoon Way to U.S. 101)Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $17 $8 $9
17-06-0025 San Mateo US 101/University Ave. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $11 $7 $4
17-06-0026 San Mateo Implement incentive programs to support transit-
oriented development Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $106 $100 $6
17-06-0027 San Mateo
Implement supporting infrastructure and Automated
Transit Signal Priority to support SamTrans express
rapid bus service along El Camino Real
Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $1 $1
17-06-0028 San Mateo Make incremental increase in SamTrans paratransit
service - Phase Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $377 $289 $88
17-06-0029 San Mateo
Add new rolling stock and infrastructure to support
SamTrans bus rapid transit along El Camino Real-
Phase
Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $228 $205 $23
17-06-0030 San Mateo Environmental Clearance and Design of the Redwood
City Ferry Terminal and Service Expand Transit Expansion $8 $8
17-06-0031 San Mateo Implement Redwood City Street Car - Planning Phase Expand Transit Expansion $1 $0 $1
17-06-0032 San Mateo Route 1 San Pedro Creek Bridge Replacement and
Creek Widening Project Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $14 $14
17-06-0033 San Mateo
Widen Route 92 between SR 1 and Pilarcitos Creek
alignment, includes widening of travel lanes and
shoulders
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $8 $0 $6 $2
17-06-0034 San Mateo
Construct Route 1 (Calera Parkway) northbound and
southbound lanes from Fassler Avenue to Westport
Drive in Pacifica
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $58 $9 $35 $14
17-06-0035 San Mateo I-280 improvements near D Street exit Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $1 $1
17-06-0036 San Mateo Widen Skyline Boulevard (Route 35) to 4-lane roadway
from I-280 to Sneath Lane - Phased Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $25 $17 $8
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-06-0037 San Mateo
Widen Millbrae Avenue between Rollins Road and U.S.
101 soutbound on-ramp and resurface intersection of
Millbrae Avenue and Rollins Road
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $11 $11
17-06-0038 San Mateo
Construct a 6-lane arterial from Geneva
Avenue/Bayshore Boulevard intersection to U.S.
101/Candlestick Point interchange - Environmental
phase
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $17 $1 $15 $1
17-06-0039 San Mateo Grade Separations Modernize Planning and Programs $265 $5 $221 $39
17-06-0040 San Mateo Extend Blomquist Street over Redwood Creek to East
Bayshore and Bair Island Road Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $28 $19 $5 $4
17-07-0001 Santa Clara Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $874 $295 $300 $279
17-07-0002 Santa Clara Caltrain Grade Separations Modernize Planning and Programs $800 $800
17-07-0003 Santa Clara Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $446 $196 $250
17-07-0004 Santa Clara Additional Local Road Preservation/Rehab Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $1,420 $1,420
17-07-0005 Santa Clara Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $980 $436 $544
17-07-0007 Santa Clara Affordable Fare Program Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $44 $44
17-07-0008 Santa Clara Implement System Operations and Management
Program for Santa Clara County Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $899 $600 $299
17-07-0009 Santa Clara SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $52 $30 $22
17-07-0010 Santa Clara Hwy. Transportation Operations System/Freeway
Performance Initiative Phase 1 & 2 Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $20 $10 $10
17-07-0012 Santa Clara BART Silicon Valley Extension - San Jose (Berryessa) to
Santa Clara (escalated capital cost is $5.175 billion)Expand Transit Expansion $5,467 $1,717 $1,500 $2,250
17-07-0013 Santa Clara Implement El Camino Rapid Transit Project Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $267 $192 $75
17-07-0021 Santa Clara Alviso Wetlands Doubletrack Modernize Goods Movement $196 $196
17-07-0022 Santa Clara Environmental Studies for SR-152 New Alignment Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $30 $30
17-07-0023 Santa Clara US 101/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr./Fourth St. Interchange
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $161 $75 $86
17-07-0024 Santa Clara Lawrence/Stevens Creek/I-280 Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $140 $70 $70
17-07-0025 Santa Clara I-280/Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $100 $50 $50
17-07-0026 Santa Clara I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $97 $40 $57
17-07-0027 Santa Clara US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St. Interchange
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $82 $21 $61
17-07-0028 Santa Clara I-280 Mainline Improvements from County line to
Sunnyvale Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $60 $30 $30
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-07-0029 Santa Clara I-280/Saratoga Avenue Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $60 $30 $30
17-07-0030 Santa Clara I-280 Northbound Braided Ramps between Foothill
Expressway and SR 85 Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $54 $34 $20
17-07-0031 Santa Clara US 101 Southbound/Trimble Rd./De La Cruz
Blvd./Central Expressway Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $53 $20 $33
17-07-0032 Santa Clara I-680/ Alum Rock/ McKee Road Interchange
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $47 $47
17-07-0033 Santa Clara SR 237/Mathilda Ave. and US 101/Mathilda Ave.
Interchange Improvement Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $42 $42
17-07-0034 Santa Clara US 101 Interchanges Improvements: San Antonio Rd.
to Charleston Rd./Rengstorff Ave.Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $40 $20 $20
17-07-0035 Santa Clara US 101/Buena Vista Ave. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $40 $20 $20
17-07-0036 Santa Clara SR 85 Northbound to Eastbound SR 237 Connector
Ramp and Northbound SR 85 Auxiliary Lane Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $39 $9 $30
17-07-0037 Santa Clara SR 85/El Camino Real Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $28 $28
17-07-0038 Santa Clara US 101/Blossom Hill Rd. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $28 $28
17-07-0039 Santa Clara US 101/Old Oakland Rd. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $28 $7 $21
17-07-0040 Santa Clara US 101/Shoreline Blvd. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $20 $20
17-07-0042 Santa Clara SR 237/Great America Parkway WB Off- Ramps
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $15 $15
17-07-0043 Santa Clara SR 237/El Camino Real/Grant Rd. Intersection
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $6 $6
17-07-0044 Santa Clara Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to
Southbound SR 87 Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $3 $3
17-07-0051 Santa Clara Widen Calaveras Blvd. overpass from 4 to 6 lanes Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $85 $50 $35
17-07-0056 Santa Clara Bus Stop Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $47 $47
17-07-0057 Santa Clara Frequent Core Bus Network - 15 minutes Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $658 $200 $458
17-07-0058 Santa Clara SR 85 Corridor Improvements - reserve amount Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $450 $450
17-07-0059 Santa Clara Implement Stevens Creek Rapid Transit Project Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $254 $254
17-07-0060 Santa Clara North First Street light rail speed Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $12 $12
17-07-0061 Santa Clara Extend Capitol Expressway light rail to Eastridge
Transit Center - Phase II Expand Transit Expansion $386 $386
17-07-0062 Santa Clara Extend light-rail transit from Winchester Station to
Route 85 (Vasona Junction)Expand Transit Expansion $256 $256
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-07-0063 Santa Clara Mineta San Jose International Airport APM connector -
planning and environmental Expand Transit Expansion $50 $50
17-07-0064 Santa Clara County Safety, Security, Noise and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $25 $10 $15
17-07-0065 Santa Clara Caltrain Station and Service Enhancements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $722 $150 $572
17-07-0066 Santa Clara Future Transit Corridor Studies Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $5 $5
17-07-0067 Santa Clara SR 17 Corridor Congestion Relief in Los Gatos Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $30 $15 $15
17-07-0068 Santa Clara 237 WB Additional Lane from McCarthy to North First Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $52 $12 $40
17-07-0069 Santa Clara US 101/SR 25 Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $185 $150 $35
17-07-0070 Santa Clara SR 237 Express Lanes: North First St. to Mathilda Ave.Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $27 $27
17-07-0074 Santa Clara SR 85 Express Lanes: US 101 (South San Jose) to
Mountain View Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $198 $198
17-07-0075 Santa Clara US 101 Express Lanes: Whipple Ave. in San Mateo
County to Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $507 $507
17-07-0076 Santa Clara Santa Clara County Express Lanes Operations and
Maintenance Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $720 $720
17-07-0077 Santa Clara BART – Warm Springs to Berryessa Extension (SVBX)Expand Transit Expansion $2,522 $2,324 $197
17-07-0078 Santa Clara Envision Expressway (Tier 1 Expressway Plan) Major
and Minor Projects Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $821 $821
17-07-0079 Santa Clara Envision Highway Minor Projects Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $56 $56
17-07-0080 Santa Clara Alum Rock/Santa Clara Street Bus Rapid Transit Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $115 $115
17-07-0081 Santa Clara I-880 Express Lanes: SR-237 to US-101 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $28 $28
17-07-0082 Santa Clara SR-87 Express Lanes: I-880 to SR-85 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $43 $43
17-07-0083 Santa Clara I-680 Express Lanes: SR-237 to US-101 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $91 $91
17-07-0084 Santa Clara I-280 Express Lanes: US-101 to Magdalena Avenue Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $113 $113
17-07-0085 Santa Clara Santa Clara County Express Lanes - Environmental and
Design Phase for Future Segments Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $200 $200
17-07-0086 Santa Clara Santa Clara County Express Lanes - Reserve Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $384 $384
17-07-0087 Santa Clara Widen San Tomas Expressway to 8 Lanes from Stevens
Creek Blvd to Campbell Ave Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $44 $44
17-07-0088 Santa Clara Senter Road Widening from Umbarger to Lewis Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $8 $2 $6
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-07-0089 Santa Clara South Bascom Complete Streets Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $40 $8 $32
17-07-0090 Santa Clara Widen Brokaw Bridge over Coyote Creek Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $29 $6 $23
17-07-0091 Santa Clara Widen Oakland Road from 4-lanes to 6-lanes between
U.S. 101 and Montague Expressway Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $3 $12
17-08-0001 Solano Access and Mobility Program Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $113 $94 $19
17-08-0002 Solano Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $20 $10 $10
17-08-0003 Solano Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $23 $4 $19
17-08-0004 Solano County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $17 $2 $3 $12
17-08-0005 Solano Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $2 $2
17-08-0006 Solano PDA Planning Modernize Planning and Programs $17 $2 $15
17-08-0007 Solano Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $10 $10
17-08-0008 Solano Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $59 $1 $58
17-08-0009 Solano I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange (Packages 2-7)Modernize Goods Movement $380 $5 $90 $285
17-08-0010 Solano
Improve interchanges and widen roadways serving
Solano County Fairgrounds, including Redwood
Parkway
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $100 $55 $45
17-08-0011 Solano Provide auxiliary lanes on I-80 in eastbound and
westbound directions from I-680 to Airbase Parkway Modernize Goods Movement $57 $20 $37
17-08-0012 Solano Construct 4-lane Jepson Parkway from Route 12 to
Leisure Town Road at I-80 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $85 $59 $26
17-08-0013 Solano Conduct planning and design studies along SR-12
corridor in Solano County Modernize Goods Movement $58 $10 $48
17-08-0014 Solano Construct train station building and support facilities at
the new Fairfield / Vacaville multimodal station Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $81 $63 $18
17-08-0015 Solano Solano MLIP Support Projects Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $115 $10 $105
17-08-0016 Solano Vallejo Station Parking Structure Phase B Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $30 $30
17-08-0017 Solano I-80 WB Truck Scales Modernize Goods Movement $170 $170
17-09-0001 Sonoma Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $173 $123 $50
17-09-0002 Sonoma SMART Rail Freight Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $10 $10
17-09-0003 Sonoma Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $28 $18 $10
17-09-0004 Sonoma Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $176 $19 $157
17-09-0005 Sonoma Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $272 $152 $120
17-09-0006 Sonoma Implement Marin Sonoma Narrows Phase 2 (Sonoma
County)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $243 $120 $123
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-09-0008 Sonoma Arata Lane Interchange Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $4 $4
17-09-0009 Sonoma Cotati US 101/Railroad Avenue Improvements (incl.
Penngrove)Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $56 $56
17-09-0010 Sonoma Hearn Avenue Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $36 $36
17-09-0011 Sonoma Shiloh Road Interchange Reconstruction Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $27 $27
17-09-0012 Sonoma Cotati Highway 116 Cotati Corridor Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $20 $20
17-09-0013 Sonoma Petaluma Crosstown Connector and Rainier
Interchange Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $123 $123
17-09-0014 Sonoma Farmers Lane extension between Bennett Valley Rd
and Yolanda Avenue Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $72 $5 $67
17-09-0015 Sonoma Road Diet Extension - Petaluma Boulevard South Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $3 $3
17-09-0016 Sonoma SMART Petaluma Infill Station Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $11 $11
17-09-0017 Sonoma Enhance bus service frequencies in Sonoma County Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $409 $80 $329
17-09-0018 Sonoma SMART Rail Extension to Windsor + Environmental to
Cloverdale + Bike Path Expand Transit Expansion $49 $49
17-10-0001 AC Transit AC Transit Fleet Expansion and Major Corridors Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $340 $340
17-10-0003 AC Transit San Pablo Avenue BRT Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $300 $25 $275
17-10-0004 AC Transit Environmental Studies for Bay Bridge Contraflow Lane Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $20 $20
17-10-0005 BART BART Metro Program + Bay Fair Connector Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1,055 $267 $200 $588
17-10-0006 BART BART Transbay Core Capacity Project Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $3,419 $769 $1,000 $1,650
17-10-0007 CAHSR California HSR in the Bay Area Expand Transit Expansion $8,489 $8,489
17-10-0008 Caltrain Caltrain Electrification Phase 1 + CBOSS Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $2,360 $1,120 $1,240
17-10-0009 GGBHTD Golden Gate Bridge Capital and Operations Operate and
Maintain
Highway and Bridge
Preservation $2,031 $2,031
17-10-0010 GGBHTD Bus and Ferry Service Expansion Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $199 $199
17-10-0011 Multi-County Lifeline, Community Based Transportation Program,
and Mobility Management Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $890 $890
17-10-0012 Multi-County Means-Based Fare Study Implementation Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $150 $150
17-10-0013 Multi-County Transportation Management Systems Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $500 $500
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-10-0014 Multi-County Bay Trail - non toll bridge segments Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $220 $8 $212
17-10-0015 Multi-County Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $535 $9 $36 $490
17-10-0016 Multi-County Cost Contingency Operate and
Maintain
Cost Contingency and Debt
Service $1,000 $1,000
17-10-0017 Multi-County Capital Projects Debt Service Operate and
Maintain
Cost Contingency and Debt
Service $4,100 $3,000 $1,100
17-10-0018 Multi-County Goods Movement Clean Fuels and Impact Reduction
Program Modernize Goods Movement $350 $350
17-10-0019 Multi-County Goods Movement Technology Program Modernize Goods Movement $300 $300
17-10-0020 Multi-County New/Small Starts Reserve Expand Transit Expansion $640 $640
17-10-0021 Multi-County Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grants Modernize Planning and Programs $200 $200
17-10-0022 Multi-County Local and Streets and Roads - Existing Conditions Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $20,698 $12,918 $7,780
17-10-0023 Multi-County Local Streets and Roads - Operations Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $12,850 $12,850
17-10-0024 Multi-County Regional and Local Bridges - Exisiting Conditions Operate and
Maintain
Highway and Bridge
Preservation $14,550 $14,300 $250
17-10-0025 Multi-County Regional State Highways - Existing Conditions Operate and
Maintain
Highway and Bridge
Preservation $13,750 $13,750
17-10-0026 Multi-County Regional Transit Capital - Existing Conditions Operate and
Maintain Transit Capital Preservation $28,957 $4,076 $3,300 $21,581
17-10-0027 Multi-County Regional Transit Operations Operate and
Maintain Transit Operations $121,792 $105,741 $16,051
17-10-0028 Multi-County Clipper Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1,735 $661 $1,074
17-10-0029 Multi-County 511 Traveler Information Program Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $280 $41 $239
17-10-0030 Multi-County SAFE Freeway Patrol Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $150 $150
17-10-0031 Multi-County Regional Transportation Emergency Management
Program Modernize Planning and Programs $25 $25
17-10-0032 Multi-County Regional Rail Station Modernization and Access
Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $370 $210 $160
17-10-0033 Multi-County
Bay Area Forward - Active Traffic Management,
Arterial Operations , Connected Vehicles, Shared
Mobility, Transbay Operations, Managed Lanes
Implementation Plan Operations, Transit and
Commuter Parking
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $995 $129 $866
17-10-0034 Multi-County
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge West Span Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Maintenance Path - Environmental
Only
Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $30 $10 $20
17-10-0036 Multi-County I-580 Access Improvements Project Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $74 $74
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-10-0037 Multi-County Highway 37 Improvements and Sea Level Rise
Mitigation PSR Modernize Goods Movement $24 $12 $12
17-10-0038 TJPA Caltrain/HSR Downtown San Francisco Extension
(capital cost is $3.999 billion)Expand Transit Expansion $4,250 $109 $1,058 $3,083
17-10-0039 TJPA
Implement Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain
Downtown Extension (Phase 1 - Transbay Transit
Center)
Expand Transit Expansion $2,259 $2,200 $59
17-10-0040 WETA North Bay Ferry Service Enhancement Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $220 $220
17-10-0041 WETA Central Bay Ferry Service Enhancement Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $212 $212
17-10-0042 WETA Albany/Berkeley Ferry Terminal Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $143 $143
17-10-0043 Multi-County Regional Carpool Program Modernize Climate $60 $3 $8 $48
17-10-0044 Multi-County I-80 Express Lanes in both directions: Airbase Parkway
to Red Top Road Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $44 $15 $29
17-10-0045 Multi-County I-80 Express Lanes: Westbound Bay Bridge Approaches Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $18 $0 $18
17-10-0047 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes: Northbound from Marina Vista to
SR 242 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $15 $2 $13
17-10-0048 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes: Southbound from Marina Vista to
Rudgear Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $36 $36
17-10-0049 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes in both directions:
Livorna/Rudgear to Alcosta Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $56 $56
17-10-0050 Multi-County SR-84 Express Lanes: Westbound from I-880 to
Dumbarton Bridge Toll Plaza Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $6 $2 $4
17-10-0051 Multi-County SR-92 Express Lanes: Westbound from Hesperian to
San Mateo Bridge Toll Plaza Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $7 $2 $5
17-10-0052 Multi-County I-880 Express Lanes in both directions:
Hegenberger/Lewelling to SR-237 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $78 $40 $38
17-10-0053 Multi-County I-80 Express Lanes in both directions: Carquinez Bridge
to Bay Bridge Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $81 $41 $40
17-10-0054 Multi-County MTC Express Lane Program Cost Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $113 $60 $53
17-10-0055 Multi-County East and North Bay Express Lanes Operations and
Maintenance Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $1,512 $1,512
17-10-0056 Multi-County East and North Bay Express Lanes Reserve Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $2,164 $2,164
17-10-0057 Multi-County I-880 Express Lanes: Northbound from Hegenberger to
Lewelling and bridge improvements Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $221 $221
17-10-0058 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes: Northbound from SR-84 to SR-237 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $394 $394
17-10-0059 Multi-County I-80 Express Lanes in both directions: Airbase Parkway
to I-505 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $136 $136
17-10-0060 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes: Northbound from Rudgear to SR
242 and operational improvements Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $57 $57
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-10-0061 Multi-County
I-680 Express Lanes: I-80 westbound to I-680
southbound and I-680 northbound to I-80 eastbound
direct connectors
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $140 $140
17-10-0062 Multi-County East and North Bay Express Lanes - Environmental and
Design Phases for Future Segments Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $200 $200
17-10-0063 BART BART Seismic Safety Augmentation Modernize Planning and Programs $90 $10 $80
17-10-0064 BART Hayward Maintenance Complex Phase 1 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $433 $254 $179
Goal Target*%
Climate Protection 1 Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions -15%
Adequate Housing 2 House the region’s population 100%
Healthy and Safe Communities 3 Reduce adverse health impacts -10%
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation 4 Direct development within urban footprint 100%
Equitable Access 5 Decrease H+T share for lower-income households
6 Increase share of affordable housing +15%
7 Do not increase share of households at risk of displacement +0%
Economic Vitality 8 Increase share of jobs accessible in congested conditions +20%
9 Increase jobs in middle-wage industries +38%
10 Reduce per-capita delay on freight network
Transportation System Effectiveness 11 Increase non-auto mode share +10%
12 Reduce vehicle O&M costs due to pavement conditions -100%
13 Reduce per-rider transit delay due to aged infrastructure -100%
Draft Performance Target Results
Notes: *Target results are subject to change as scenarios are further refined and finalized. Note that select targets have not yetbeen analyzed for the final horizon year of 2040 and are currently using year 2035 as the best available proxy. Final target results released in mid-November will reflect the ultimate horizon year. Complete target language as adopted by the Commission and ABAG Board can be found at http://planbayarea.org/the-plan/plan-details/goals-and-targets.html. Target language shown above is summarized for brevity.
-4%-16%-19%-20%
100%100%100%100%
-0%-0%-1%-1%
85%96%100%100%
+14%+13%+13%+13%
+1% +1%+2%-0%
+20%+11%+14%+19%
-2%-1%-1%-1%
+43%+43%+43%+43%
+10%-30% -26%-36%
+2%+2%+3%+3%
+47%-65%-9%+15%
ConnectedNeighbor-hoods Big CitiesNo Project
Main Streets
Performance moving in wrong direction from target Performance moving in right direction, but falls well short of target
Target achieved
Symbols used in summary tables:
-10%
-18%
100%
-1%
100%
+13%
+2%
+9%
-0%
+43%
-29%
+3%
+20%
FinalPreferred
-20%
-16%
-0% +1%
-61%-78%-77%-78%-80%
Attachment D.1
Equity Measures %
-10%Reduce adverse health impacts3
-10%5 Decrease H+T share for lower-income households
6 Increase share of affordablehousing +15%
7 Do not increase share of households at risk of displacement +0%
8 Increase share of jobs accessiblein congested conditions
9 Increase jobs in middle-wageindustries +43%
Draft Results for Equity Measures
Notes: Equity measure results are subject to change as scenarios are further refined this fall. Note that select equity measures have not yet been analyzed for the final horizon year of 2040 and are currently using year 2035 as the best available proxy. Final equity measure results released in fall 2016 will reflect the ultimate horizon year. For equity measures #3 and #5, low-income households earn less than $30,000 in year 2000 dollars, lower-income households earn less than $60,000 in year 2000 dollars, high-income households earn more than $100,000 in year 2000 dollars, and higher-income households earn more than $60,000 in year 2000 dollars. For equity measures #6 and #7, the measures are specific to Priority Development Areas, Transit Priority Areas, or High-Opportunity Areas. Note that Communities of Concern do not generally overlap with High-Opportunity Areas.
-1%-1%-1%-1%
-0%-0%-0%-1%
+4%+4%+4%+4%
+14%+13%+13%+13%
+0%+1%+2%-0%
+1%+1%-1%-2%
+16%+13%+14%+15%
+30%+9%+14%+31%
-2%-1%-1%-1%
-1%-0%-0%-2%
+43%+43%+43%+43%
+43%+43%+43%+43%
ConnectedNeighbor-hoods Big CitiesNo Project
Main Streets
Stronger performance in Communities of Concern orfor lower-income households
Weaker performance in Communities of Concern or for lower-income households
Similar performance inCommunities or Concern orfor lower-income households
Symbols used in summary tables:
-1%
-1%
+4%
+13%
+2%
-1%
+11%
+6%
-0%
+1%
+43%
+20%
FinalPreferred
+20%
+43%
-1%-1%
Geography
High-Income Households
Low-Income Households
Higher-Income Households
Lower-Income Households
Outside Communities of Concern
Inside Communities of Concern
Outside Communities of Concern
Inside Communities of Concern
Outside Communities of Concern
Inside Communities of Concern
Outside Communities of Concern
Inside Communities of Concern
Attachment D.2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7463)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: PAFD Performance Report FY17Q1
Title: Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the First
Quarter Fiscal Year 2017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council review the Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly
Performance Report for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2017.
Background and Discussion
In Fiscal Year 2015 the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) identified performance
reporting as a key initiative, and began reporting on key performance measures
quarterly.
The report provides overall calls for service information, as well as more detailed
information on the key service areas, including Emergency Medical Services, Fire
Suppression, Rescue and Hazardous Materials Response, and Fire Prevention. The
report also provides information on mutual and automatic aid with our regional public
safety partners and internal workforce planning efforts.
Performance measures include the following:
Calls for Service: This data provides information on the final outcome of all
emergency response calls. The data is tracked in the Fire Department’s Record
Management System, and uses standardized call type codes, which are defined
by the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The report includes
overall call volume by primary category, and a detailed listing of call type in the
service type sections.
Response Times: This aspect measures the time it takes from an emergency call
or request for response being created in the dispatch center to the arrival of
resources to the scene of the emergency. This information is tracked in the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System, and the performance goals, or service
levels, are set by Council in accordance with county and national standards.
Ambulance Transports: The report provides the number of ambulatory transports
to hospitals or other medical care facilities, and the proportion of Emergency
Medical Calls that included transports. This information is tracked in the Fire
Department’s Emergency Medical Record Management System.
Fire Containment: This measures the proportion of building and structure fires
that are contained to the area or room of origin within Palo Alto and Stanford
Campus.
Mutual and Automatic Aid: This includes the number and proportion of all
incidents in which the PAFD provided aid to neighboring communities, as well as
the aid received from neighboring Fire Departments. This information is tracked
in the CAD System.
Permits: This provides the count of facility, electric vehicle, and solar permits
issued by the Fire Prevention Bureau. This information is currently tracked in the
Development Center’s Records Management System.
Inspections: A count of the total number of Hazardous Materials and State
Mandated inspections is provided. In addition, an estimated number of
inspections to be completed for the year is also provided to assess overall
workload performance to date.
Fire and Life Safety Plans Reviewed: This provides a total count of all plans
reviewed, as well as the proportion of plans that were reviewed within the time
guidelines.
Vacancies and Off-Line Employees: This section provides the total number of
budgeted full-time equivalent line personnel, current vacancies, and employees
that are off line from workers compensation or light duty. This information is
obtained from the Fire Department’s Staffing and Scheduling System (TeleStaff),
as well as the City’s Personnel Management System.
Succession Planning Metrics: This provides the number and proportion of line
personnel that are eligible to retire, or will be eligible within the next five years.
This information is tracked in the City’s Personnel Management System. This
report also provides the total number of hours line personnel have spent in an
acting capacity. Personnel serving in an acting capacity are a key component of
the Department’s overall succession planning efforts. Acting capacity allows
junior officers to learn the responsibilities of higher ranks with guidance from
senior officers. This information is tracked in TeleStaff.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Training hours: The total number of training hours completed by all line
personnel is provided, as well as the average number of hours per each line
personnel on staff. This information is tracked in the Fire Department’s Record
Management System. Local, State and Federal mandates require fire personnel
to train a minimum of 20 hours per month.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A_Coverletter (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B_FY17 Q1 Peformance Report_FINAL (DOCX)
ATTACHMENT C_Thank You Letters (PDF)
ATTACHMENT D_EMS Survey (PDF)
1 | P a g e
Palo Alto Fire Department
Quarterly Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2017, First Quarter
Calls for Service
The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) responded to a total of 2,214 calls for service in the first quarter
of Fiscal Year 2017. This includes responses within Palo Alto, Stanford, and neighboring cities to provide
Auto and Mutual Aid. Approximately eighty-three (83%) of calls are generated from Palo Alto, twelve
percent (12%) from Stanford, and the remainder from neighboring cities or requests for regional fire
deployment.
The majority of calls were for Rescue and Emergency Medical Services, making up sixty percent (60%) of
the responses. Table 1 below shows the main categories of the calls to which PAFD responded. Calls are
classified based on the actual event occurred, rather than the initial call request.
Table 1. Calls for Service
Type FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
Emergency Medical Service 1300 1335
Good Intent 440 357
False Alarm & False Call 289 290
Service Call 138 101
Rescue & Hazardous Material 67 75
Fire 31 56
Explosion, No Fire 2 0
Grand Total 2267 2214
Good Intent and False Alarm calls make up the second largest types of responses. Most calls for service
that may be a true threat of fire, gas or other emergency hazard are actually found to be something else
after Firefighters investigate the situation. These calls are coded as Good Intent calls. As well, many fire
alarm activations are from causes other than fire or emergency hazard. These situations are categorized
as False Alarm calls.
Emergency Medical Services
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is the primary service that the Palo Alto Fire Department provides to
Palo Alto and Stanford. While this shift toward EMS is being seen across the region, the Palo Alto Fire
Department is the only Fire Department in the County that provides ambulance and transport services.
This is especially valuable to our community. The most recent Report from the Council on Aging Silicon
Valley from 2012 indicates that Palo Alto has the highest percentage of the oldest seniors (75 and over)
in the County. This population relies most on our services, with a service utilization rate more than six
times greater than the rest of the population.
Of the 1,335 Emergency Medical Service calls the PAFD responded to in the first quarter of Fiscal Year
2017, the overwhelming majority were for medical, trauma and cardiac calls that did not involve a
vehicle accident.
2 | P a g e
Table 2. EMS Performance Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
NFIRS Code Description
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 1207 1225
322 Vehicle accident with injuries 72 69
324 Motor vehicle accident with no injuries 9 28
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident 11 9
381 Rescue or EMS standby 1 4
Total 1300 1335
Transports
Number of Transports 946 903
Percent of EMS Calls resulting in transport 72.8% 67.6%
Response Times
Percent of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes 92.2% 93.5%
Percent of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes 98.7% 99.3%
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls 04:59 04:40
This quarter saw a slight dip in the number of EMS calls that resulted in an ambulance transport to a
local hospital or care facility, making up sixty eight percent (68%) of all EMS calls. This is the primary
source of revenue generated from emergency medical services, and revenue received in this quarter is
on track with budget projections.
Response Time Goal Met: At least 90% of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8
minutes.
This quarter the PAFD first responder arrived on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes ninety-four percent
(94%) of the time.
Response Time Goal Met: At least 99% of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls
within 12 minutes.
This quarter the PAFD paramedic responder arrived on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes ninety-nine
percent (99%) of the time.
3 | P a g e
Fire Suppression
Very few of the potential fire calls coming into dispatch turn out to be a real fire once PAFD investigates
the scene and cause of the concerning elements. This quarter PAFD responded to 56 calls where fire was
present, with 46 in Palo Alto or Stanford. There were three building fires that the Department
responded to, all of which were contained to the area of origin.
All of the three building fires occurred during the second week of September. The first at restaurant on
the 2300 block of El Camino Real, which began due to an unwatched pan filled with oil. Once PAFD
personnel arrived, the fire had been extinguished by the sprinkler system. All fire units were released
from the scene except Engine 66, Truck 66 and Battalion Chief 66. Crews inspected the wall interior and
ceiling and found black staining and heat running up the flu, along with excessive oil on the roof from
grease clogging the flu being pushed out of the vent and onto the roof. Crews advised the restaurant
manager of the fire risk and the need to clean the flu.
The second fire of the quarter was a full first alarm at the 3900 block of El Camino Real. Thirteen units
responded including mutual aid resources from Mountain View and Santa Clara County. Engine 65
arrived first on scene and established Incident Command, and noted brown smoke showing. The fire
was found in a second-story room approximately halfway down the hall on the left side of the building.
The motel room was wide-open with 10’ flames blowing out the door and lapping up to the roof.
A primary search resulted in an “all clear” with no persons or animals in need of rescue. PAPD closed
lanes on El Camino Real both north and south bound. Utilities arrived on scene to shut down power to
the building. Once fire crews had the fire contained, incident command called for a Fire Inspector and
representative from Red Cross. Crews conducted salvage and overhaul clean up, and the scene was
secured by PAPD for the night. Fire Inspectors determined that the cause was arson from clothing set
fire on the hotel room bed. A rapid and cooperative effort with our law enforcement partners from the
Palo Alto and Mountain View Police Departments quickly identified and located a suspect who was
taken into custody within four hours of the incident.
The third incident was a residential fire on the 4000 block of Laguna Way. First responders assessed the
exterior with no smoke or flames showing. PAPD had confirmed no one was present in the home, and
upon interior assessment crews found smoke damage throughout the second story, and burning embers
that was started by candles that were too close to combustibles and left unattended. Crews
extinguished the embers, and Engine 62 updated the homeowner on the situation and advised on clean
up and restoration.
4 | P a g e
Table 3. Fire Performance Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
NFIRS Code Description
113 Cooking fire, confined to container 5 8
154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 1 8
111 Building fire 2 6
141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 2 5
150 Outside rubbish fire, other 5 5
131 Passenger vehicle fire 3 4
140 Natural vegetation fire, other 1 3
100 Fire, other 3 3
143 Grass fire 0 2
116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 0 2
160 Special outside fire, other 0 2
118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 5 2
162 Outside equipment fire 0 1
112 Fires in structures other than in a building 0 1
132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 0 1
151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 0 1
137 Camper or recreational vehicle (RV) fire 0 1
130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire 0 1
142 Brush, or brush and grass mixture fire 2 0
122 Fire in motor home, camper, recreational vehicle 1 0
161 Outside storage fire 1 0
Total 31 56
Response Times
Percent of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes 86.6% 86.7%
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls 5:37 05:22
Fire Containment
Percent of building and structure fires contained to the room or area of origin N/A 100%
Response Time Goal Not Met: At least 90% of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls
within 8 minutes.
This quarter the PAFD first responder arrived on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes eighty-seven
percent (87%) of the time. This is consistent with the small improvement that was seen in the prior fiscal
year, a few percentage points above historical performance. The Fire Department continues to explore
ways to improve on this measure.
Fire Containment Goal Met: At least 90% of building and structure fires contained to the room or
area of origin.
This quarter there were three building or structure fires within Palo Alto or Stanford, of which all were
contained to the room or area of origin.
5 | P a g e
Rescue and Hazardous Materials
The Fire Department responded to a total of 75 rescue and hazardous material calls. The most common
rescue call is for the removal of victims from a stalled elevator, which accounts for twenty-five percent
(25%) of these call types. Lock-Ins saw a significant spike this quarter accounting for seventeen percent
(17%) of calls.
Table 4. Rescue and Hazardous Materials Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
NFIRS Code Description
353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 12 19
331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 ) 1 13
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 0 7
400 Hazardous condition, other 10 7
412U Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) - PA Utilities Related 11 6
422 Chemical spill or leak 1 4
442 Overheated motor 3 3
411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 2 3
413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 4 2
412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 8 1
444U Power line down – PA Utilities Related 3 1
421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak) 3 1
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 1 1
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 1 1
451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 1 1
424U Carbon monoxide incident – PA Utilities Related 0 1
365 Watercraft rescue 0 1
423 Refrigeration leak 0 1
481 Attempt to burn 0 1
410 Flammable gas or liquid condition, other 1 1
444 Power line down 3 0
460 Accident, potential accident, other 2 0
350 Extrication, rescue, other 1 0
352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 1 0
443 Light ballast breakdown 1 0
Total 67 75
Response Times
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to
Rescue & Hazardous Materials calls
05:43 06:19
6 | P a g e
Mutual and Automatic Aid
The Fire Department has automatic aid agreements with five regional Fire Departments, including
Mountain View, Menlo Park, Woodside, Los Altos, and Santa Clara County Fire. The PAFD primarily
provides aid to Mountain View, and the data below shows an increase in the number of calls from the
prior fiscal year for the second year in a row. This is due to the virtual consolidation effort with the cities
of Mountain View and Los Altos, which was completed at in the first quarter of FY15.
The Deputy Chief of Operations communicates regularly with the Mountain View Fire Department to
review the agreement and ensure Palo Alto’s resources are not overly relied upon. In this quarter, the
PAFD provided mutual or automatic aid to four other jurisdictions on a total of 140 incidents. Five
agencies provided mutual or automatic aid for calls within Palo Alto or Stanford on a total of 113
incidents.
Table 5. Mutual and Automatic Aid Performance Measures
Mutual and Auto Aid Provided FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
Agency
Mountain View Fire 96 110
Santa Clara County Fire 26 26
Menlo Park Fire 3 2
Sunnyvale 0 2
All Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 129 140
Mutual and Auto Aid Received
Agency
Mountain View Fire 66 87
Menlo Park Fire 14 14
Santa Clara County Fire 6 10
Woodside Fire 8 2
Cal Fire 1 0
All Mutual and Auto Aid Received 95 113
7 | P a g e
Fire Prevention
The Fire Prevention Bureau ensures compliance with the Fire Code for the safety of occupants and
protection of property. Fire Inspectors perform fire sprinkler and fire alarm plan checks, permitting, and
field inspections with the goal of ensuring all construction complies with local and national codes.
The number of plans to review continues to rise for the second year in a row. This quarter saw a twenty-
nine percent (29%) increase from the same quarter in the prior year. The Bureau has kept up with
reviewing the majority of plans on time despite the sizeable workload increase, with ninety-seven
percent (97%) of plans reviewed on time.
Table 6. Prevention Bureau Performance Measures
Permits FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
Fire Permits Issued 202 134
Electric Vehicle Permits Issued 22 3
Solar Permits Issued 61 25
Inspections
Hazardous Material Inspections Completed 89 101
Number of Hazardous Material Inspections for the year 207 440
Percent of Hazardous Material Facilities Inspections Complete 43.0% 23.0%
State Mandated Inspections Completed 85 99
Number of State Mandated Inspections for the year 340 397
Percent of State Mandated Facilities Inspections Complete 25.0% 24.9%
Fire and Life Safety Plan Review
Plans Reviewed 360 464
Percent of Reviews Completed On-Time 100% 96.8%
8 | P a g e
Workforce Planning
The Department operates daily emergency response operations with a total of 96.00 FTE line personnel.
This includes three battalions of crews that staff six stations in the City and Stanford 24 hours each day.
Over the last quarter, the department has operated with 12.0 positions vacant and 6.0 employees off-
line creating a total of 18.00 FTE positions that require backfilling.
The permanent vacancies are solely within the Firefighter and Apparatus Operator Classifications.
During this Fiscal Year the Department will conduct a promotional process for Apparatus Operator,
which will shift all vacancies to the Firefighter rank.
The Training Battalion Chief has significantly increased succession planning and training efforts. This
focus toward succession planning is becoming increasingly important as forty-six percent (46%) of all
line personnel will be eligible to retire within the next five years. Personnel completed eighty-two
percent (82%) more hours than the prior year. Some of this was department-wide training on the new
hose and nozzles. New hose and nozzles were purchased late last fiscal year, which provided new
technology that better regulates the flow of water.
Other trainings this quarter focused on gas and electric with PG&E, hazardous materials, EMS, ethics,
paramedic updates, and incident commander training.
Table 7. Vacancies and Off-Line Employees FY17 Q1
Classification Budgeted
FTE
Vacancies Off-Line Employees
(Workers
Comp/Light Duty)
Personnel
On Line
Percent of
Personnel
On Line
Battalion Chief 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 100%
Fire Captain 22.00 0.00 2.00 20.00 91%
Fire Apparatus Operator
& Fire Fighters
70.00 12.00 4.00 54.00 77%
TOTAL 96.00 12.00 6.00 78.00 81%
Table 8. Succession Planning
FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
Number of Line Personnel Currently Eligible to Retire 17 23
Number of Line Personnel Eligible to Retire in Five Years 24 17
Percent of all Line Personnel Eligible to Retire within Five
Years
43.2% 45.5%
Number of Acting Battalion Chief Hours 198 480
Number of Acting Captain Hours 2200 1714
Number of Acting Apparatus Operator Hours 7550 6394
Training
Hours of Training Completed 10,290 18,811
Average Hours per Line Personnel 121.1 241.2
From: Cathie Foster <princesscathie@comcast.net>
Date: August 15, 2016 at 11:34:28 AM PDT
To: Dennis Burns <dennis.burns@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Accident today at Greenwood and Hutchinson
Hi Dennis,
I just wanted to say a big thank you to your team and the Fire Department’s team who responded
to a car vs bicycle accident this morning. Everyone was so calm, kind and professional and
handled all the neighborhood lookie-loos (including me of course) with respect and answered all
our questions in a way that protected the victim but allayed our worries. I didn’t get the officer’s
name who had to ask a woman to turn around and go another way to her house. I couldn’t
believe it when she argued with him. His patience was way beyond anything I could
exhibit. The PAPD and PAFD in my estimation are the best in the USA. And it may sound like
hyperbole but all my local friends agree.
I was wondering, if this is reported in the news would it include whether the bicyclist ran the
stop sign or not. If that did happen it could serve as a heads-up to other bicyclists. If that wasn’t
the case then I will be less likely to jump to that conclusion the next time there is a bike vs car
accident. Since I have had so many bicyclists run through stop signs (when I have the right of
way) that I am always amazed that there are not more injured cyclists. I think I will probably die
of a heart attack one of the times I have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting someone who flies
through a stop sign. I stopped counting how many times it has happened after I got to one
hundred.
I don’t have Eric’s e-mail so if you could forward this to him too I would really appreciate it.
Last thing: we still haven’t met for that coffee. I will be back in town on the 29th. Leaving for
Ashland, Oregon on Sunday. When we meet my husband Mike wanted me to ask you
something.
Cathie
From: Witmer, Derek@CALFIRE [mailto:Derek.Witmer@fire.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:34 PM
To: Nickel, Eric
Subject: FW: Thank You
Eric,
I too wanted to pass on my thanks for your BC who meet the family and the FF at the hospital until
Chief Marcucci could get there.
Derek J. Witmer
Fire Chief
CAL FIRE
Santa Clara Unit
Protecting Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Western Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties
South Santa Clara County Fire District
www.ssccfd.com
Morgan Hill Fire
www.morganhillfire.org
408-778-8600
Every Californian should conserve water. Find out how at:
SaveOurWater.com · Drought.CA.gov
From: White, Josh@CALFIRE
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 9:04 AM
To: Marcucci, Mike@CALFIRE
Cc: Witmer, Derek@CALFIRE; McFadden, Greg@CALFIRE; Upton, Scott@CALFIRE
Subject: Thank You
Chief Marcucci,
I wanted to express my sincere gratitude to you for all that you did last night/early this morning.
Our volunteer/Columbia College firefighter was transported to Stanford in the early hours this
morning and you were there when he and his family arrived.
This level of service, above and beyond the call of duty, is greatly appreciated. I am also to
understand you had a Palo Alto engine there as well. The family is awestruck with the level of
caring and respect.
Thank you so very much. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do to assist you or
SCU. Your selflessness and sense of duty means so much to TCU.
Sincerely,
Josh White
Unit Chief
Tuolumne County Fire Chief
CAL FIRE
Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit
(209) 419-4400
From: Ron [mailto:rondillon@mchsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 9:47 AM
To: Fire
Subject: Clayton fire
Palo Alto Fire fighters.
We would like to give a thousand thanks to Palo Alto Fire for sending two engines up here to Lower Lake
to help with the Clayton fire.
A special thanks to Marc Muzzi and his guys for all their hard work. The poor town of Lower Lake took a
really big hit but it could have been worse.
As a retired City of Palo Alto employee I can't thank you guys enough.
All my neighbors and I are eternally grateful.
Ron Dillon
From: Stephanie Charles <sjcharles@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:40 AM
To: Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Rainey, Nathaniel; Dueker, Kenneth; Johnson, Amy
Subject: Thank You
Hi Amy, Minka, Nathan, and Ken,
I wanted to thank you all for the city’s help to the residents displaced by the Glass Slipper fire. Your
great support of the shelter was invaluable, then I’m sure that putting up the displaced residents over
the weekend was a big relief to them. I heard several of my Red Cross colleagues comment on how well
things went with the city and how good our working relationship with all of you was. Every response to
an incident like this involves a team effort, and I am very appreciative of all the teamwork from every
quarter in the days after the fire.
Thankfully fires like this are rare in Palo Alto, but just let me know if there are other ways in which the
Red Cross can support you.
Regards,
Stephanie Charles
Silicon Valley Red Cross
From: Annette Glanckopf [mailto:annette_g@att.net]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Nickel, Eric
Subject: thanks for coming
Dear Eric,
Thanks once again for sharing your Sunday with the Midtown Residents Association.
and for your graciousness in greeting our residents and visitors.
You make such a difference for our community. warmest thanks to you and all the
wonderful firefighters who came to be a part of our event!
Best regards
Annette
From: Steve Drewniany [mailto:sdrewniany@sunnyvale.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:56 AM
To: Diaz, Juan; Ken Kehmna; William Kelly; Nickel, Eric
Subject: Mutual Aid for 674 Gail Ave, SNY Case #FR 16-6062
Chiefs
On Sunday 09/25 at 09:06:17 hours, SNY DPS responded to a two story,
multi-family residential structure fire that went to 3 alarms. At the conclusion
of the fire 10 apartments were involved, and 47 residents are now
displaced. The City, Red Cross and Sunnyvale Community Services have
facilitated housing for all of the displaced residents. This is the second
multiple alarm residential structure fire in our City this year that has displaced
multiple families. I want to thank you and the members of your agencies for
your rapid response to our call for assistance both at this recent fire and our
previous one.
I am thankful for our strong working relationships and the quality of
personnel we all field here each and everyday. We truly are fortunate to
have the level of professionalism and inter-agency cooperation both at the
Chief level as well as the field level which define our operational area. Please
pass along our appreciation to the men and women of your organizations that
represented you all in such an exemplary manner.
The assignments were:
Backfill at ST1:
MTV - EN54
Backfill at ST2:
SNC - EN93
CNT - TR71
At the Fire Scene:
CNT - EN71
MTV - TR51
SNC - EN90
SNC - BC91
PAF - EN62 (Air Support)
Assoc. FR/EV's
MTV FR #9002
SNC EV #7613 and #7615
CNT EV #C162690018 and #C162690022
PAF FR #9005
Steve
Steve Drewniany, Deputy Chief
Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety
700 All America Way | Sunnyvale, CA 94086
(P) 408.730.7123 | (F)408.730.5713
(E)sdrewniany@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Called to Serve: Sunnyvale’s Public Safety Careers
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicSafety.aspx
***** Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. The
sender reserves the right to a reasonable privacy expectation with this
communication. ****
From: Bill Widmer [mailto:bwidmer@ci.atherton.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:27 AM
To: Fire
Subject: Thank you for great service
Wednesday your organization was called upon to transport me to Stanford from PAMF. I want to thank
the team who handled things well and especially mention Alex who was in the back with me and
seemed to be the team leader.
Please thank these guys for me.! Great job, very competent and caring.
Best regards
Bill Widmer
To: Mike Simbulan
From: Ken Cardinale, Fire Chief
Date: May 18, 2016
Subject: Thank You
Captain Ferry I just want to thank you for the training that you provided to Lewis County this past
weekend. The course was outstanding by providing knowledge from historic door systems to the most
up to date modern security door we may in counter in both residential and commercial occupancies.
The class room instruction and the multimedia aspects where invaluable and laid the foundation for the
hands on training which the bulk of the curriculum is.
The manipulative portion of the course, provided by Fire Fighter Mike Simbulan was so valuable to all of
the firefighters. You can have lectures, read books and see videos, but the most valuable is the hands on
training. It is where the tire meets the road. The unselfish hours of the instructors providing their
guidance and instruction as well their experience will have a long and lasting impression with all the
firefighter in attendance.
Thank you so very much for the outstanding and excellent course.
Sincerely,
Ken Cardinale,
Fire Chief,
City of Chehalis, WA
To: Yovan Sierra
From: Ken Cardinale, Fire Chief
Date: May 18, 2016
Subject: Thank You
Captain Ferry I just want to thank you for the training that you provided to Lewis County this past
weekend. The course was outstanding by providing knowledge from historic door systems to the most
up to date modern security door we may in counter in both residential and commercial occupancies.
The class room instruction and the multimedia aspects where invaluable and laid the foundation for the
hands on training which the bulk of the curriculum is.
The manipulative portion of the course provided by Fire Fighter Yovan Sierra was so valuable to all of
the firefighters. You can have lectures, read books and see videos, but the most valuable is the hands on
training. It is where the tire meets the road. The unselfish hours of the instructors providing their
guidance and instruction as well their experience will have a long and lasting impression with all the
firefighter in attendance.
Thank you so very much for the outstanding and excellent course.
Sincerely,
Ken Cardinale,
Fire Chief,
City of Chehalis, WA
Number of Your Patients in this ReportYour Score
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
EMS System Report
Palo Alto, CA
1515 Center Street
City of Palo Alto
1 (877) 583-3100
www.EMSSurveyTeam.com
Client 9701
service@EMSSurveyTeam.
Lansing, Mi 48096
10594.15
Number of Patients in this Report
19,777
Number of Transport Services in All
131
Page 1 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Executive Summary
This report contains data from 105 City of Palo Alto patients who returned a questionnaire between
07/01/2016 and 09/30/2016.
The overall mean score for the standard questions was 94.15; this is a difference of 1.78 points from the
overall EMS database score of 92.37.
The current score of 94.15 is a change of -0.31 points from last period's score of 94.46. This was the 20th
highest overall score for all companies in the database.
You are ranked 4th for comparably sized companies in the system.
80.34% of responses to standard questions had a rating of Very Good, the highest rating. 99.42% of all
responses were positive.
Page 2 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Demographics — This section provides demographic information about the patients who responded
to the survey for the current and the previous periods. The information comes from the data you
submitted. Compare this demographic data to your eligible population. Generally, the demographic
profile will approximate your service
Total
This PeriodLast
OtherFemaleMale OtherMaleTotalFemale
Under 18 4 7 011 253 0
18 to 30 2 3 05 253 0
31 to 44 2 2 04 4106 0
45 to 54 5 3 08 561 0
55 to 64 7 3 010 583 0
65 and older 46 75 4125 407131 0
Total 66 93 4163 105 47 58 0
Gender
Page 3 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Dispatch Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern dispatcher operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service
93.84
92.47
1.37
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service
94.64
92.30
2.34
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived
91.57
90.61
0.96
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.64
100
91.79
0
Your Score
93.42
Page 4 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Ambulance Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern ambulance operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner
96.36
91.69
4.67
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Cleanliness of the ambulance
95.41
94.14
1.27
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Comfort of the ride
92.86
87.21
5.65
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Skill of the person driving the ambulance
96.43
93.49
2.94
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
3.62
100
91.66
Variance
0
Your Score
95.28
Page 5 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Medic Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern medic operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance
96.91
94.01
2.90
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously
96.17
94.01
2.16
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family
94.80
93.73
1.07
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Skill of the medics
97.68
94.06
3.62
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment
94.57
92.41
2.16
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable)
91.69
92.22
-0.53
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-0.53
Variance1000
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort
91.48
90.45
1.03
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Page 6 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Medic Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern medic operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Medics' concern for your privacy
93.18
93.23
-0.05
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-0.05
Variance1000
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person
94.95
94.14
0.81
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.60
100
93.14
0
Your Score
94.74
Page 7 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Billing Staff Assessment Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern office operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office
90.13
88.63
1.50
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs
90.44
88.86
1.58
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.53
100
88.75
Variance
0
Your Score
90.28
Page 8 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Overall Assessment Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern assessment of operations. The analysis contains the
mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database
score, the second column is your variance from the database score.
How well did our staff work together to care for you
95.70
93.24
2.46
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility
94.78
93.43
1.35
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment
93.76
93.13
0.63
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged
85.07
87.53
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-2.46
Variance1000
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation
95.16
93.20
1.96
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others
94.18
92.82
1.36
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.03
100
92.23
Variance
0
Your Score
93.26
Page 9 of 30
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Question Analysis
This section lists a synopsis of the information about your individual questions and overall scores for this monthly reporting
period. The first column shows the company score from the previous period, the second column shows the change, the third
column shows your score for this period and the fourth column shows the total Database score.
Dispatch Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 93.84-0.61 92.4794.45
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.640.88 92.3093.76
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 91.57-1.70 90.6193.27
Ambulance Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.361.13 91.6995.23
Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.41-0.81 94.1496.22
Comfort of the ride 92.86-0.89 87.2193.75
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 96.431.79 93.4994.64
Medic Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.910.48 94.0196.43
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 96.17-0.45 94.0196.62
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 94.80-1.90 93.7396.70
Skill of the medics 97.681.58 94.0696.10
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.570.11 92.4194.46
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if 91.69-2.17 92.2293.86
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.48-1.02 90.4592.50
Medics' concern for your privacy 93.18-1.00 93.2394.18
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.95-0.79 94.1495.74
Page 10 of 30
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Question Analysis (Continued)
Billing Staff Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 90.132.80 88.6387.33
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 90.444.18 88.8686.26
Overall Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.700.63 93.2495.07
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.78-0.26 93.4395.04
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 93.76-1.24 93.1395.00
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 85.07-3.29 87.5388.36
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 95.16-1.02 93.2096.18
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 94.18-1.91 92.8296.09
Page 11 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Sep
2015
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
Dec
2015
Jan
2016
Feb
2016
Mar
2016
Apr
2016
May
2016
Jun
2016
Jul
2016
Aug
2016
Sep
2016
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance 96.51 92.36 100.0 95.83 94.57 97.00 97.22 100.0 95.03 93.75 94.64 94.44 91.24
Concern shown by the person you called for 95.35 89.29 91.67 95.65 94.32 96.00 97.22 100.0 93.95 93.18 94.64 94.91 93.75
Extent to which you were told what to do until the 92.68 89.29 100.0 91.13 93.59 87.50 97.22 95.83 93.08 93.15 94.64 93.48 82.21
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely 94.12 95.35 100.0 94.77 94.74 92.31 98.91 94.44 97.28 94.33 98.53 95.38 97.62
Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.74 95.00 80.20 98.73 93.09 96.15 100.0 93.75 97.56 95.83 96.88 95.90 92.86
Comfort of the ride 91.33 89.23 80.20 95.76 90.63 92.31 96.51 93.75 94.51 93.41 95.31 93.03 90.48
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 93.88 93.89 100.0 98.25 95.31 96.00 99.40 96.88 95.24 94.17 96.88 97.13 94.05
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the 97.50 95.63 100.0 98.28 97.81 93.75 98.84 97.22 96.43 96.35 98.53 96.37 97.22
Degree to which the medics took your problem 97.00 95.12 100.0 98.28 96.05 94.79 99.43 97.22 96.43 96.65 98.53 95.24 97.22
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or 94.79 95.12 100.0 97.81 96.05 95.83 100.0 97.22 97.02 96.51 95.59 95.90 90.33
Skill of the medics 96.88 95.00 95.00 98.68 95.98 96.74 98.84 97.22 96.95 95.60 97.06 97.62 98.53
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about 90.56 92.11 95.00 98.04 96.00 95.45 98.13 94.44 96.15 93.75 98.33 94.17 92.65
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment 88.12 90.91 100.0 97.22 93.29 94.32 95.83 100.0 96.55 92.31 94.23 93.65 82.21
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or 91.46 92.86 100.0 96.43 94.32 92.86 98.48 89.29 93.38 92.41 89.29 93.52 85.79
Medics' concern for your privacy 91.67 95.39 95.00 98.56 94.39 93.18 98.21 87.63 95.14 94.38 98.44 92.27 91.18
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.27 96.88 100.0 99.11 97.64 92.43 100.0 97.22 95.39 95.74 97.06 94.58 94.12
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service 85.23 89.58 50.50 92.39 89.58 92.50 86.00 100.0 87.50 86.48 96.43 90.22 84.38
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address 90.33 85.42 50.50 92.86 83.75 91.67 84.00 100.0 87.50 84.94 95.83 90.00 87.50
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.10 95.63 100.0 98.61 95.10 96.88 97.62 97.22 96.53 94.29 94.12 95.76 97.06
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the 96.50 96.34 95.00 99.07 94.61 95.83 99.38 97.22 95.17 94.78 97.06 95.18 91.18
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical 93.37 93.90 100.0 99.07 95.37 95.83 96.98 96.88 94.74 94.95 92.19 95.34 89.76
Extent to which the services received were worth the 83.79 89.39 81.25 90.98 86.84 88.80 89.00 100.0 91.91 85.55 85.94 86.54 78.64
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency 94.27 95.12 100.0 99.54 95.28 94.79 98.84 97.22 96.05 96.13 95.31 95.49 93.75
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service 92.24 94.87 93.75 97.50 94.27 95.83 98.75 100.0 95.30 96.07 93.75 95.26 90.69
Your Master Score 93.39 93.53 93.73 97.08 94.39 94.30 97.65 96.47 95.18 93.97 95.43 94.55 91.64
Your Total Responses 52 45 5 64 65 29 49 10 48 105 17 66 22
Monthly Breakdown
Below are the monthly responses that have been received for your service. It details the individual score for
each question as well as the overall company score for that month.
Page 12 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Monthly tracking of Overall Survey Score
Page 13 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Greatest Increase and Decrease in Scores by Question
Increases
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.26 4.18 88.8690.44
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 87.33 2.80 88.6390.13
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 94.64 1.79 93.4996.43
Skill of the medics 96.10 1.58 94.0697.68
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 95.23 1.13 91.6996.36
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 93.76 0.88 92.3094.64
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.07 0.63 93.2495.70
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.43 0.48 94.0196.91
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your
treatment
94.46 0.10 92.4194.57
Decreases
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 88.36 -3.29 87.5385.07
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions
(if applicable)
93.86 -2.17 92.2291.69
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 96.09 -1.91 92.8294.18
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 96.70 -1.90 93.7394.80
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance
arrived
93.27 -1.70 90.6191.57
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.00 -1.24 93.1393.76
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 92.50 -1.02 90.4591.48
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical
Transportation service
96.18 -1.02 93.2095.16
Medics' concern for your privacy 94.18 -1.00 93.2393.18
Comfort of the ride 93.75 -0.89 87.2192.86
Page 14 of 30
Greatest Increase and Decrease in Scores by Question
Page 15 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Greatest Scores Above Benchmarks by Question
Highest Above Benchmark
This
Period Variance
Total DB
Score
Skill of the medics 94.063.6297.68
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 94.012.996.91
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 93.492.9496.43
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 91.694.6796.36
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 94.012.1696.17
How well did our staff work together to care for you 93.242.4695.7
Cleanliness of the ambulance 94.141.2795.41
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 93.21.9695.16
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.140.894.95
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 93.731.0894.8
Page 16 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Highest and Lowest Scores
Highest Scores
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Skill of the medics 97.6896.10 1.58 94.06
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.9196.43 0.48 94.01
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 96.4394.64 1.79 93.49
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.3695.23 1.13 91.69
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 96.1796.62 -0.45 94.01
Lowest Scores
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 85.0788.36 -3.29 87.53
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 90.1387.33 2.80 88.63
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 90.4486.26 4.18 88.86
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.4892.50 -1.02 90.45
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance
arrived
91.5793.27 -1.70 90.61
Page 17 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Key Drivers — This section shows the relative importance of each question to the respondents' overall
satisfaction. The greater the coefficient number, the more important the issue is to your patients' overall
satisfaction. The questions are arranged based on their weighted
Question Your
Correlation
Coeffecient
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person .85046707994.95
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility .83033624294.78
Medics' concern for your privacy .79545287393.18
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment .7535244394.57
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment .74013451193.76
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable).73433229391.69
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office .73341754690.13
How well did our staff work together to care for you .73032990295.70
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort .72757416591.48
Skill of the medics .72106261997.68
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service .71780680893.84
Skill of the person driving the ambulance .71573406396.43
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance .71272688396.91
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service .70750479594.64
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously .70705246596.17
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family .69102892494.80
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs .68318331590.44
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged .67950337585.07
Comfort of the ride .65830109192.86
Cleanliness of the ambulance .62961248395.41
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived .60434425391.57
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner .59532923796.36
Page 18 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Company Comparisons — The following chart gives a comparison of the mean score for each question as scored
by comparable companies. Your company is highlighted. There is also a green-shaded highlight of the highest
score for each question. This will show how you compare
Your
Company
A B C D E F
Comparison Companies
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance 93.02 90.23 94.93 90.43 87.8293.5793.84
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance 92.73 89.74 94.48 92.03 87.8892.9094.64
Extent to which you were told what to do until the 87.34 86.30 91.53 91.21 85.4991.9491.57
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely 91.93 92.94 95.32 90.62 85.9292.4896.36
Cleanliness of the ambulance 93.06 94.51 96.71 94.04 89.1794.1395.41
Comfort of the ride 86.97 80.54 92.79 88.42 80.4388.3392.86
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 90.29 91.49 96.40 92.20 89.0693.8196.43
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the 90.62 95.13 97.40 93.80 90.9594.2096.91
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 89.72 94.22 97.02 93.63 90.4294.5096.17
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your 89.32 94.75 96.65 93.58 89.7393.8694.80
Skill of the medics 89.59 93.00 97.19 93.44 91.1195.0097.68
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about 89.11 92.96 95.91 92.28 88.5893.5794.57
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment 90.23 94.40 95.83 92.83 88.4792.3391.69
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or 87.85 92.33 94.41 93.43 86.4191.4191.48
Medics' concern for your privacy 90.54 94.38 96.98 92.53 89.7093.5193.18
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 90.11 95.43 96.86 94.48 91.3995.5294.95
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service 87.80 86.49 94.51 88.54 81.6588.2990.13
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address 88.09 85.14 94.38 88.86 82.0788.1690.44
How well did our staff work together to care for you 90.08 93.92 96.55 92.32 89.1292.9395.70
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the 89.96 93.60 96.57 93.24 89.3393.5994.78
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation 90.29 93.19 95.84 92.41 87.9394.4493.76
Extent to which the services received were worth the 81.33 88.69 93.60 88.02 77.7887.7685.07
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency 89.70 91.80 96.10 90.86 87.9593.5295.16
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to 87.70 92.13 96.54 89.90 85.0590.2594.18
Overall score 94.15 92.62 89.60 91.89 95.74 91.99 87.49
National Rank 20 44 84 58 9 57 88
Comparable Size (Medium) Company Rank 4 26 28
Page 19 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Yo
u
r
Co
m
p
a
n
y
91.37Total Score
Benchmark Comparison
94.15
To
t
a
l
D
B
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
z
e
d
92.37 91.65
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance 92.8493.84 92.47 91.94
Concern shown by the person you called for 93.1594.64 92.30 91.72
Extent to which you were told what to do until the 91.6291.57 90.61 89.99
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely 93.3496.36 91.69 91.00
Cleanliness of the ambulance 94.9695.41 94.14 93.35
Comfort of the ride 87.5292.86 87.21 87.02
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 93.2496.43 93.49 92.98
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the 93.2396.91 94.01 93.65
Degree to which the medics took your problem 93.0096.17 94.01 93.62
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or 92.3194.80 93.73 93.21
Skill of the medics 94.1797.68 94.06 93.72
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about 91.3294.57 92.41 92.09
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment 90.1991.69 92.22 91.73
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or 89.7791.48 90.45 90.07
Medics' concern for your privacy 92.1593.18 93.23 93.08
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 92.6494.95 94.14 93.82
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service 85.6690.13 88.63 88.09
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address 85.8690.44 88.86 88.18
How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.4395.70 93.24 92.97
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the 92.4594.78 93.43 92.90
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation 92.2693.76 93.13 92.94
Extent to which the services received were worth the 84.7285.07 87.53 86.45
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency 92.2095.16 93.20 92.92
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service 91.8394.18 92.82 92.10
Number of Surveys for the period 105
Page 20 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Benchmark Trending Graphic - Below are the monthly scores for your service. It details the overall score for each month as well as your
subscribed benchmarks for that month.
Page 21 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Cumulative
This section lists a synopsis of the information about your individual questions and overall scores over the entire
lifetime of the dataset. The first column shows the company score and the second column details the total
database score.
Your Total DB
91.7094.55Overall Facility Rating
Dispatch 94.2 91.49
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance 92.2495.14
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance 91.9694.64
Extent to which you were told what to do until the 90.2692.82
Ambulance 95.24 91.28
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 91.6195.68
Cleanliness of the ambulance 93.7996.43
Comfort of the ride 87.0492.83
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 92.7096.03
Medic 95.64 92.71
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the 93.7297.02
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 93.6396.75
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your 93.3796.34
Skill of the medics 93.7996.77
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 91.8495.07
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment 91.6493.81
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or 90.2093.67
Medics' concern for your privacy 92.6194.84
Page 22 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Cumulative (Continued)
Your Total DB
91.7094.55Overall Facility Rating
Medic 95.64 92.71
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 93.5796.49
Billing Staff Assessment 88.73 88.11
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service 88.0988.78
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address 88.1388.68
Overall Assessment 94.56 91.77
How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.7996.07
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the 92.9896.00
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation 92.7395.66
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees 86.6787.63
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency 92.9096.31
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to 92.5495.69
Page 23 of 30
The Top Box Analysis displays the number of responses for the entire survey by question and rating. The Top Box itself
shows the percentage of "Very Good" responses, the highest rating, for each question. Next to the company rating is the
entire EMS DB rating for those same questions.
Top Box Comparisons
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
EMS DB %
Very Good
Company
% Very
Good
Very
GoodGoodFairPoor
Very
Poor
Overall Company Rating 9 3 45 351 75.38%80.34%1667
Dispatch 2 0 4 48 73.93%77.78%189
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance
service 1 0 1 15 68 80.00%75.71%
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance
service 0 0 1 16 67 79.76%74.94%
Extent to which you were told what to do until the
ambulance arrived 1 0 2 17 54 72.97%71.16%
Ambulance 0 0 6 63 73.67%82.62%328
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely
manner 0 0 1 13 89 86.41%73.98%
Cleanliness of the ambulance 0 0 1 16 81 82.65%79.02%
Comfort of the ride 0 0 4 20 74 75.51%63.75%
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 0 0 0 14 84 85.71%77.92%
Medic 4 0 17 123 78.66%82.48%678
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the
ambulance 0 0 1 10 86 88.66%80.88%
Degree to which the medics took your problem
seriously 0 0 2 11 85 86.73%81.65%
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or
your family 1 0 0 16 79 82.29%80.60%
Skill of the medics 0 0 0 9 88 90.72%80.67%
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about
your treatment 0 0 2 16 74 80.43%76.47%
Page 24 of 30
Top Box Comparisons
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
(Continued)
EMS DB %
Very Good
Company
% Very
Good
Very
GoodGoodFairPoor
Very
Poor
Overall Company Rating 9 3 45 351 75.38%80.34%1667
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment
decisions (if applicable)2 0 3 12 61 78.21%76.20%
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or
discomfort 1 0 5 14 62 75.61%72.19%
Medics' concern for your privacy 0 0 3 18 67 76.14%77.59%
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 0 0 1 17 76 80.85%81.72%
Billing Staff Assessment 0 0 1 26 63.41%62.50%45
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service
billing office 0 0 0 15 23 60.53%62.86%
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address
your needs 0 0 1 11 22 64.71%63.95%
Overall Assessment 3 3 17 91 76.33%78.93%427
How well did our staff work together to care for you 0 0 1 14 78 83.87%77.98%
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the
medical facility 0 0 2 15 74 81.32%78.35%
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation
treatment 1 0 3 13 75 81.52%77.79%
Extent to which the services received were worth the
fees charged 1 3 8 20 50 60.98%66.55%
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency
Medical Transportation service 0 0 1 16 76 81.72%78.59%
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to
others 1 0 2 13 74 82.22%78.70%
Page 25 of 30
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Standard Deviation by Question
SD
Variance
Database
Standard
Company
StandardTotal
DBYour Score
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 93.84 92.47 14.731 15.596 0.87
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.64 92.30 10.959 15.423 4.46
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance
arrived
91.57 90.61 16.507 17.469 0.96
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.36 91.69 9.482 16.384 6.90
Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.41 94.14 10.318 12.456 2.14
Comfort of the ride 92.86 87.21 13.363 20.341 6.98
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 96.43 93.49 8.748 13.927 5.18
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.91 94.01 8.98 14.457 5.48
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 96.17 94.01 10.321 14.908 4.59
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 94.80 93.73 13.388 15.061 1.67
Skill of the medics 97.68 94.06 7.253 13.994 6.74
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your
treatment
94.57 92.41 11.555 16.054 4.50
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if
applicable)
91.69 92.22 19.355 16.469 -2.89
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.48 90.45 17.493 18.452 0.96
Medics' concern for your privacy 93.18 93.23 12.907 14.525 1.62
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.95 94.14 10.681 14.626 3.94
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 90.13 88.63 12.22 17.328 5.11
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 90.44 88.86 13.578 17.45 3.87
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.70 93.24 10.123 14.748 4.63
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.78 93.43 11.433 14.371 2.94
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 93.76 93.13 15.409 15.017 -0.39
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 85.07 87.53 22.335 21.222 -1.11
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical
Transportation service
95.16 93.20 10.535 15.361 4.83
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 94.18 92.82 14.861 16.696 1.84
Page 26 of 30
Overall Survey Rating 94.15 92.38 12.77 15.93 3.16
Page 27 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Responses vs Score Histogram — This graph shows the number of responses on the Y
axis vs the average score on the X axis.
Page 28 of 30
Facilities in Database
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Adair null Adair EMS Kirksville, MO
Air San Juan Island Friday Harbor, WA Alliance Health null
Alliance Mobile Health Troy, MI AMT Peoria, IL
Ava Springfield, MO Bay State Springfield, MA
Bay Village Bay Village, OH Bay Village Employee null
Beaumont Troy, MI Beaumont Medical Troy, MI
Birmingham Fire Birmingham, MI Bloomfield Township Bloomfield Hills, MI
Burnsville Fire Burnsville, MN Carilion Clinic Roanoke, VA
Cetronia Allentown, PA Christian County Springfield, MO
City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA Columbus Connection Cols, OH
Community Macon, GA Community Care EMS Ashtabula, OH
Community Care EMS null Community EMS MI Southfield, MI
Community EMS OH Columbus, OH CoxHealth EMS Springfield, MO
Cumberland Carlisle, PA Cy-Fair Houston, TX
Cypress Creek Spring, TX Dade County Springfield, MO
DMC Care Detroit, MI Edward Naperville, IL
Emergent Health Ann Arbor, MI Emergent Health null
Employee Survey null Employee Survey null
Employee Survey MMR null Employee Survey Tri-null
Emp.Survey Medstar null EMSA Oklahoma City, OK
EMS Float Springfield, MO Escalon Ambulance Escalon, CA
Ferndale Fire and Ferndale, MI F-M Ambulance Fargo, ND
Genesis Community Zanesville, OH Gold Cross Menasha, WI
Greene County Springfield, MO Guilford EMS Greensboro, NC
Harris County Houston, TX Health East St. Paul, MN
Health Link Taylor, MI HEMSI Hunsville, AL
Hennepin County EMS Minneapolis, MN Hillsboro Fargo, ND
Hot Springs Hot Springs, AR Hot Springs Village Hot Springs, AR
Howard County Nashville, AR Humboldt Winnemucca, NV
HVA null Iosco County EMS East Tawas, MI
Lassen County Susanville, CA LifeCare Ambulance Battle Creek, MI
LifeCare Medical EMS Sterling, CO Life EMS Ambulance Grand Rapids, MI
LifeNet EMS Texarkana, TX Loyola Medicine Melrose Park, IL
Madison Heights Fire Madison Heights, MI Malvern Malvern, AR
MCHD Conroe, TX McKinney Fire McKinney, TX
Medcare Ambulance Columbus, OH Medic 1 Ambulance Canton, MI
Medic Ambulance Vallejo, CA Medic Ambulance Vallejo, CA
Medic EMS Davenport, IA Medstar Clinton Twp., MI
Medstar Mobile Fort Worth, TX Medstar Mobile null
Mercy Flights Medford, OR Mercy Ohio Cincinnati, OH
Metro West Hillsboro, OR Mobile Life Support New Windsor, NY
Mobile Life Support New Windsor, NY Mobile Medical Saginaw, MI
MONOC Neptune, NJ Nature Coast Lecanto, FL
North Memorial Robbinsdale, MN Northwell Health Syosset, NY
Page 29 of 30
Oceana Hart, MI Patterson District Patterson, CA
Pearland EMS Pearland, TX Portage County Stevens Point, WI
Pro EMS Cambridge, MA ProMed Muskegon, MI
Prompt Ambulance Highland, IN PTS Loveland, OH
Puckett Austell, GA Regional EMS Flint, MI
REMSA Reno, NV REMSA Air Transport Reno, NV
Ridgefield Fire Ridgefield, CT Riggs Ambulance Merced, CA
Royal Oak Fire Royal Oak, MI San Juan Island Friday Harbor, WA
San Marcos Hays San Marcos, TX Scott & White Temple, TX
Senior Care Bronx, NY Sioux Land Sioux City, IA
SkyHeath Syossett, NY SMCAS Niles, MI
Snohomish County Snohomish, WA Southfield Soutthfield, MI
St. Charles St. Peters, MO Stillwater Stillwater, OK
Stone County Springfield, MO Suburban Palmer, PA
Survey Employee-null Swartz Flint, MI
Taney County Branson, MO Texarkana Texarkana, TX
Thief River Falls Fargo, ND Tri-Hospital Port Huron, MI
Umpqua Health null University Medical Lubbock, TX
Van Buren EMS Paw Paw, MI Waterford Regional Waterford, MI
Webster County Spriingfield, MO West Bloomfield Fire West Bloomfield, MI
WestSide Community Newman, CA York Regional EMS Yoe, PA
Page 30 of 30